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