4 ms·
This seems to relate to using devices to detect things inside your car (dogs) or devices to detect growing lamps in your house (unconstitutional search). It lo
by darkarmani 14y ago
This seems to relate to using devices to detect things inside your car (dogs) or devices to detect growing lamps in your house (unconstitutional search).
It looks like they are working to erode searches again, using dogs to detect drugs inside a home. http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/argument-preview-drug-sniffing-dogs-and-privacy/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/argument-preview-drug-snif...
Everything I learned in high school civics class seems to be obsolete when it comes to our Constitutional rights: "bong hits for jesus", "administrative" searches (body scanners), and now street searches.
Why is it the argument from ignorance/lack of imagination via fear is so compelling? "We need to do X to stop Y." Where Y is something very remote but really scary.
- Zimahl 14y agoUgh, "Bong Hits for Jesus". That SCOTUS decision sincerely and utterly gnaws at my core. One of the worst decisions in the last 30 years.
- Wingman4l7 14y agoFor those who are curious and ignorant of this SCOTUS decison (as I was): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
- bluedanieru 14y ago>Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but later increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson. What an asshole.
- stevvooe 14y agoWhat doesn't make sense about this decision is its clear lack of constitutional basis. How does an opinion (via statute) on illegal drug use conflict with a constitutional amendment?
- chris_wot 14y agoI'm trying to work out how the First Amendment was trumped for students based on historical opinion! Can someone clarify?
- stevvooe 14y agoI have always been confused by this, as well. IANAL, but the reasoning seems to be based in the need of educators to reduce disruption and offensiveness, at the cost of protected speech. This wikipedia article [1] does a good job laying out the history of opinions on the subject. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)