re Police authority...who are the slaves and who are the masters?
Interesting items the Supreme Court is working with: why are these horrible ideas even issues? Because the govt wants to do them, that's why!
Should police have the power to handcuff
and jail people who don't wear seatbelts?
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear five cases
this session that involve the power of police to stop, search, and arrest
you
for drug and seatbelt violations -- proving that such "victimless crimes"
are
now the driving force behind the assault on our Constitutionally protected
liberties, the Libertarian Party said today.
"If police win the right to haul you off in handcuffs for not
wearing
a seatbelt, scan your house at whim with a thermal imaging gun, and set up
random roadblocks so dogs can sniff your car for drugs then victimless
crimes
will be to blame," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"These are the issues the Supreme Court will decide this term -- and
every one of these frightening expansions of police power is being justified
by so-called crimes that have no victims. The War on Victimless Crimes has
turned into an all-out War on the Bill of Rights."
Starting this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear five major
cases
to determine whether law enforcement has the right to stop, search, test,
restrain, and arrest people to enforce drug and seatbelt laws. The cases
include:
* Indianapolis vs. Edmond, which will decide whether police can set
up
random roadblocks on public streets to question motorists and use
drug-sniffing dogs to inspect their vehicles.
* Ferguson vs. Charleston, which will decide whether hospitals can
secretly test pregnant women for cocaine, and turn the results over to
police.
* Illinois vs. McArthur, which will decide whether police can
restrain
people from entering their homes while police are seeking a warrant to
search
the premises for drugs.
* Atwater vs. Lago Vista, which will decide whether people can be
handcuffed and hauled off to jail for not wearing a seatbelt.
* Kyllo vs. United States, which will determine whether police can
scan homes with a thermal imaging gun, searching for heat patterns that may
indicate a marijuana-growing operation.
What do all these cases have in common? They all seek a dramatic
expansion of police power and they all involves "crimes" where there is no
victim, noted Dasbach.
"The criminal justice debate is no longer about what is permissible
when catching violent criminals like murderers, rapists, and robbers -- it's
now about how far law enforcement can go in violating the Fourth Amendment
to
catch people who harm no one but themselves," he said.
The cases being heard by the Supreme Court are not an unexpected
side-effect of victimless crime laws, but a natural consequence, said
Dasbach.
"There's a reason why police aren't setting up random roadblocks to
find people who have been the victims of robbery or a violent crime," he
said.
"In those kinds of cases, people go to the police to seek justice. But with
drug and seatbelt laws, there is no victim to complain -- just people
engaging
in consensual behavior that harms no one but themselves.
"As a result, law enforcement must engage in police-state behavior
to
catch the so-called criminals. To combat victimless crimes, police use sting
operations, paid informers, anonymous tips, no-knock raids, warrantless
searches, and high-tech surveillance. Their impulse is to always push the
boundaries of the Fourth Amendment -- until they begin to routinely violate
everyone's privacy and rights."
It's that last aspect that should be most troubling to Americans,
said
Dasbach, even to people who don't use drugs or violate seatbelt laws.
"When police set up a random roadblock, a hundred innocent people
are
inconvenienced and threatened for every one person who is arrested," he
said.
"Your Constitutional rights are violated, your freedom is limited, and your
safety is diminished -- just so police can catch a few individuals who
engage
in peaceful behavior the government has criminalized."
These five cases give the Supreme Court an opportunity to draw a
"line
in the sand" about how far law enforcement can go to fight victimless
crimes,
said Dasbach.
"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide what kind of country
we will live in," he said. "Will it be an America where any violation of the
Bill of Rights is justified in the name of a War on Victimless Crimes? Or
will
it be an America where ordinary people can live in freedom, privacy, and
safety, and where the Bill of Rights is respected? That's the real issue on
this year's Supreme Court docket."
# # # |
