"You were always free to go."
Advocates of liberty and limited government should not concede the concept of “law and order” to those who engage in “excessive use of police powers.” Those who actually believe in law and order would hold police and prosecutors, as well as criminal suspects, to the rule of law; and that seems to be what the Virginia Supreme Court did.I was reminded of this when I came across this video of a law-and-order type encountering Customs and Border Patrol agents as he attempted to drive on State Route 86 in Arizona.
“'Law and Order' -- YouTube Version," by Jim Harper, Cato @ Liberty, September 12, 2008
- "Va. Court Rejects 2 Drug Searches: Justices Conclude Police Acted on Vague Suspicions," by Tom Jackman, The Washington Post, April 19, 2008
- "Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: 'Border Searches' Under the Fourth Amendment," by Yule Kim, CRS Report for Congress RL31826, January 15, 2008 (23-page pdf )
- "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Decisions," by Elizabeth B. Bazan, CRS Report for Congress RL30465, February 15, 2007 (106-page pdf )
- "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Sketch of Selected Issues," by Elizabeth B. Bazan, CRS Report for Congress RL34566, July 7, 2008 (17-page pdf )
- "Intelligence Issues for Congress," by Richard A. Best, Jr., CRS Issue Brief for Congress IB10012, May 26, 2006 (19-page pdf )
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)