The DUI checkpoint analogy is what will make this Constitutional. You can make random stops as long as they are truly random (ex. - stopping every 21st person or whatever), and the screening is for a "legitimate primary purpose" which requires a specific goal - such as preventing terrorism - and not just a general "looking for whatever" as a goal.
You'll see a real fight about it - not when they find any kind of explosives, but when they find some guy's dope in the bag.
I think the DUI example works with respect to the stop but not the search. Talked thus through with Dawn2, and I think the search will be on consent - if you have drugs in your bag, you can just turn around and take another mode of transportation if they ask to perform a search. I'm not a fan, but I suppose it's not the end of the world.
5 Comments:
Public safety, baby. As long as it is truly random and not subject to discretion . . . it is like DUI checkpoints. Totally OK under the constitution.
Isn't the NY constitution a whole lot stricter on this though? (Or is it the other way around?)
or like the airport screeners...and the cops say you can refuse the search and just not ride -- or go down another subway entrance.
The DUI checkpoint analogy is what will make this Constitutional. You can make random stops as long as they are truly random (ex. - stopping every 21st person or whatever), and the screening is for a "legitimate primary purpose" which requires a specific goal - such as preventing terrorism - and not just a general "looking for whatever" as a goal.
You'll see a real fight about it - not when they find any kind of explosives, but when they find some guy's dope in the bag.
I think the DUI example works with respect to the stop but not the search.
Talked thus through with Dawn2, and I think the search will be on consent - if you have drugs in your bag, you can just turn around and take another mode of transportation if they ask to perform a search. I'm not a fan, but I suppose it's not the end of the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home