>
>Ian wrote:
>
>
> > [Nathan, Justin, John, comments?]
> >
> > > >
> > High Court Backs Agent Who Stopped Motorist
> > Ruling: In case of drug smuggling, justices say police need only a
>reasonable suspicion, not
> > evidence of a crime, to pull over a vehicle. [etc]
>
>
>
>Hi Ian, here's a comment on the latest from the Supremes shredding what
>little is left of any application of the Fourth Amendment to vehicles.
>From a strictly legal point of view, this decision is disappointiung but not
surprising. There was little expectation of privacy in a car to start with,
that goes back a while, as John suggests. The implications of the decision
ought not be overstated. The cops still need probable cause, whatever that
means in a car, or consent to _search_ the car they've stopped on reasonable
suspicion.
I've argued (and won) before a panel he was on
>(Gregorian v Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493
>US 891),
Izvestia, as in the then Soviet newspaper? I'll look it up.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx