Originally Posted by GradGirl

from the article:

The solution -- the balancing of public safety with constitutional liberties -- is surprisingly simple. The only way to prevent creeping use of implied consent is to limit the doctrine of plain view. Before searching a person, the government must choose either plain view or implied consent. If the government must search without probable cause, let it search, but only for illegal weapons or bombs. If security outweighs the Fourth Amendment, the scope of such searches must be limited to objects representing a clear and present danger to public safety. Any unrelated suspicious or illegal objects found must be ignored.


--------
Fredd,

I respectfully disagree with you and the author of the article that this is a solution to the problem of balancing public safety with constitutional liberties. I think he's raising a very interesting and valid point; that police will try to push implied consent zones to cover vast swaths of the country in order to gain an advantage in finding criminal activity unrelated to terrorism. His solution would help the cause of civil liberties in that if it were implemented, there would be fewer parties with an interest in extending implied consent to anytime you leave your front door.

However, ending criminal prosecutions for non-terrorist crimes discovered in the course of airport, subway, and private vehicle screenings would not remedy the imbalance. What people fear is not necessarily prosecution, but simple lack of privacy. Person A is not afraid that he'll be prosecuted because he wears an implanted medical device, but he is afraid that it'll be poked and prodded constantly at checkpoints, at his risk of embarrassment and injury. Person B is not afraid that she'll be prosecuted for having a nipple piercing, but she is afraid that she'll have to let government agent after government agent look at her bare breasts. How can we address this loss of liberty?