A few days ago, I went to a dinner being held by someone running for mayor, and a woman asked him if he was going to institute random car searches for guns and drugs. Well, first off, that's not his job, it's a state issue, but it got me thinking, anyway. She said she doesn't feel safe with people being able to transport weapons without anyone stopping them.

The man running for mayor said that that was kind of a big step, but that 'criminals' do need to be taught a lesson. So if someone found a gun in the car, they can confiscate the car. If someone found a gun in the house, they could confiscate the house.

That's great for the crazy, gun-wielding drug-dealer, but what happens to his three kids who are now homeless and being sent to a shitty orphanage where they will most likely spend the rest of their lives as minors?

What do you think? Are car searches too much? Is it an infringement of basic human rights? And exactly how "random" can a Random Car Search be?

The idea that people in power are even considering it scares me.

um . . .

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.


If that was done, people would holler about whichever amendment that gives the right to bear arms.

Also you can't stop them at all. Trying to stop people transporting things will just cause them to get craftier than the police would want them to be. Random car searches is frankly a logistical nightmare, if you want to implement it successfully, and is directly unconstitutional. The only random car search that could be done is an external look through, that is all; anything else and you would need a warrant.

Whatever the hell that lady is talking about is just another way in which we lose our freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin [?]

as a pothead, I am completely against this. Besides, I thought we had protection from search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. I don't really see this getting too far, to be perfectly honest.

edit:

whoa. that sounds like cruel and unusual punishment.

Agreed. Apparently, though, a mayor has the power to do that.

I realllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly doubt it. Maybe this douche bag thinks he does, but I don't think mayors have much power at all.

Yeah. And I'm fairly sure if it was on an interstate, it would be out of his grasp as well. Still, seems way overboard.

Um, there's no way they could evvvver do that. Constitutional law > local law. As is, your car can be searched with "probable cause" which usually ends up being an abusive power. Cops can make up shit.

"Once the level rises to 'probable cause' to believe that there is contraband in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has made some very disturbing decisions allowing the police broad power to search in certain cases, including the power to search closed containers without a warrant. (see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) )"

"In a recent decision (Wyoming v. Houghton, April 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even passengers' belongings, if left in the car, may be searched thoroughly if the driver is suspected of a crime."

So basically, when it comes to car searches, we don't have many rights but the household is an entirely different thing.

Well they already can sieze things that were involved in the commission of a crime (at least for certain crimes), like cars and such used by drug dealers.

I'm assuming they mean they would be searching cars for people illegally possessing guns, right?

Anyways, I'm wholly against this. But I'm also pretty much against all gun control and drug prohibition, so like, duh.

We are already subject to these random car searches. You are allowed to ask the police for a warrant before searching, but that brings even more suspicion upon you and they WILL get that warrant eventually. I don't see any reason to be fearful unless you were transporting something illegal. Even if you are doing that, don't fucking give them reason to pull you over. It's that simple.

I didn't read anything other than the OP, so I may be repeating the obvious here...but talk about a a hell of a strawman arguement. I agree that these types of things shouldn't be allowed in the first place, but let's get real here for a minute. The mayor's kids are never going to be homeless, so that arguement is utterly moot. Vehicle searches are, sadly, a normal part of police operation, and anyone carrying anything they shouldn't be needs to take that extra precaution. Besides that, knowing your way around a cop and knowing that s/he still puts his/her pants on one leg at a time helps a ton. As much as s/he may try to fuck you, it's easy enough to fuck them back.

Beyond that, if that woman doesn't want people carrying guns, she's living in the wrong fucking country, considering that owning a firearm is perfectly legal, considering you're not a felon or certified crazy.

You don't have to. They'll just make one up.

Yeah, the justice system sucks. And this is different than car searches with probable cause. This is "We're going to pull over........YOU!"

I just don't see how random that could really be. Or how effective, either.

Ain't that the truth.

I was recently stopped because the cops said my car matched the description of a vehicle that was witnessed carrying a group of teenagers throwing rocks at church windows.

I'm 28, and was driving alone.

I've also been stopped for going exactly the speed limit (The cop said I must have had something to hide) and once for swerving within my lane for getting out of the way of a hitchhiker standing in my lane.

Really, if they want to pull you over, they'll just follow you around until an idea pops in their head.