The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[ConHog]

That is the beauty of the system we live in, I don't have to justify my position that it is an intrusion, the state has to justify that the intrusion is justified. That is a standard you have no problem holding them to when you disagree with them, you should hold them to the same standard when you do.

Actually sir, you are wrong, big surprise I know. The standard is that SCOTUS has ruled on the matter, if you don't like their ruling, you have two options 1. Sue 2. Shut up. There is no option 3 as they are the definitive arbiters when it comes to deciding what is and what is not constitutional and that means even when they make a ruling you don't agree with.

Did you happen to read George's comment about how totalitarian that attitude is?

Totalitarian? No, that is Constitutional.

 

[George Costanza]

But yes, the real reason for the checkpoints is to get a look inside your car.

You know, I could have said that in the OP and left the rest out. That's the essence of it.

Well played.

 

[ConHog]

But yes, the real reason for the checkpoints is to get a look inside your car.

You know, I could have said that in the OP and left the rest out. That's the essence of it.

Well played.

George, you are blowing me away with your dishonesty lately. Fucking pathetic. You know damned well that LEO are required to announce the time and location of sobriety checkpoints a minimum of 72 hours in advance of actually beginning said checkpoints. Therefor , your argument that they are designed to get a look in your car is shot to hell, because only the STUPIDEST person would drive into a sobriety checkpoint with something criminal in site.

I've lost faith in you George, you're a typical partisan hack.

 

[George Costanza]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

 

[ConHog]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

Again sir, you are at best misleading here. States can't opt out of notifying the public that there will be a SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT. LEO can't falsely claim it is something else, they must CLEARLY label it as a SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT, as no other form of check point has been ruled constitutional, well except for the emergency checkpoint of stopping vehicles when a felony has occurred in the area. Also of course it is NOT LEO's problem if motorists haven't read or heard about a sobriety checkpoint. They aren't required to go door to door to make sure people know. only to make it public, and this is NORMALLY done via radio, in addition to print.

Also, there is no law in California stating that a legal turn off option must be present. in fact the California Supreme Court ruling in Ingersoll vs. Palmer simply states that a motorist may not be detained simply for avoiding a checkpoint unless they violated a traffic code while doing so (IE illegal U turn) , that is common practice in all jurisdictions, and a main reason why you see sobriety checkpoints set up in such a way as to make a legal evasion pretty much impossible, which is the plan and perfectly legal.

Also, SCOTUS has ruled that stops must be held to a minimum meaning LEO don't really have time to be perusing the interior of our vehicle beyond a cursory glance.

 

[Bern80]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

 

[ConHog]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

George is a partisan hack who judges everything through the bifocals of an old defense attorney. He knows damn well that he is lying about how sobriety checkpoints can be set up and what they can be used for, just like last week he knew damn well that he was lying when he said he had a client doing 36 months in jail for talking on a cell phone while driving.

George is relegated to CurvedLight with a law degree status in my book. Never to be trusted or expected to have honest debate again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

What I think I'm picking up from George, and he will correct me if I picking up the wrong stuff here , is that he is arguing that the laws are written in order to give the police license to have a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

And he has made a pretty good argument for that.

I think I'm leaning more to your point of view here, however, that it is a stretch to assume that the law was written for the purpose of having a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

On the theory that any law can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated or misinterpreted by the ignorant or corrupt, that in itself is not sufficient to assume intentional or organized malfeasance or overstepping one's intended authority.

I prefer to think that the intent of cell phone laws, drunk driving laws, requirements for driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc. are all appropriate to promote the common welfare, and check points are a reasonable means of enforcement.

I don't think we can automatically assume that the check points are intended for the purpose of anything else. I can see how they also could be used for the purpose of having an excuse to look into people's cars, though around here if they're looking for somebody specific, they don't usually conceal the fact that this is why they set up the checkpoints.

 

[ConHog]

Actually, the sub-topic of the requirement that police announce in advance the time and location of sobriety check points has not been discussed much on this thread. In California, that is a requirement. Furthermore, again in California, they are also required to leave an "out" for motorists in the event they come upon the check point and do not want to go through it, i.e., there must be a road where motorists can turn off if they so desire, after the check point becomes visible.

That in no way alters the fact that being able to look inside cars which are randomly stopped at sobriety check points, is a huge "plus" for law enforcement officers, who never pass up the chance to do exactly that with each and every car that goes through.

