PROBABLE CAUSE

I rarely comment on responses in Viewpoints to earlier letters I
submitted, but an exception is being made for the writing by Jeff
Peebles because he identifies himself as a police officer. My earlier
letter supported a decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to
dismiss drug evidence found in a stopped automobile, ruling the
arresting office did not have probable cause to hold a motorist until
a drug-sniffing dog could be brought to the scene.

For a layman, probable cause means a legal reason. It must be
supported by evidence admissible in court. It cannot be established by
a "gut feeling," "suspicion" or the "tic" of a peace officer. Such
body and mind reactions can be caused by deprived sleep or a hastily
eaten frankfurter sandwich. The court simply ruled an officer must
have a legal reason to search any vehicle when the owner or operator
objects.

No one respects peace officers more than I; each day their lives are
on line for our safety. I bow to Officer Peebles and thank him; he and
his fellow workers usually perform well and for meager compensation.
But that does not suggest the means (holding a motorist without
probable cause) by a fellow deputy sheriff in south Georgia justified
the results (finding drugs in the car) in this particular case. If the
court allowed our officers to indiscriminately search vehicles at
will, the seized contraband for this month would not fit into our city
auditorium.

And our constitutional right from unreasonable search and seizure
would be lost forever.

John G. Kelley Jr.

Macon