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