Do People Have The "right" To Commit A Crime?

[ecnarf]

Well, I've been kicking this question around in my head for a few days. I'm sure some of you have heard about a recent court ruling in the U.S. that states using sniffing dogs on routine traffic pullovers for speeding isn't considered an intrusive search, and doesn't violate the constitution.

 

Personally, I find that a bit wrong. There's a bit of a line crossed when you can get pulled over for speeding, and you're getting searched for drugs (via the police dog) at the same time.

 

So, I guess the question is if people have the "right" to break the law. I don't mean that in the sense that people have the right to murder, rape, steal, etc. I mean that in the sense of doing something that's against the law, but that doesn't affect other people - doing drugs, for example, drinking underage, things that you do to yourself. Personally, I think that they do. To that extent, getting caught is their own damn fault (and carrying drugs in your car isn't particularly smart either).

 

Obvious, I'm a bit of a civil libertarian (and I do favour the legalization of some drugs), but I don't want to look like a complete hippie about this - laws need to be enforced, but I really think personal rights to privacy are being violated when you can be screened for drugs for being pulled over on the road. I do see the reasoning that these searches are not overly intrusive, but it's sort of like performing drug tests on people walking down the street. If police officers can perform a drug sniff on cars that are pulled over, what's to stop them from doing it on a parked car? Where's the line to be drawn?

[Biggie]

You have a right to do anything that does not physically harm or defraud another person, in my opinion.

 

There are many things that are crimes, which shouldn't be (ie, narcotic possession).

[Munk]

I completely agree with the Big E and I'd like to see that article you're working off of, narf. Officers don't have the authority to search your property [in this case, car] without a warrant or your consent.

[pearanoid]

But is it still your right if the action that only affects you indirectly harms another person?

 

An example could be having drugs for personal use is not a big deal. But if you bought them from some guy who uses the money to finance other sorts of illegal activites that do harm people, is that still okay?

 

I know it's a big of a movie example but you get the idea.

[Biggie]

Well, if it was legal, you wouldn't have to buy it off unsavory people.

 

And even then, he's the criminal if he goes and uses his drug money to do something illegal, not you.

[pearanoid]

But if you didn't buy the drugs, he wouldn't have the money. Maybe that's why it's illegal. You're still a part of the problem even if you don't think so.

[borntohula]

basically, if police suspect something, they have viable grounds to search your car. so if you get pulled over for speeding, and they have the dog with them and it in turn goes nuts, then you've got a problem.

 

if you feel that doing drugs is a victimless crime, what about the dealers themselves? not many people with dirty drug habits can get by without some kind of pusher. do you feel the same way about them?

[pearanoid]

Who is this question directed at? I don't think doing drugs is a victimless crime.

[borntohula]

Who is this question directed at? I don't think doing drugs is a victimless crime.

oops. maybe i shouldve hit the quote button. i meant it towards the person who started this topic.

[Biggie]

But if you didn't buy the drugs, he wouldn't have the money. Maybe that's why it's illegal. You're still a part of the problem even if you don't think so.

If I sell you a used car, then use that money to put out a hit on my boss, are you a criminal? No, we were just engaged in commerce, and then I used that money to do something illegal which you had no idea about.

[pearanoid]

Yeah, but buying a used car isn't currently illegal.

[jhark]

I dont think there is much difference between a dog sniffing around your car for drugs and a policeman making you take a breathalizer test is the same level of intrusion to me.

 

But i dont believe in the breathilizer as a fair system for patrolling drunk driving because it is open to alot of circumstances where it's validity can be affected.

 

About the policeman not allowed to search your car without warrant im not sure if that true because its defintly happened to me and lots of other friends before. The only thing a cop cant do is hold you at your car for more then 15 minutes if he isnt charging with anything yet.

 

As for the drugs... its a topic that takes alot of thinking. So much harm comes from drug use and drug trafficking that it seems the easiest way to control the inevitable use is to legalize it as with tobacco and alcohol. But it seems to me that there will always be something else that someone mixes up that you can't get legally. People are always drawn to what they can't have.

