Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma
From: emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Roadblocks
Message-ID: <1699@uw-june>
Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 01:28:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june>.1699
Posted: Thu Jul 19 01:28:23 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 23:49:05 EDT
References: <201@isrnix.UUCP> <3096@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 11

You've hit here on what I feel to be an error made by the courts (that
your car is not an extension of your home, therefore is not covered by
the appropriate amendment regarding illegal search and seizure).  I
happen to feel that my automobile is as much an extension of my home as
my suitcase, which the courts feel is covered.  I also feel that I have
a right to expect the same degree of privacy in my car as in my home.

The fact that the courts don't agree with me only means that I have to
consent to the search, and that anything they find can be used.  It
doesn't mean that the courts are correct in their interpretation.

-Joe P.