Where we're headed is neighborhood patrols, walking around sniffing for drugs, ammunition, whatever. Meanwhile children are abducted, sexually abused, spouses beaten, personal property stolen. How do you "sniff" for those things?

You may not even think you're doing anything wrong. Tell it to a judge. Just make sure you don't have those poppy seeds on your bagel.

California Conservative has joined the Blogopshere. Content aside, its got a great design (by Armageddon Design). It also has the latest on Al Gore's new video venture here
Original Bear Flagger Howard Ow...

I think most people realize a "search" is something active - people coming in and tearing up your house - not something passive from the senses.

Your response is bit over-the-top.

Some wiggle room is needed. The exceptions site you link points out that, under the common law, a police officer has the authority to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence, without an arrest warrant -- a power I want him to have. It follows that he should be able to search the person for weapons, or for evidence supporting the police officer's affadavit.

The problem is that the courts cannot seem to distinguish between necessary wiggle room and leaving the gate wide open. Such distinctions require intelligence and good judgement. A country whose citizens actually pay to see Martin Sheen act can't be expected to have much intelligence or good judgement.

(Couldn't resist that last cheap shot.)

Or unless a dog looks at you, your car, your home, or in your direction oddly.

But then, maybe I ought to be unsurprised.