Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Under the bus he goes
Next Post: Yucky stuff in Cal City
Posted in:
Rep. Monique Davis has a new bill.
“Reasonable belief” that drugs are in someone’s car would be needed, not “ear-piercing or dreadlocks,” for police in Illinois to use drug-sniffing dogs under a bill filed Monday by Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago).The measure is a response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision based on an Illinois case. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued in favor of the dogs’ use before the high court, which agreed with her in overruling an Illinois Supreme Court decision.
“In my opinion, this will lead to a police state,” Davis said, subjecting “innocent motorists, college students and especially people of color to the harassing, frightening and embarrassing experience of a dog search.”
I’d be interested to know how you feel about this subject. Read the whole story for more first, of course.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 15, 05 @ 5:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Under the bus he goes
Next Post: Yucky stuff in Cal City
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A politician not wanting to enslave us further? I am shocked.
I have come to the conclusions that the minorities have a legitimate beef about being trampled by the cops. As a fairly conservative white guy, I will probably support any anti-policing measure they want to implement, simply because the pendulum has swung too far into the government’s favor.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 15, 05 @ 7:08 am
As someone who usually support Lisa Madigan, this one goes too far. Anyone who acts nervous while being pulled over can be searched? Who isn’t nervous when being pulled over? I hope Rep. Davis’ bill passes.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 15, 05 @ 10:13 am
The courts let us down on this one. Have fun defining, “specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable belief that illegal drugs are present in the motor vehicle or upon the person of the driver or passenger of the motor vehicle,” as the bill states.
Probably won’t get a floor vote.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 15, 05 @ 2:50 pm
Representative Davis is right on. Especially after the terrorist attacks in New York and DC (and not, incidentially, in the rest of the country), we are collectively freaking out about security and (in my view) treating too many citizens like suspects. Justice Scalia had a nice title for one of his law review articles: “The Rule of Law; The Law of Rules” and made the argument (in the constitutional interpretation context but it can be applied here) that excess discretion without specific, articulated reasons for decisions leads to over-reach and a lack of accountability. If we’re going to let police bring dogs into our cars, they’d better have a specific reason which the legislature authorizes they can cite as to why they set those dogs off.
Comment by Dan Johnson-Weinberger Tuesday, Feb 15, 05 @ 6:07 pm
HURRAY FOR MONIQUE — I AM SURE THAT CONDI RICE WOULD NOT AGREE WITH HERE BUT PREJUDICE STILL DOES EXIST IN AMERICA….THIS BILL WOULD ONLY AMPLIFY THE RACIAL PROFILING THAT IS ALREADY A DISGRACE IN ILLINOISW AND CHICAGO…STAQND UP MONIQUE ADN FIGHT FOR US POOR PROPLE EHO ARE GETTING THE SHORT END OF THE STICK
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 13, 05 @ 12:06 am