Back when I was a kid a friend of mine's house was raided by the cops who were after evidence of a mountain bike theft and chop shop ring that his dad was involved in (this was back when all mountain bikes cost a small fortune). While there they found a small closet with a good chunk of marijuana, a scale, etc (also his dad's). I distinctly remember being surprised that the drugs were merely confiscated and no charges filed because the warrant did not specify any suspicion of drug activity.
Later on in college basic law, I recall being very interested in this point because of my friend's experience and asking lots of questions. This aspect of law is based on the supposition that, "A man's home is his castle," which derives from the American hatred of the English invasion of homes for quartering soldiers, and probably goes back much farther to Magna Carta days (hence the castle reference). I was told the right to one's own private domain is one of the defining backbones of our legal system, like freedom of religion or speech, although not tauted as much outside of law school.
So apparently at some point in the past the cops were finding flimsy reasons to get warrants to search suspect's homes while actually interested in finding evidence of other crimes, and in keeping with the man's castle principle, ruled that warrants had to be specific. Now, at the time, I asked professor Soble if that applied to cars and he replied something like, "The law doesn't consider your car part of your castle."
It sounds to me (and I didn't read the decision) like the court just reversed that idea and has expanded much of the protection of our privacy to our vehicles. Thumbs up from this guy. I certainly consider the police to have too much power, and fear another J.E. Hoover, or worse, an institutionalized version of him.
As far as strip searches in school: wtf? Hell no! Protection of those who have no legal rights is another backbone of the legal system. Kids (and immigrants fyi) fall into that category. There's no way that shit will last.
Um, what else has this thread covered? I've been trying to post in it since the beginning, but was too busy for a while, then FF restarted for an update and lost what I wrote, then business again, then FF crashed and lost what I wrote, then the board flaked out. Oh yeah:
Firearms carrying: I'm torn both ways on this. It's probably best to keep it to conceal and carry permits, without legalized brandishing. I guess there are only a few states that still don't allow it, Illinois being one of them. Personally, I think people have a right to be armed, a right to protect themselves. I wouldn't mind if everyone walked around with a small pop gun or whatever. It'd make everyone be more polite.
On the other hand, it could lead us back to all that honor shit with duels and gunslingers and whatnot, which isn't really a great thing. Anyway, I'm also for very strong gun control laws, and much tighter enforcement. I don't think anyone going through the proper channels are going to contribute to the urban gangsta problem.
