On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:22:34 -0700, you wrote:

Wouldn't this requirement violate the probable cause requirement for seizures of a person which been defined by a series of cases, beginning with Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)?

steve

You are quite idealistic. Neither the Constitution nor case law matters. Neither constrains the behavior of law enforcement. http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n022002c.html "ACLU of CO Sues Federal and State Law Enforcement Agencies Over Illegal SWAT Raid on Family FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ednesday, February 20, 2002 DENVER--The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit today alleging that federal and state law enforcement agents violated the constitutional rights of a Pueblo family when they conducted an illegal SWAT-type raid on the family's home with no warrant or other legal authority. Once again, the war on drugs misses the target and instead scores a direct hit on the Constitution, said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. These government agents had no search warrant, no arrest warrant, and no lawful authority whatsoever. They carried out this armed home invasion in flagrant disregard of the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and arrests without probable cause. According to the ACLU lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Dan and Rosa Unis and their two college-aged sons, on August 19, 2000, the family was peacefully enjoying the privacy of their home when black-masked, black-helmeted men brandishing automatic weapons and wearing all-black uniforms with no insignias suddenly burst into the house unannounced, kicked the family's dog across the floor and ordered the entire family to "get on the fucking floor." " Don't forget to be patriotic.