DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Authors ›› Stevens
...[O]ur holding in Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297, 111 S. Ct. 1801 (1991), allowing police to open closed containers in the context of an automobile consent search where the "consent would reasonably be understood to extend to a particular container," [...] ensures that many motorists will wind up "consenting" to a far broader search than they might have imagined. See 500 U.S. at 254-255 ("only objection that the police could have to" a rule requiring police to seek consent to search containers as well as the automobile itself "is that it would prevent them from exploiting the ignorance of a citizen who simply did not anticipate that his consent to search the car would be understood to authorize the police to rummage through his packages") (Marshall, J., dissenting).
[...]
The offense to the dignity of the citizen who is arrested, handcuffed, and searched on a public street simply because some bureaucrat has failed to maintain an accurate computer data base strikes me as equally outrageous. In this case, of course, such an error led to the fortuitous detection of respondent's unlawful possession of marijuana, and the suppression of the fruit of the error would prevent the prosecution of his crime. That cost, however, must be weighed against the interest in protecting other, wholly innocent citizens from unwarranted indignity.
[...]
It is true that the District Judge did not make specific reference to the (unquestionably significant) health risks posed by ecstasy...
[...]
I am willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing need to deter drug use supports JDHS's rule prohibiting willful conduct that expressly "advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors."
[...]
Encouraging drug use might well increase the likelihood that a listener will try an illegal drug, but that hardly justifies censorship.
[...]
Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› |
|