NO SYMPATHY FOR DRUG CRIMINALS

I find it interesting that your editorial of Jan. 27, "Wider use allowed
for drug-sniffing canines," suggests that the recent U.S. Supreme Court
ruling "could take us perilously close to random searches." Have you ever
heard of roadside safety checks? I think they could fairly be characterized
as "random searches" for drunken drivers.

Where is the outrage? The message seems to be, "Let's not illegally seize
criminals' drugs, but woe to the individual who stops for a (legal) drink."
I am not making light of the very serious and very real problem of drinking
and driving. My guess, however, is that the average citizen would prefer
resources be better put to use in an attempt to rid the streets of drugs
than to extract revenue in the form of fines and court costs from the
person who stopped for a drink.

Citizens might be willing to trade a little personal liberty for the
possibility of taking a real criminal off the streets. Another case of
misguided righteous indignation.

Matt Korzeniowski

Tinley Park