Supreme Court Usurps Constitutional Rights
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the judges ruled that the officer's abuse of power did not infringe Gail's constitutional rights because the officer's acts were "not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment". The court majority reached this decision despite the fact that wearing a seat belt in one's own vehicle is a right protected by the Constitution, and it is an action which the Texas Motor Vehicle Laws do not consider an offense worthy of jail time.
Should we stand by and allow the Supremes to set such precedence, authorizing public servants to violate the 4th amendment rights of those they are paid and sworn to protect? Should the people of any state allow officers of the law to use the Motor Vehicle Code, which has been grossly expanded beyond its original purport, to attain quotas at the expense of law abiding citizens? Most would argue that there should be some regulation of people who drive, yet what began as simple regulation of commerce has vastly expanded into a body of unconstitutional rules whose main purpose is to generate revenues. As more people obey these "laws", fewer legitimate arrests can be made, which necessitates the implementation of even more invasive laws in order to maintain the ticketing, arrest and conviction rates, thereby maintaining cash flow. As this process goes unhindered decade upon decade, the following results:
Many citizens complain about this trend, yet so few take the stand necessary to stop it. Our Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution to protect us from such runaway regulation, bureaucratic growth, and wasteful spending, but the Constitution is only effectual when The People actively give it power. Maybe many would rather have our public servants take seriously Sheriff Richard I. Mack's tongue-and-cheek advice when he said,
Read these related stories: