TAKING ISSUE WITH THE SUPREME COURT

Within "Supreme Court affirms agents' right to 'stop and search' "
(Jan. 16) is the coverage of a ruling by the Supreme Court that a
city can regulate protest if the process is neutral. No matter how
fair regulation is, it inhibits free speech by the mere insistence
that the protesters must submit to regulation and the concomitant
time delays. A neutral process could take days or months and supplies
incumbents with a process they can manipulate beneath the cloak of
"plausible deniability." Moreover, even the delays of an
unmanipulated permitting process would choke off any significant,
extemporaneous demonstrations. Dissent is often in immediate response
to a stimulus, and to be effective should be close in time to the
stimulus.

Robert Honea
Redwood City, Calif.

The Supreme Court's decision that, in policing the drug war, cops can
stop drivers for such vague and common behavior as slowing down when
they see a police car, not making eye contact, or letting one's child
wave at a police car, ought to be a siren call to all Americans that
the war on drugs is having a devastating impact on the rights and
freedoms of everyone - not just drug users.

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches was
once a strong and respected constitutional right. Unfortunately, for
all Americans, the Fourth Amendment is now all but a fairy tale, a
historical remnant of the time before politicians and Supreme Court
justices declared a war on drugs and set out on a slash-and-burn
campaign without limits.

Richard Glen Boire
Davis, Calif.