Btw, the Supremes are now discussing a case where Judge Posner of my old court, the 7th Cir., struck down random roadblocks initiated for supposedly noncriminal investigative reasons--I forget what the rationale was--and then used drug sniffing dogs to bust people. If Posner is reversed, you can see where this leads. Scalia saw there was a problem, which is a good sign.
--jks
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2000 9:25:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
<<
>>> jlbaird3 at yahoo.com 10/03/00 05:31PM >>>
Doesn't it have something to do with the invasiveness of the search, i.e. a pat-down only needs "reasonable suspicion" while going through the pockets requires "probable cause"?
((((((((((((((
CB: I don't think the 4th Amendment differentiates types of searches. It just says searches require a warrant or probable cause.
>>