Who let the pigs in?
By DS Gands
Mar 31, 2004
Print this page
Email this article

The articles published recently about the 5th Circuit Court ruling on warrantless searches, while enlightening to the point of alarm, spark into flame the greater concern of the USA Patriot Act and Patriot II issues, and the fact that Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana are not alone in this contortionist ruling.  Other federal appellate courts have issued similar findings -- including the 1st, 6th, 9th and Washington, D.C., circuits.


This particular ruling does, however, leave one wondering just what the Court was thinking when it condoned the fact that the officers in question regarding this particular case made judgments that put them at risk – judgments that, ordinarily, it was presumed that officers do not make?  Due to this kind of judgments, search and seizure have been expanded and considerations of the 4th Amendment are tested.


This concern is not unique to the trends in recent years.  They are certainly not unique following the passage of the Patriot Act, with little review (45 days after 9/11), and with little or no accountability to any authority.  Without provisions for any form of documentation in some cases, Congress will have nothing to review to scrutinize that effectiveness or validity of these controversial acts.  There’s even a provision for getting cable account information of US citizens.  In our confusion, should we be concerned about who the bad guy is?  This has been answered.  Under this scenario – everyone.


Taking the position that there is mass acceptance watching a television law enforcement officer bend the rules to get the bad guy is just evidence that acceptance of rule bending becomes us.  ‘Bad guys’ were the ones bending or breaking the rules in place, or they wouldn’t be bad guys, right?  So, who is the bad guy? 


There are many more serious expansions that have come out of the psychological molding of the democratic mind.  Warrantless searches are, bottom line, unconstitutional, whether accepted by the Courts or not.  If accepted, what protections do ordinary ‘guys’ (citizens) have?  None. 


Law enforcement equals enforcement of the laws.  People are to comply with the law or face judgment.  Judgment is the process by which facts are tried to determine if a law or statute has been broken, and in some cases, bent, with subsequent punishment or exoneration.  Lawmakers are supposed to be the representatives of the people who determine what the rules and laws are.  Precedent cases test the law.  However, when arbitrary interpretations of events or actions are acceptable to the courts by choosing to circumvent enforcement of the law, the standard of innocent until proven guilty is no longer valid.


If law enforcement and the judicial system do not have to be concerned with judgments, or rules, or rights that are established, or the law for that matter - Bad guys can be anyone, at any time, in any given situation – even more than they were before October, 2001.


Yes, it is alarming, but I find some comfort in the possible scenarios because I have faith in the system and those who abuse it.  Besides, people in power that, on some level, are ‘guys’, too.