Skip to comments.
High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs
Associated Press ^
| 1/24/2005
Posted on 01/24/2005 9:20:02 AM PST by Lazamataz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 901-902 next last
To: Fiddlstix
I think any American over the age of 60 can attest to lost freedom. My heavens, the things we used to do and think nothing of it. Now you need a "license" of some kind for almost everything.Well said.
But of course, we who are in our 40's also have very dramatic observations of freedom lost.
To: Bigs from the North
you need to get a grip, there is no violation of any freedom here. Goodness, the man was checked for carrying ILLEGAL drugs. what part of illegal do you not understand.
The only way the case can reach the Supreme Court is if the defendant did have illegal drugs. How many people have been stopped, detained and searched before illegal drugs were found?
62
posted on
01/24/2005 9:51:38 AM PST
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: contemplator
Thoughts and ideas are not illegal here.Not quite true. Some acts may be crimes depending on what you were thinking at the time.
63
posted on
01/24/2005 9:52:36 AM PST
by
FreePaul
To: Lazamataz
Apparently, all they need to do is add some biological sensing unit and it all becomes okay again. No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.
64
posted on
01/24/2005 9:53:34 AM PST
by
Moonman62
(Republican - The political party for the living.)
To: palmer
It's even worse when it bites. Has that happened to you more than once?
65
posted on
01/24/2005 9:55:04 AM PST
by
Wheee The People
(Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang. Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang!)
Comment #66 Removed by Moderator
To: contemplator
- Not even close. Thoughts and ideas are not illegal here. Try being politically incorrect at work. Call someone a n***er in public. See how fast you will wind up in jail.
67
posted on
01/24/2005 9:55:57 AM PST
by
Centurion2000
(Nations do not survive by setting examples for others. Nations survive by making examples of others)
To: Individual Rights in NJ
I'll join anyone in any sort of appeal. You can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling.
68
posted on
01/24/2005 9:56:13 AM PST
by
palmer
("Oh you heartless gloaters")
To: sam_paine
You miss jumping thru one of those hoops and you'll find out what you have to do.
BigMack
To: ellery
People are not "seized" by a traffic stop. They are seized when they are arrested. This is a horrible ruling. The SC is so out of control and will only continue to get worse. I know they have jobs for life, but maybe it's time to rethink some type of term limits or mandatory retirement age. These justices live in their own little worlds and have no one to answer to.
70
posted on
01/24/2005 9:56:58 AM PST
by
mlc9852
To: Lazamataz
But of course, we who are in our 40's also have very dramatic observations of freedom lost.Yeah, but where were you when the Mustang came out? That was all about freedom...
71
posted on
01/24/2005 9:57:05 AM PST
by
pageonetoo
(I could name them, but you'll spot their posts soon enough.)
To: Moonman62
No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.So is this one of those "you have no rights in an automobile" rulings? I do recall that the Supreme Court has never been friendly to individual rights of anyone in a car.
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, " are they missing? A car is certainly an effect, and is a portable abode (house). It can be thought of as an extension of the person.
To: Lazamataz; E Rocc
I guess we all know which way the court will be deciding when probes and sensors are devised that can peer into your house. Police already patrol self storage places with dogs. The owner of the facility lets them on the property and lets the dogs sniff around the doorways. Although a person has an expectation of privacy for things within the storage room, it has been ruled that any scents (even if it takes a dog to detect them) that emanate from the room are not private.
Ending the war on drugs is really the only way to stop the assault on our liberties.
To: Lazamataz
Sad, isn't it. Maybe judges should have read the BILL OF RIGHTS berfore making that decision.
74
posted on
01/24/2005 9:57:34 AM PST
by
struggle
((The struggle continues))
Comment #75 Removed by Moderator
To: Wheee The People
76
posted on
01/24/2005 9:59:50 AM PST
by
palmer
("Oh you heartless gloaters")
To: Individual Rights in NJ
Unfortunately it's now "precedent" and the Supremes don't like to go against precendent.
77
posted on
01/24/2005 10:01:05 AM PST
by
palmer
("Oh you heartless gloaters")
Comment #78 Removed by Moderator
To: Lazamataz
I've lived in Europe. I've been to East Germany long before the wall came down. What you see depicted by Hollywood isn't far from the truth. Wise up.
79
posted on
01/24/2005 10:01:47 AM PST
by
ampat
To: ampat
Yeah. It was just peachy. We need that here right?
(/heaving stomach sarcasm)
80
posted on
01/24/2005 10:02:42 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 901-902 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson