seamusTX wrote:Is it clear, in the 18th century the concept of police had not been invented? They had sheriffs and constables who mainly investigated crimes after the fact.
Actually, the concept of a police force dates back to the Roman Praetorian Guard. They were on patrol to prevent crime in Rome and the surrounding area. And the Emperor was so afraid of them as a power, that he would only allow one-third in Rome and one-third on duty anywhere at a time. History does show that the Emperors were right to be afraid of the power because it helped lead to the downfall of the empire as the Guard became politically active.
After the fall of Rome, the concept kind of disappeared until Robert Peel in the mid 1800's. That is generally regarded as the birth of modern policing.
We should learn from history. The lessons are plain. Look at how political the chiefs have become. Maybe the founding fathers were aware of some of these dangers when they put the police power at the state level instead of the federal?
The notion of police officers driving around in cars to stop other citizens driving around in cars started in the Prohibition era. They wanted to catch bootleggers. At the same time we were graced with a series of Supreme Court decisions that made warrantless searches of vehicles legal.
Police were on patrol in cars before prohibition. The concept of enforcing laws with stops for searches became popular during prohibition though. If you consider prohibition part of the war on some drugs, it just shows how it has always cost us some of our freedoms and rights. I understand the problem the SCOTUS was faced with though. If I make you get a warrant for every search, the very mobility of an automobile makes it almost impossible to catch the criminal in the act of transporting the illegal goods. But, there is nothing in the Fourth Amendment about exigent circumstances either. I think you and I agree that this is a case where the chosen solution (warrantless search) is worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.
Since then we have gotten the Terry decision that makes warrantless searches legal on suspicion (rather than probable cause). Of course these searches, supposedly for weapons, often reveal a gram of crack or whatever.
My personal opinion was that Terry was one of the worst decisions of all time by SCOTUS. Even if you accept the concept of exigent circumstances as justification for a warrantless search, there is no way I can justify the lowering of the standard from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. Terry was actually pretty restrictive in its decision, requiring the officer to be able to articulate why the pat down was justified int hat case. Its application has been pretty bad though, and there was a further case based on it that was really bad. Int he later case, the SCOTUS ruled on plain feel as legal. Based on Terry, if you feel a gun and can identify it as a gun, you now have probable cause. This case said if you feel a crack rock and can immediately identify it as a crack rock, it is the same thing. But there are so many possible things that feel like rocks while only guns or gun replicas feel like guns.
In both Terry and Dickerson (just looked it up), the rulings are an attempt to allow police to do their jobs. In Terry, the cop turned out to be right, which was a strong argument for the court to allow it. What the court was trying to do was let cops rely on their training and experience to prevent crime. As always, it was a slippery slope and was abused in Dickerson. There the decision went against the cops because the one involved testified that he twisted and manipulated the rock to see what it was. But in so doing, SCOTUS almost told police how to write their reports and testify so it would be legal. All he needs to do is say he immediately recognized the rock as crack (or whatever as contraband) and it becomes legal.
The problem with driving is that there are so many laws now that it is almost impossible for anyone to drive 100% legally all of the time. And so many of the laws are nanny type or just for revenue collection that should never be on the books to begin with.
I am pretty sure you and I agree that we are on a slope towards a police state and it is getting steeper and steeper. I am a firm believer that the question is not if we will have a new revolution, but when.