I might also add that announcing the date, time and location of the check point in advance has very little effect on the number of motorists who pass through the check point because most motorists never see the article in the newspaper making the announcement. Also, the turn-away option has little effect because motorists either fail to realize what is up ahead until it is too late (police often disguise the purpose of the check point, leading motorists to believe there is some kind of road work going on or it is merely a license checkpoint) or because motorists fear that they will be pursued if they elect to turn off.

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

What I think I'm picking up from George, and he will correct me if I picking up the wrong stuff here , is that he is arguing that the laws are written in order to give the police license to have a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

And he has made a pretty good argument for that.

I think I'm leaning more to your point of view here, however, that it is a stretch to assume that the law was written for the purpose of having a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

On the theory that any law can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated or misinterpreted by the ignorant or corrupt, that in itself is not sufficient to assume intentional or organized malfeasance or overstepping one's intended authority.

I prefer to think that the intent of cell phone laws, drunk driving laws, requirements for driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc. are all appropriate to promote the common welfare, and check points are a reasonable means of enforcement.

I don't think we can automatically assume that the check points are intended for the purpose of anything else. I can see how they also could be used for the purpose of having an excuse to look into people's cars, though around here if they're looking for somebody specific, they don't usually conceal the fact that this is why they set up the checkpoints.

IF checkpoints are being set up in your area for ANY reason other than sobriety checkpoints they are a blatant violation of the 4th and hence illegal. Hence, it isn't happening, PERIOD.

And again , as to sobriety checkpoints. they MUST provide minimal intrusion to motorists, meaning LEO can't detain you for 10 minutes while he scopes your car out. The SCOTUS ruling is very clear and very definitive in what LEO may an may not do. Rifling through your car would clearly be a violation, unless of course they have probable cause. Pretty common around here for a K9 unit to be involved in sobriety checkpoints because we have a serious meth problem. Dog barks probable cause.

 

[George Costanza]

I still can't figure out what you are arguing though. Is it the checkpoints themselves? Because I dont' see how those are a violation of the 4th. Checkpoints like that are generally set up when police know there is a high degree of probability that motorists will be driving drunk.

Checkpoints are 4th Amendment violations because they allow officers to randomly stop motorists without a search warrant, and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the motorists have been engaged in some form of criminal activity.

The courts have nonetheless allowed checkpoints by utilizing a "balancing" test which says, in effect, even though checkpoints do conflict with the requirements of the 4th Amendment, the purpose they serve and the minimal intrusion on the public by forcing a brief stop to check for sobriety of the driver, allows them to operate as an exception to the 4th Amendment's provisions.

Or is it that such a checkpont allows them to look into your car? If that is the case you dont have much of an argument either because it is simply your opinion that police use them to get a look in your car. An opinon that doesn't make much logical sense. They want to look in your car, so they use sobriety checkpoints to do it? Your argument would have to be that they care less about people driving drunk than the off chance of find some weed or something else illegal.

I don't think that sobriety checkpoints were dreamed up as a ruse on the part of law enforcement to conduct vehicle searches for purposes other than checking the sobriety of the driver. HOWEVER - it is a fact that sobriety checkpoinst DO give police officers the opportunity to stop motorists they would not otherwise be able to stop and, in addition to checking the motorist for any signs of intoxication, to ALSO look into the interior of the vehicle and if they see anything suspicious, to continue the detention, NOW FOCUSING on whatever was seen inside the vehicle.

Yes, it is my opinion that police officers use the sobriety checkpoint to look into the interior of the vehicles they stop. If you are of a different opinion, I suggest you turn around three times and get back in touch with reality.

On your final point - I think the police are concerned about both drunk driving AND anything else they come across during the course of the sobriety checkpoint stop.

Take another look at the title of this thread. All I am trying to do is point out that certain laws that have been enacted allowing police to stop motorists for certain, very narrow reasons (seat belt violations, cell phone violations, DUI checkpoints, etc.) also have other, broader ramifications that the average person never considers when they speak out in favor of such laws.

All of the specific laws mentioned have one thing in common - they give the police the opportunity to stop vehicles they would not otherwise be able to stop and, when this happens, the opportunity for the police to arrest the motorist on the basis of "bigger game" discovered during the stop, greatly increases.

 

[George Costanza]

I think I'm leaning more to your point of view here, however, that it is a stretch to assume that the law was written for the purpose of having a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

As I stated in my post just prior to this one (a post, incidentally, that I put up before reading yours here), I agree with you. I don't think that checkpoint laws, or seat belt laws, or cell phone laws were written in order to let cops get around the 4th Amendment. HOWEVER, such laws greatly increase the opportunity of the police to stop motorists and to ultimately conduct a search of their vehicle in the event they see anything suspicious during the stop or if the officer requests consent to search and the motorist allows the search.

