Supreme Court rejects challenge to roadblocks to find unlicensed drivers

AP | 10-15-01 | Anne Gearan

[Garrisson Lee]

Let's save time and go right to methodical house to house searches. If you're not doing anything wrong, you won't mind the police looking in your closets and under your beds.

right?

[joeyman]

I'd like to see the statistics that show this program has increased safety since its inception.

[freeeee]

Ohio drivers lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday that asked whether police roadblocks to check for unlicensed drivers violated the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches or stops.

As usual, SCOTUS shows it is illiterate. If it could read plain English, it would see that not only must a search not be unreasonable, but it must have probable cause that provides justification for a warrant.

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In both instances the court found that benefits to public safety and order outweighed the inconvenience and loss of privacy suffered by motorists.

The balance between public safely and liberty was settled the moment the 4th Amendment was ratified. It is not SCOTUS job, not do they have authority to rewrite amendments to their own liking. Their only legitimate authority is to strike down laws that violate them. In rewriting amendments to its own liking, SCOTUS is acting like a second legislature, uninhibited by constitutional restraints, rather than a constitutional filer.

What we are seeing in this decision, and nearly all others, is a destruction of the separation of powers that define the Constitution.

[Liberal Classic]

Why not? Why not have house to house searches? If we are going that far, why have trials? The police see you doing something wrong, they should take you straight to jail. Right?

[lavaroise]

In both instances the court found that benefits to public safety and order outweighed the inconvenience and loss of privacy suffered by motorists.

The court is not an agency to find out about probabilities or amounts of privacy sufferance. That is a job for the law makers. The court needs to learn that liberty is to be protected with life.

[lavaroise]

In both instances the court found that benefits to public safety and order outweighed the inconvenience and loss of privacy suffered by motorists.

Just theory, no proof, a bunch of worthless theory.

[Lazamataz]

As usual, SCOTUS shows it is illiterate. If it could read plain English, it would see that not only must a search not be unreasonable, but it must have probable cause that provides justification for a warrant.

America has not respected the Consitution since the 1930's.

[Garrisson Lee]

Wait a minute. Why don't we just put everyone in the camps to start with, and every once in a while, let someone out as an inspiration to the others to be good little sheep.

[dieBartdie]

Let's save time and go right to methodical house to house searches. If you're not doing anything wrong, you won't mind the police looking in your closets and under your beds.

As long as they only did it say every 6 months why not? What are you hiding a PCP lab or something? I can always spot you drug addled libertarians. Remember: Dayton city prosecutor Deirdre Logan says, "These types of checkpoints don't violate the Constitution." She's in the government so she should know - I think they take a class or something. We're only protected from unreasonable searchs and those will always be exactly what the guys with guns courts say they are.

[NMC EXP]

May the searchers, and their supporters in the "High Court" go to hell for their perversion of the Constitution. May God Damn all who ignore their oath to "Uphold and Protect the Constitution"

I hope my opinion is clear on this matter.

You take care, and best regards.

J.R.

[freedomcrusader]

Well, after briefly putting the 4th Amendment back on life support (with the case where they said detecting lamps used to grow pot was an illegal search), the Supreme Court pulls the plug on the respirator. Disgusting.

Does anyone have a breakdown on what the vote was? I'd like to know who the traitors are, and I have a feeling that I'll be disappointed with some 'conservative' justices.

[Garrisson Lee]

His Flatulence, Mike Dukakis, former Dictator of the People's Republic of Massachussetts, tried to create a task force to inspect people's kitchens, for fear they might have both ammonia and bleach.I guess they would have dragged them into the street and executed them. Hey, it was for the children.

[freedomcrusader]

Hey, it was for the children.

LOL! Yeah, and we all know that the state is a better 'parent' anyway, so it's not like they'd be worse off without their parents. It takes a village, you know! (/sarcasm)

[Wolfie]

I'd have to disagree with your points. The Constitution means what 9 political appointees say it means, nothing more, nothing less. And that's the way it was set up from the start. In short, we be suckers.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Supreme Court is wrong, and that's the bottom line.

[freeeee]

The Constitution means what 9 political appointees say it means, nothing more, nothing less.

Why not just have 9 Kings? It would be less misleading.

[asneditor]

Welcome to the new Police State

[Wolfie]

Being less misleading would have been counter to the objective.

Hologram of Liberty