Personally, I DON'T get that. What difference does it make if it's a car (or motorcycle or go-cart) and it's mobile? They had mobile vehicles and transportation that could outrun other mobile vehicles and transportation of that time back when the 4th Amendment was written and ratified. The 4th says, in part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." It does NOT say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, UNLESS THEY ARE ON A FAST HORSE THAT MIGHT OUTRUN THE POLICE."srothstein wrote: I fully understand the argument that a motor vehicle is easily mobile so the search is justifiable without a warrant, IF there is probable cause.
I believe that many of our enumerated Constitutional rights have been tweaked, twisted, confined, restrained and diluted by passage of so many additional laws, and by the mental contortions of activist judges over the years, that some of those "rights" seem to be almost nonexistent at this point.
Sorry, srothstein, not picking on you. It's just that the great divide between the simple and elegant statements of affirmation of our rights - as laid out in the Constitution - versus many of the modern day, heavy-handed restrictions of those rights is sort of a pet peeve of mine.
Ok, stepping off my soapbox now. Carry on.