On the theory that any law can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated or misinterpreted by the ignorant or corrupt, that in itself is not sufficient to assume intentional or organized malfeasance or overstepping one's intended authority.

Ever hear of the pretext stop? It is used by cops all the time to pull a car over and "check it out," (translation: roust it). The "defective tail light" or the "illegal lane change" are principal examples. The laws we are discussing here create yet more reasons for officers to stop motorists. You and I will disagree on how "corrupt" the police are when it comes to probable cause to stop a vehicle. Let's just leave it at that.

I prefer to think that the intent of cell phone laws, drunk driving laws, requirements for driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc. are all appropriate to promote the common welfare, and check points are a reasonable means of enforcement.

And that is fine. Frankly, it is hard to argue against the stated purpose of these laws. They all make sense when viewed from the standpoint of the evil they are designed to cure. The question I ask is a broader one, however. In the case of checkpoints, the question is: Given that checkpoints are there for a laudable purpose, does that purpose justify the 4th Amendment violation created by their existence? The courts have considered this question and said yes. I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I'm leaning more to your point of view here, however, that it is a stretch to assume that the law was written for the purpose of having a means to violate the 4th Amendment.

As I stated in my post just prior to this one (a post, incidentally, that I put up before reading yours here), I agree with you. I don't think that checkpoint laws, or seat belt laws, or cell phone laws were written in order to let cops get around the 4th Amendment. HOWEVER, such laws greatly increase the opportunity of the police to stop motorists and to ultimately conduct a search of their vehicle in the event they see anything suspicious during the stop or if the officer requests consent to search and the motorist allows the search.

On the theory that any law can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated or misinterpreted by the ignorant or corrupt, that in itself is not sufficient to assume intentional or organized malfeasance or overstepping one's intended authority.

Ever hear of the pretext stop? It is used by cops all the time to pull a car over and "check it out," (translation: roust it). The "defective tail light" or the "illegal lane change" are principal examples. The laws we are discussing here create yet more reasons for officers to stop motorists. You and I will disagree on how "corrupt" the police are when it comes to probable cause to stop a vehicle. Let's just leave it at that.

I prefer to think that the intent of cell phone laws, drunk driving laws, requirements for driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc. are all appropriate to promote the common welfare, and check points are a reasonable means of enforcement.

And that is fine. Frankly, it is hard to argue against the stated purpose of these laws. They all make sense when viewed from the standpoint of the evil they are designed to cure. The question I ask is a broader one, however. In the case of checkpoints, the question is: Given that checkpoints are there for a laudable purpose, does that purpose justify the 4th Amendment violation created by their existence? The courts have considered this question and said yes. I'm not sure I agree with that.

Yes, we'll probably disagree on cops. I've run into some jerks on this or that police force, but my experience is that those are the exception rather than the rule. So I tend to believe most cops are ethical and do their jobs professionally meaning they do not intentionally violate the rights of citizens. Your experience may have been different so you think they are more prone to do that than not.

I do know where you're coming from on the checkpoints though, and I am thinking through exactly where I come down on that. Anybody who has read much of my postings knows that I am very big on constitutionally guaranteed rights and the chipping away at these by government action will trigger a rant from me faster than almost anything else.

I think however that we can't require others to participate in the choices we make and our rights end at that point. So I'm torn between my right to privacy and whether that extends to my moving vehicle that has potential for putting others at peril.

I'm still thinking on it.

 

[ConHog]

Guess George doesn't like being called out for his lies

 

[Foxfyre]

Guess George doesn't like being called out for his lies

Well I certainly haven't called George a liar, because he isn't. If anything, you seem to be arguing on the same side of the fence on this one.

I haven't taken a side yet but am leaning in favor of check points not violating constitutional principles. But I'm not sure enough of my position on that to fight for it yet.

 

[ConHog]

Guess George doesn't like being called out for his lies

Well I certainly haven't called George a liar, because he isn't. If anything, despite the fact that you two don't like each other, you seem to be arguing on the same side of the fence on this one and that has to be galling for you both.

I haven't taken a side yet but am leaning in favor of check points not violating constitutional principles. But I'm not sure enough of my position on that to fight for it yet.

Actually I like George, we used to be friends, I'm just sick of the lying on this board. I thought George was better than that, unfortunately I was wrong.

 

[Bern80]

IF the police have probable cause to investigate one type of violation and they happen to find evidence of another crime, that I don't have a problem with and I don't think would be considered unconstitutional.

