This question is regarding the current laws of South Carolina, as it stands if stopped for speeding, the officer can search your person and vehicle without a warrant or reason. This came about some time ago when most of the state voted for this to be allowed, but now it seems many have seen what mistake it was to throw away that freedom that they had but some don't mind. Some say "If I got nothing to hide then why not", but it is not about having something to hide but more of knowing you still have personal privacy and laws protecting you is it not?
2007-02-04 02:53:16 · 10 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry but I don't agree. I am a mother and worry about what is going on in our nation today, drugs, guns in criminal's hands, terrorism and so on. I also respect the officers that put themselves in harms way to keep us safe. I don't care if vehicles are checked, many bad things have been discovered by random traffic stops. When it comes to making this a safer place for my kids to live in then they can search cars, tap phones and check out Internet activities all they want. If someone wants to listen to me on the phone, have at it they may be a bit bored. I don't believe in socialism, communism, dictatorship but do believe we need to start waking up to the real freedom being taken from us and let the govt do it's job...keep us safe.
2007-02-04 03:34:46 · answer #1 · answered by Mawm 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You're a little off on the nuances of your facts and that makes a big difference. Warrantless searches are not legal anywhere in the U.S. But, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the police can examine anything "in plain view." That little differance is a big deal. They cannot force you to open your glove box or your trunk. If you say "no", they will threaten to detain you until they get a warrant. "Detain" you does NOT mean arrest you. It means not allowing you to leave until they find a Judge they can convince to sign a search warrant. If you refuse, the cops will often give up especially if it's late at night. Judges aren't happy at being awakened at 2 am. They can't get a Judge to sign a warrant without "probable cause" to believe the search will lead to incriminating evidence. There is no reason to assume the Judge will sign the warrant. If evidence is found and seized illegally, it's thrown out and that happens a lot. I have a hard time believing your state voted on it. Usually this comes about through a ruling of your Supreme Court, which can be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously, I could give a lot more details, but I'll spare you. On your 2nd point, I agree completely. I'm almost 60 years old. I really do have nothing to hide, but I would never let them search my car without a warrant. Why not? Do I really think the cops would "plant evidence?" No, but it's possible. It really is necessary for each of us as individual citizens to stop the slow erosion of our privacy. Our privacy is hard to protect anyway, and I'm not giving up any of it voluntarily. If they want to search me, they can d**n well follow the proper law and procedure.
2007-02-04 03:33:38 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
have you ever no longer examine something in those forums. inspite of if the probability is merely perceived, they were given indignant. As for the spying, have you ever been spied on? Have any of your friends been spied on. Has absolutely everyone you already know been spied on? As for warrantless searches, have not heard about any of those, have you ever. on the question of warrantless digital eavesdropping, with cellular phones you do not favor a warrant. it is an ether transmitted signal (radio).there is no regulation hostile to it. in accordance to the FCC, the business business enterprise that regulates radio and television, there is no expectation of privateness with this manner pf transmission. That does for satellite tv for pc transmissions besides. So what's your element? thanks very a lot, when you're up!!!
2016-11-02 07:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
SImple enough, don't drive. There is nothing requiring you to drive. Since you asked for the privilage you also agreed to abide by the rules. You always have the option of not driving so you do not have to submit to a warrantless search. Why do people always want something then after the fact object to the rules they agreed too for the privilage they asked for?
I will object when it becomes an issue of searching my person just because I am out in public or searching my home. Those are different issues.
2007-02-04 03:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you want privacy don't break the law.
I agree with what your are saying. Get a petition and get the law changed back. Have meetings get elected officials on your side and let them know the people we will need these freedom if a guy like Chavez gets elected and decides to rule by decree.
2007-02-04 03:04:44 · answer #5 · answered by Luchador 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We as Americans should not allow our constitution to be eroded in any way, contact the Civil Liberties Union and ask them to help. It is in the constitution protecting American citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
2007-02-04 03:15:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the US Supreme court has said that it is ok for warrantless searches for highway stops, WITH consent of the owner.
2007-02-04 02:57:46 · answer #7 · answered by timothy c 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Apples and Oranges.
Driving is a priveledge - not a right. You give your consent to search when you get behind the wheel.
2007-02-04 03:01:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Seems like some of our freedoms are being lost due to abuse.
2007-02-04 03:03:14 · answer #9 · answered by KnowSomeStuff 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It leaves too much room for abuse.
It should not be!
2007-02-04 03:01:07 · answer #10 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