Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: DWI RoadblocksII Message-ID: <638@terak.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 13:53:57 EDT Article-I.D.: terak.638 Posted: Mon Jul 8 13:53:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 08:55:42 EDT References: <988@homxa.UUCP> Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 21 Xref: watmath net.auto:7310 net.legal:1824 > The most interesting concept that has come up in this discussion is > the idea that you give up your right to privacy and your constitutional > GUARANTEE of unwarranted search and seizure when you drive a motor vehicle on > public highways. > ... > NO ABUSES of constitutional rights should be allowed in this country. The laws > that permit them should be contested and struck down in the judicial branch of > the government. While I agree that this is an undesirable state of affairs, the fact is that 1) there is no such thing as a "constitutional right to privacy"; and 2) the Supreme Court is the final arbitor of how the Constitution is to be applied, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that even a house trailer ("mobile home") located on private property is *not* protected against unwarranted search unless it is sufficiently immobile that the police can be sure that it can't be moved during the time it takes to obtain a warrant. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp