Pubdate: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191 Fax: (619) 293-1440 Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX Author: Jim Cammarano Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1315/a07.html WHO SAYS CHECKPOINTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL? Re: "Are checkpoints illegal searches?" (opinion, Sept. 5): Columnist James J. Kilpatrick opines that checkpoints are legal, and that using a drug-sniffing dog does not constitute a search. The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see any exceptions listed in the amendment, such as "the end justifies the means." Kilpatrick concludes, "Everyone agrees that routine licensing and registration checkpoints are valid." Everyone, that is, except the Founding Fathers. Jim Cammarano, Poway - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D