Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!judy
From: judy@ism780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Endangered Species:Individual Rights - (nf)
Message-ID: <308@ism780.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 20:13:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780.308
Posted: Thu Jul 12 20:13:57 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jul-84 02:10:25 EDT
Lines: 17

#R:hpcnoe:-1510000100:ism780:18300007:000:890
ism780!judy    Jul 10 17:37:00 1984

I think you are over-reacting.  Stating that a decision that allows evidence
in the case in which the judge failed (police were acting in good faith) will
lead to plice being allowed to search without search warrants is a reactionary
generalization.  Therefore, I will only address the decision.  And I support
it.  We have a huge crime problem in this country.  And I feel that part of
this is because there is no real retribution.  Actually being punished for
commiting a crime seems to be a matter of chance and the chances now are too
low.  The Supreme Court is trying to make the job of fighting crime run
more smoothly.  This decision is not an attempt to take away the rights of
law abiding citizens.

Let me ask you, do you really want those theives to get away after $10K
worth of stolen goods has been found on them only because the judge erred
in filling out the search warrant?