"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote

Can a policeman search you without a court
order?

Under certain circumstances, yes.

But still, there needs to be at least a nod to "probable cause."

If you watch "Cops" or other "reality" cop procedurals, you'll notice that
police routinely *ask permission* to search a car. If a suspect refuses
permission to search a car, that has come to be accepted as probable cause.
As a practical matter, that usually means they call in a canine unite and if
the dog indicates the presence of contraband, probable cause is established.

Most people, if they have nothing in their vehicles, give permission. Most
people agree to have their vehicle searched on the spot, rather than wait an
hour or two for the canine unite to arrive...or 12 hours or so for a warrant
to be applied for and served.

So your original question has been answered.

What is it about modern "conservatives" who think all the answers of the
universe fit on a bumper sticker?

Fact is, the government (*this* government, especially) is incrementally
trying every day to erode your personal rights to privacy. Cops consider
every suspect guilty until proven innocent; its the nature of the game. They
know the nuances of court rulings and constitutional rights better than
civilians. They know they can lie, intimidate, "ask permission" to search,
deny you access to legal counsel...in ways that they can slip though loopholes
unless the -- rare -- individual stands up for his or her rights.

What police cannot do is show up at your house or simply stop you on the
street and search you or even your car.

Are you searched before you board an airplane without a court order?

Yep. But you don't have to be if you don't want to.

Getting on an airplane is a voluntary act.

Again, read the fine print on your ticket or flight summary. Buried in all
that legal mumbo-jumbo about the Helsinki Convention that tells you how much
an airline owes you if they lose your luggage is arcane, but legally specific,
language in which the passenger consents to security procedures.

Is making a phone call mandatory or voluntary?

As a rule, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But see where this one is
going. The technology exists for just about anyone to listen in on anyone
else's phone calls and private conversations, read their mail, e-mail,
newsgroup posts, etc. Certain of these communications are not bestowed with
an expectation of privacy. Wiretaps, bugging, intercepting mail -- all are
too easy to do, so the courts have determined that any information that comes
to law enforcement must be authorized by a court order; otherwise that
information cannot be used in a court of law.

Under the guise of "fighting terrorism" the Shrub Administration has decided
they can eavesdrop on anyone because they have the right to incarcerate anyone
without bothering with a court of law, legal counsel, trial by jury, habeas
corpus. In December, George WMD Bush said NSA was listening *only* to
"international calls to and from terrorists" without obtaining a FISA court
order. Turns out they're monitoring "hundred of millions" of *domestic*
calls, too. There are plenty of Bush Cultists who post to this forum who
bandy about words like "traitor" and "terrorist" to anyone who disagrees with
the administration... indeed, anyone who makes fun of the Bushies (Stephen
Colbert, for example). Is it that hard to imagine a future administration
that might consider, say, anti-abortion activists in league with
clinic-bombers and doctor-shooters and, by association, domestic terrorists?

If Bush succeeds in negating your 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment rights,
some future administration will find wiping out your 2nd Amendment "rights" to
be a piece of cake.