Re: How much is that doggie sniffing my car...

["Jeff Griffin" <jeffg@turbonet.com>]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but ....
 
>     Where do we draw the line?  I believe that the safety of the public should
> include keeping people off the roadways who are under the influence of
> intoxicating substances.  Drugs are treated the same as alcohol in that
> respect.  I am a firm believer in personal freedoms, but these freedoms are
> determined by a majority rule.  Everyone cannot be happy at the same time.  Our
> society is far too diverse to have a common unanimous outcome.  People under
> the influence and behind the wheel pose an imminent threat to me and the safety
> of my family.

Having a funny-smelling trunk is not evidence of the intention to 
operate a motor vehicle while impaired.  

Freedoms are NOT determined by majority rule.  Freedoms exit, 
period.  They are guaranteed by the Constitution; they can only be 
taken away by amendments to that document.  

>     These types of searches listed above are designed to be as unobtrusive as
> possible, but necessary to maintain a certain perception that something is
> being done.  These searches are also productive and have true foundations in
> the law, or else they would not be allowed at all.  There are cases that have
> shown that officers who have a reasonable suspicion that a person poses a
> threat to them or others and that they may be in possession of a weapon, and
> that weapon may be concealed on their person, they can do a cursory search to
> determine if there is a weapon.  It is not a strip search, but a search to
> ensure the safety of the officer.  Look of "Terry v. Ohio" for the case law.
>     Crimes will occur regardless of the severity of law enforcement
> involvement, what does change is public perception of crime.  Groups like the
> aryans love to stir up trouble and spread their messages because it draws
> attention to them.  and the more attention they get, the further their cause
> can reach.  The more hostile, the better.  This increases the public perception
> that something should be done.  The perception for problems outweighs the
> actual probability of problems occurring. Thus, a perception is formed that
> says the aryans will be a problem...
>     Public safety should know no boundaries and based upon probable cause law
> enforcement generally has very few boundaries.  I feel safer knowing that the
> police are looking out for my family's safety to the best of their abilities.
> This feeling is tempered by the realization that if someone truly wanted to
> hurt me or my family, the police would be powerless to stop them unless they
> had probable cause to believe that it will occur.  Nonetheless, I feel safer
> knowing that they are there.
> 
> Casey R. Green

Saying "Public safety should know no boundaries" really is a scary 
thing.  It opens us up to the worst kind of abuses in the name of 
"public safety".  Casey, what if someone decides that you are a 
danger to the public safety because your opinions are "unpopular"? 
 What if someone decides that rap music, or driving a pickup, or 
owning a weapon, or public consumption of kumquats, are a 
danger to public safety?




Jeff Griffin  jeffg@turbonet.com
Affirmative Technologies  http://www.affirmnet.com/ 
Affirmative Technologies:  Positive Solutions