Tim May wrote:

...

...

This was an actual case, heard by the Supreme Court several years back. Bus passengers were given the opportunity to volunteer, as noted. Failure to volunteer was construed as probable cause that contraband was present.

(No, I don't know the name of the case. My recollection is that it took place in Florida or one of the Carolinas. Nor do I recollect how the Supremes decided the case...

This sounds like _Florida v. Bostick_, 501 U.S. 429 (1991), on the web at <http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=501&invol =429>.

Bill Stewart's summary of the case looked like a good one to me. [...]

One strategy I've considered is to never, never, ever admit that I don't know something, as this will forestall the corrections, expansions, clarifications, and citings.

One of the things that is - or can be - useful about a cross-disciplinary list like cpunks is that it's possible to read messages written by people who appear to have knowledge about other unfamiliar-to-the-reader fields, and have some confidence that the author isn't completely screwing up what they're writing about, because other list members are likely to speak up and say "Hey, you're not really getting that right..". I provided a case cite and agreed with Bill Stewart's reframing of the issues in the _Bostick_ case not because I imagined that it was especially interesting to you (Tim), but because I think we all lose out when bad information (like, for example, the idea that _Bostick_ is about probable cause, or that it held that failure to volunteer constitutes probable cause) is circulated, especially by people who are otherwise credible authors/speakers. A more useful way to avoid corrections/citations/clarifications might be simply getting the details correct in the first place. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.