Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!homxa!gritz From: gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Radar Surveillance Message-ID: <1090@homxa.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 15:58:47 EDT Article-I.D.: homxa.1090 Posted: Wed Aug 7 15:58:47 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 04:33:46 EDT References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP>, <269@ihlpl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 24 Xref: linus net.auto:6538 net.legal:1645 As the original poster someone asked me to clarify my position in my posting on radar surveillance. My point is not that police should not apprehend speeders, I am all for safe highways. My point is that the use of radar guns to catch speeders is basically unwarrented search, from which we have constitutional protection. The police are "searching" every car, sometimes even before they can see the car, to determine its speed. They have no "probable cause" in most cases, certainly in the cases where they cannot see the car (or clearly determine which car in a pack produced the reading) and yet they are still searching. It is very easy to overlook this infringement of our rights because radar is so unobtrusive; but so are wiretaps! The police would probably aprehend many dangerous criminals if they used equipment to eves-drop on conversations in Times Square, but you can bet they need a warrant or at least "probable cause" to do that. How hard would it be to get a warrent to eves-drop on every conversation in Times Square? It is bad enough to let the govt. get away with this, but now NJ wants to outlaw our only defense against this! That's like the govt. outlawing devices that detect wire taps. Does that sound constitutional?!? Russ Sharples homxa!gritz