Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,550,337 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

The pinpoint search.


Even the crude technology of the drug-sniffing dog could grossly abrogate my civil rights. It'll be even worse when the cop on the street gets to use the "pinpoint" search technology described in Julian Sanchez's article ("The Pinpoint Search," January). Here's how:

Let's say that I'm driving on a public thoroughfare, and that I happen to exceed the speed limit by more than the unofficially tolerated five miles per hour. Let's say that I am then stopped by a traffic cop who, while writing my citation, applies the new "pinpoint" technology. Let's also say that the "sniffer" gives the cop a positive reading for marijuana, and that this probable cause leads to an extensive whole-body and whole-car search. In the end, after a couple of very cold and uncomfortable hours, no solid evidence is found other than the original positive reading, so I am released with my traffic citation in hand.

Now, let's say that I am truly innocent and have never in my life possessed or smoked (or ingested) marijuana. Let's further say that I had purchased the car in question only a week before from a private party (or even from a dealership), and that this purchase was my only contact with the car's previous owner. Or let's say that my car has been in my possession since it was brand new, but that I lent it to my brother-in-law last night. Or let's say that the car has been mine all along, and I never lent it to anyone, but a druggie used it as a convenient seat while rolling, smoking, and finally snuffing out a "bomber" while it was legally parked during the night.

Without a "pinpoint" search or an easily available drug-sniffing dog, all I would end up with is the traffic citation I probably deserved. With those improperly intrusive technologies, however, I lose time and dignity. I could even end up in court, expensively fighting an undeserved drug trafficking charge.

Steve Henigson

Eastsound, WA

COPYRIGHT 2007 Reason Foundation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Letters
Author:Henigson, Steve
Publication:Reason
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:Apr 1, 2007
Words:330
Previous Article:Ticking bombs vs. ticking bombast.(Letters)(Letter to the editor)
Next Article:Crying censorship.(Letters)(Letter to the editor)



Related Articles
Emerging categories: fax publishing.
Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789.
EDITORIAL : BACK TO PHONICS WILSON ADDRESSES CALIFORNIA'S DISMAL READING SCORES.(Editorial)(Editorial)
Leak locator: ultrasound for finding holes in spacecraft.(This Week)
Corporate reporting.(Technology Tools)
Heads in the sand.(letters to the editor)(Letter to the editor)
The pinpoint search: how super-accurate surveillance technology threatens our privacy.(Cover story)
Turf or astroturf? A look at the scope of the "canned letter" phenomenon.(letters to the editor campaigns)
Cover Letter Magic, third edition.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles