The entire problem with this debate is that it follows the, "If we can just save one child" line of reasoning. It assumes that agents of the Police will act honorably.
Look people, I'm in business. Many of you know me. If .gov would just ease the constraints placed on me by the IRS, Dept of Labor, Local Zoning Authorities, Local Taxing Authorities, BATF, and USPS I can produce a better, cheaper product. I can be more efficient; I can create greater profit for my share holders, pay higher wages to my employees and contribute greater taxes to .gov.
So why are all these constraints placed on me? Answer: because .gov simply cannot trust all other businessmen to act with honesty and integrity. The temptation to cut corners would just be too great for too many....in fact, for all under the right circumstances.
That said, why on earth should ".citizen" believe that, because a man chooses a career in Law Enforcement, he is suddenly innoculated against temptation by the exact same drive to "get ahead" as an average businessman or other citizen?
Constraints are placed on us in every endeavor imaginable.....not because "we" can't be trusted, but because we know that others can't be. In the case of someone like Long Path (and perhaps Frank), we probably don't need to provide any greater constraint than a pocket copy of the BoR.
But there's other cops out there....they reflect the population in general, in terms of their ethics and intelligence. It's for that reason that strict constraints need to be placed on rules of evidence, search and arrest.
I guess the real question is where each of us chooses to draw the line for those constraints. In my case, I err on the side of not invading the freedoms or hindering the daily activities of law abiding citizens.
Rich
