Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> The Oratorical Snob
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Law Students
: The Oratorical SnobIt's Not a "Technicality"
ADVERTISEMENTS
A couple weeks ago I wrote a post concerning the Indiana seat belt laws, and why I disagreed with them. The discussion in the comments was insightful, and I appreciated the feedback.One of my arguments against such seat belt laws was that they often give police a way of stopping a car that they would like to search, possibly on stereotypical reasons, such as a black driver in a white town. Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down a judgement to that fact. A man was pulled over for a seat belt violation, and in the course of the traffic stop, the officer told the man to get out of the car and be subjected to a pat-down. The man was carrying marijuana on his person, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was promptly arrested.
The Court of Appeals was kind enough to say that such a search and seizure is unconstitutional, and that the evidence could not be admitted. They also have a very nice summary of other traffic incidents in the decision.
While reading about the story in the Indianapolis Star, I decided to read the comments left by other readers. I'm sad to say that far too many were upset with the Court's ruling. My favorite comment, summarizing the views of the opposing (and very wrong) side was this:
"What a sad civilization we live in. Blatant criminal activity goes unpunished and we avoid helping this person recover from drug addiction. This is all simply because of a technicality. Wow America, way to help better our youth and clean up or country. Our legal system is severely screwed up."
My jaw just about fell off. The Fourth Amendment is not a "technicality". It's not a sign of a "screwed up" legal system. It's what keeps the government in check from becoming King George III, the Schutzstaffel, or Big Brother.
It's sad that so many people don't have an understanding of the basic purposes of the Constitution.
Full post as published by The Oratorical Snob on August 01, 2007 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

CA1: The formalities of putting someone in jail based on prior convictions and drug quantity
Alabama: GOP claims not filing to run is just a "technicality"
A (silly) Kennedy technicality: can prosecutors still pursue capital child rape charges
Procedural Necessity or Mere Technicality: Documentary Evidence Standards in R. v. McIvor
Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction & Martha Stewart
Successful Technicality And Billy Zane








