Posted on 01/27/2005 3:40:30 PM PST by Wolfie
Drug War Shrinking Bill of Rights
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment.
On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.
It's a troubling precedent. It's hard to see how any police search would violate any rights under Justice Stevens' ruling, so long as the search turned up something illegal. That sort of undermines what the Fourth Amendment is all about.
That case is just the latest in a number of court rulings and pieces of legislation that have been chipping away at the criminal justice rights of substance-abuse suspects. Ours is quickly becoming a two-tiered criminal justice system, one in which there are one set of criminal protections for drug and alcohol defendants, and a broader set of protections for everyone else.
Last month in Virginia, pain physician Dr. William Hurwitz was convicted on dozens of counts of drug distribution. Prosecutors and the foreman of the jury that convicted him conceded that Hurwitz didn't knowingly participate in a drug trade, but because the pain medication he prescribed made it to the black market, he was nevertheless found guilty. He faces life in prison. Proving intent — as is required to secure a conviction in nearly every other crime — apparently wasn't necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Someone needs to explain to me how come we needed a constitutional amendment to make the sale of alcool a federal crime, but didn't need one to pass our insane and draconian drug laws.
I will never understand why conservatives support federal anti-drug laws.
Sheer sophistry, with straw man component of property rights. Perhaps we should be glad the Court recognizes property rights in SOME context.
So, using the same principle, an otherwise illegal search of a home that finds, say, stolen goods makes the search legal, since there are no property rights in stolen goods either? What a precedent!
Maceman, I have the answer, seriously. It is because "they" are bigger and better armed than "them". "They" being the government and "them" being drug users. The Constitution has nothing to do with it, just as in this stupid ruling. Just who's bigger and better armed.
Maceman, I have the answer, seriously. It is because "they" are bigger and better armed than "them". "They" being the government and "them" being drug users. The Constitution has nothing to do with it, just as in this stupid ruling. Just who's bigger and better armed.
I'm in total agreement. I don't see how a conservative could support action by the government that's so backward and dysfunctional.
Let's call a spade a spade, the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" is nothing more than an assault on the Constitution.
"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights."
"Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment."
I don't see anything about the war on terror that constitutes an assault on the Constitution. That war is for our survival - if we don't fight it we have no rights at all under our enemy's thumb. The WoD on the other hand is just gratuitous violence, hypocrisy, and is the source of the most egregious violations of the Constitution. There's no equivalence.
"Someone needs to explain to me how come we needed a constitutional amendment to make the sale of alcool a federal crime, but didn't need one to pass our insane and draconian drug laws. "
Maybe you should go and talk to the owner of a rental home that just found out from the Local Police, that the jackass who was renting it was busted this morning for operating a Methamphetamine Laboratory in the rental home for the last six months.
The Police have known about it for six months, and it took this long to bust it because they were trying to wade through the paperwork required to bust his tenant. In the meantime, they documented all of the traffic in and out of the house.
Be sure to catch him after he's inspected the house and found out that it has been Officially declared "Unfit for Human Habitation", because of the toxic chemicals that are soaked through the carpet, through the subfloor, all over the foundation beams, and into the subsoil under the house.
Get ahold of him before he finds out what the cost will be to have all of that now toxic bui8lding material removed and disposed of in a special Hazmat Landfill, and all of the contaminated soil hand-dug out of the crawlspace, disposed of, and the hole refilled with clean soil.
And be sure to catch him before he finds out that his Homeowner's Policy doesn't cover a Tenant's illegal activity.
You won't like his answer, but I would love to be around to watch you ask.
The domestic "War on Terror" is assuredly a joke. But hunting and killing terrorists in their holes in Afganistan is what keeps us safe.
The problem is that Hom3Lamerz Security and the War on (some) Drugs makes the idea of risking one's life for this supposed "freedom" a joke, too. What sane person would sent his child to war for the sake of a government that will break down your door on the say-so of a dog?
Yeah, things are getting insane.
IMO, the Seventeenth Amendment is one of the main culprits. One of the most important checks on Federal power was tossed out the window when State legislatures ceased appointing senators.
This has also affected the selection of Federal judges, since the Senate must approve them.
I will never understand why conservatives support federal anti-drug laws.
I'd guess financial self-interest, in many cases.
Try Total Information Awareness and is successors.
A government that keeps the borders leaky and spies on its citizenry isn't worth defending.
Anybody know who dissented?
The cops recently raided a high school in my city. Drug sniffing dogs were brought in to search the school. It should be noted that the school in question has a high percentage of blacks. They did not find a thing. Nothing. And they were not acting on any type of tip. Just wanted to let the kids know they were watching them. As a parent, I find this outrageous. No one wants their children using drugs, but just because they attend a public school should not mean they give up their basic rights. I found it outrageous.
The War on Terror -- or more accurately, the War on Islamixc Jihad -- is legitimate and necessary.
Rhe War on Drugs is a travesty and an outrage and terrible public policy.
TIA never made it past the drawing board. How about something real?
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.