Originally Posted by
ralfp
It's sad that a US LEO (is that correct?) thinks that US citizens' opinions of what constitutes an important freedom do no matter "one damn bit". This is especially sad in light of the fact that most LEOs, in most cases, have the discretion to respect freedoms that are not SCOTUSly protected (for better or for worse, the US Constitution and its protections are meaningless; the only rights that have nationwide meaning are those that are SCOTUS-recognized).
I think US citizens', as well as everyone else's, opinions, matter a great deal when it comes to a respect for fundamental freedoms.
This is exactly the problem I have with most law enforcement attitudes -- it always seem to be "what is the very least we can do without actually breaking the law?" More appropriate would be to look at the intent; for example the 4th Amendment was intended to end harassment of citizens, and nothing is PREVENTING LEOs and prosecutors from never searching without a judge signing off on a warrant. But instead, they go looking around, splitting hairs, trying to find holes in the law rather than respecting it - "ah, but we can use the border search exemption!; "ah, but we can argue that the border extends 100 miles inland!", "ah, but we can claim the need to check for weapons", "ah, but we can train dogs to give us 'probable cause' on demand," etc. It's no wonder there is an atmosphere of fear and distrust.