Here is what the crux of the argument is I think. The key here is probable cause. Do the police have to have probably cause as it pertains to single individual driving drunk for example? Or is probable cause that some out of many will be driving drunk enough?

 

[ConHog]

IF the police have probable cause to investigate one type of violation and they happen to find evidence of another crime, that I don't have a problem with and I don't think would be considered unconstitutional.

Here is what the crux of the argument is I think. The key here is probable cause. Do the police have to have probably cause as it pertains to single individual driving drunk for example? Or is probable cause that some out of many will be driving drunk enough?

Neither. The SCOTUS has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are an EXCEPTION to the COTUS because their infringements are so minor. In other words, sobriety checkpoints are acknowledged as being technically violations of your rights, BUT the greater good is deemed to be more important than the slight loss of rights. Much like screening at an airport. Technically that is a search without a warrant or probable cause, BUT the greater good takes precedence over your individual rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

IF the police have probable cause to investigate one type of violation and they happen to find evidence of another crime, that I don't have a problem with and I don't think would be considered unconstitutional.

Here is what the crux of the argument is I think. The key here is probable cause. Do the police have to have probably cause as it pertains to single individual driving drunk for example? Or is probable cause that some out of many will be driving drunk enough?

For me there is a broader perspective on that though. If we choose our government to serve and protect, does not enforcing the law against drunk driving fall within that parameter? And does the 4th Amendment prohibit law enforcement from doing that prior to some drunk getting out on the wrong side of the freeway or splattering some unsuspecting soul on the highway or at an intersection?

The way I see it, we all have the right to get drunk. But we do not have the right to inflict our drunkenness upon others or endanger their lives because we got drunk.

And I want the drunk off the road before he kills me. I see the checkpoints as one useful tool in accomplishing that.

And that is why I am struggling with whether checkpoints are a 4th Amendment violation. Do we not waive some rights by our choices to engage in certain activities that require participation by others?

 

[Bern80]

IF the police have probable cause to investigate one type of violation and they happen to find evidence of another crime, that I don't have a problem with and I don't think would be considered unconstitutional.

Here is what the crux of the argument is I think. The key here is probable cause. Do the police have to have probably cause as it pertains to single individual driving drunk for example? Or is probable cause that some out of many will be driving drunk enough?

Neither. The SCOTUS has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are an EXCEPTION to the COTUS because their infringements are so minor. In other words, sobriety checkpoints are acknowledged as being technically violations of your rights, BUT the greater good is deemed to be more important than the slight loss of rights. Much like screening at an airport. Technically that is a search without a warrant or probable cause, BUT the greater good takes precedence over your individual rights.

I would think that would mean then that SCOTUS believes probably cause must apply to an individual, not probable cause that members of a group are guilty of something. I can I make this make sense? It is okay to search and seizure someone if you have probably cause. But it is not okay to search and seizure a group of individuals, even with probable cause that there is illegal activity among members of said group.

 

[Bern80]

For me there is a broader perspective on that though. If we choose our government to serve and protect, does not enforcing the law against drunk driving fall within that parameter? And does the 4th Amendment prohibit law enforcement from doing that prior to some drunk getting out on the wrong side of the freeway or splattering some unsuspecting soul on the highway or at an intersection?

The way I see it, we all have the right to get drunk. But we do not have the right to inflict our drunkenness upon others or endanger their lives because we got drunk.

Agree, but the question is the method in which you stop the drunk driver. Makes for a good fishing analogy. Do you cast a wide net and hope get the ones you want (while technically violating the 4th ammendment rights of others). Or do you need to remain ethical and use your fishing pole with a hook that only one fish can be caught on.

And I want the drunk off the road before he kills me. I see the checkpoints as one useful tool in accomplishing that.

And that is why I am struggling with whether checkpoints are a 4th Amendment violation. Do we not waive some rights by our choices to engage in certain activities that require participation by others?

There is no question it is a useful, efficient tool. That's not the point. My family is from a town that has a major summer music fest every year. There are only so many routes around this venue. Everyone knows the atmosphere of events like this and one can predict with a high degree of accuracy that at least some of these event goers are going to try to drive when they shouldn't be. So to protect the public they setup check points around the venue to get those that are driving drunk. But it is it okay for them to stop me, just passing through, when they have absolutely no probable cause to suspect that I personally have been drinking?

The argument was well iit's such a minor inconvenience for me. But that is a really slippery slope. If you allow that without a fight, what legal leg are you going to stand on when some other right that you don't agree with is violated 'for the great good'. We are already traveling down this road. No one can even rationalize or pretend anymore that all of our laws are constitutional.