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

["Casey R. Green" <caseyr@uidaho.edu>]

Jeff Griffin wrote:

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

Mr. Griffin,
    having unpopular beliefs is my right under the first amendment.  If people want to draw a conclusion that kumquats are the #1 danger to society, that is their right too.  You have misunderstood my statement about public safety.  Public safety should know no boundaries based upon probable cause.  Have you ever looked at the process a police agency has to go through in order to legally search someone's private residence?  There are checks and balances and multiple reviews.  It is not arbitrary kicking in doors and rousting small children from their sleep.  It is not an easy process and does get turned down if it is not considered to be founded.
    I'm not out to win a popularity contest, but I do care about my personal freedoms as outlined in our constitution. and yes they are freedoms.  We have created laws that do restrict things that we can or cannot do.  for the most part, these laws are an excellent way to maintain public safety.  Our own government forms these laws based upon the majority rule.  This majority will exclude people, and these people will be extremely upset because they will feel oppressed.  But the unique part about our society is this minority of people are free to express their discontent.  This is not a third world country where you are in fear for your life because you disagree with your government.  Just because an opinion is unpopular does not make it unsafe.

Casey R. Green