BEYOND DWB ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND DRUG-WAR ISSUES

Does Fourth Amendment apply in this case?

Re Roger Chesley's Nov. 13 column, "State trooper's ESP had a strong
dose of DWB":

Like Mr. Chesley, I was also impressed by Trooper C.S. Wade's
cognitive abilities. Still, it appears that Ronald Foreman gave
Trooper Wade probable cause to stop him for exceeding the speed limit.

Once Mr. Foreman was stopped, it became just a matter of time before
Trooper Wade asked about searching his car. After all, that is what he
does as a member of the drug interdiction squad. However, Mr. Foreman
had a right to refuse and he was free to go.

What is troubling to me was not how this traffic stop came about but
how Mr. Foreman was detained and compelled to submit his car to a
search by a drug-sniffing dog.

Does this search fall under the Fourth Amendment's protection from
unreasonable search and seizure? The Supreme Court has on its docket
this year a case that hopefully will answer the question.

Clearly, everything else is irrelevant -- the race of the driver, air
fresheners in the window, where the hands are on a steering wheel.

I am not optimistic that the Supreme Court will come down on the side
of the public, since the court has significantly expanded the power of
the police to exercise their authority when they encounter the public,
especially in motor vehicles.

Therefore, the real issue before us is not about the subjective issues
in Mr. Chesley's column but the underlying constitutional issue of how
we interpret the Fourth Amendment, as it applies to the police.

Elek J. Szkalak

Virginia Beach