 

As for having the right to commit a crime? Im not sure that makes any sense. When you do something illegal that means you dont have the right to do it and it doesnt matter who catches you doing it a police dog or a investigation. You cant take about something in terms of a "crime" and agrue your right to do it.

[pearanoid]

I also agree that legalizing some drugs would be a great solution. If someone wants to do drugs, it's their issue. If the government controls it, it takes the drugs from the criminals and gives money to the government.

 

But then we get into issue of the US. People will be trying to smuggle it to the US and it will be a PR nightmare. It's a very complex issue.

[no yu begin wher i end]

I say legalize marijuana and then tax the hell out of it.

[Crusader]

I agree. Everyone would be a lot happier too and eventually pot wouldn't be "cool" anymore.

[Munk]

Drug use is increased with increased government suppression.

 

If drugs weren't illegal, illegal activity wouldn't be built on their distribution.

[ToadMan]

I reference to the police searching the car: It's on the basis of just cause, where the officer has reason to suspect a crime is being committed. i.e. if the sniffer dog, without invading the privacy of your vehicle indicates that it detects drugs, the officer has just cause to conduct a search. The only reason a warrant would not be required is that the officer can prove in court that by the time a warrant was received, the evidence of the crime may have been destroyed.

 

In reference to this topic: I don't believe that this is any more intrusive than if an officer smelt alcohol on your breath and conducted a breathalyzer on you. I, however, seem to have rather fascist tendencies when is comes to what I believe the extent of the law should be. I must admit though, if we empowered the police to be able to eliminate crime, we would inherit a world where people fear the law.

 

Peace

[Munk]

What if they set up giant x-ray tunnels for cars to go through every few blocks? They're technically not pawing through your stuff, right?

 

Where do we draw the line?

[summerbronze]

I think JM perfectly illustrated why this issue is so complex. The law is quite vague with respect to when police have just cause to conduct a search of your person or property, and how they must go about doing so. The 'line' is subjective, and something like this being subjective is unacceptable.

 

Giant x-ray tunnels would indeed be invasive. It would also violate the law, vague as it is, because there would be no just cause to search everyone's cars in this fashion. I think this 'just cause' business is part of how we can figure out where to draw the line.

 

Having a dog on hand for routine traffic stops such as speeding is questionable. While the dog may not necessarily enter the car, it's behavior is still a form of search in my opinion. Just because someone was speeding, or ran a stop sign, is not enough of a reason to 'search' for possession of narcotics.

 

I think knowledge of the law - what police can and cannot do - is a responsability of the citizen being stopped. Obviously the officer has to follow procedure, otherwise s/he would be at fault, but knowledge of your rights is your responsability.

[Berserkgatsu]

Well, people should be able to do drugs because it is their loss if they want to be tripping out at home while everything is passing them by it is their decision. Who really cares? I don't support drugs but I am not threatening to call the cops on them. It is there choice and it doesn't effect anyone else. But thats just what I think.

[ecnarf]

I completely agree with the Big E and I'd like to see that article you're working off of, narf.  Officers don't have the authority to search your property [in this case, car] without a warrant or your consent.

It's not technically a search, it's a dog sniff. It's not intrusive, which is why the judges gave it the go-ahead, but it still amounts to a search.

 

I'll see if I can find an article.

 

EDIT: in response to the breathalyzer analogies, I think it's different. What's happening with the story I'm talking about, drug dogs are allowed to arbitrarily sniff inside cars when the car is pulled over for a traffic violation - sort of as a matter of procedure. When a police officer smells alcohol on your breath, there is reasonable suspicion of you being inebriated. With the R.I.D.E. programs, it's a similar situation, you're being arbitrarily pulled over, but drunk drivers are a serious danger, so I think that offsets it.

Edited January 30, 2005 by ecnarf

[juanpe]

NOBODY has the right to kill anybody else, no matter what personal situation you may have involved with or no matter your political ideas may be...

 

as simple as that

[Biggie]

It's not that simple.

 

If a person is putting my family or myself in harm's way, I would not hesitate to kill him. Killing in self-defense is a right.

[Munk]

No it isn't. To defend yourself [or your family] is the right. To kill the person is your circumstantial choice.

[Biggie]

Well, if he dies, I won't lose sleep.