Since the other post was locked, I will respond to Tim here. Let me point out a couple of problems with your theory on PC and cops. You argue that officers should not have the ability to conduct PC searches in the field absent a search warrant. Let me give you a little background on what it takes to get the point where an officer has you stopped in the middle of the night. A person submits an application to their agency of choice. An exhaustive background check is conducted along with an extensive testing process that includes psychological testing, lie detectors, interviews, oral boards, physical agility, etc. Of the many who apply, a small percentage qualifies and is chosen. Many of the agencies require a minimum of two years of college. Many applicants have a four-year degree, or even a Masters. Those hirees then attend a police academy that runs anywhere from 6-8 months. In that academy, they receive intensive courses in search and seizure, drug recognition, evidence collection, civil liability and civil rights, interview techniques, case law, etc. They are tested on a regular basis. Fail once, you retest. Fail again you are fired. After a percentage of them are weeded out, and the rest graduate, they go on to their agencies field training program. This field training program runs anywhere from 5-8 months. Regular evaluations of their performance are done, sometimes daily for some agencies. They now take that academy training and have to apply it in the real world. They wear the uniform, badge, gun, and are a full time sworn officer. They make arrests, go to court, and write reports. But, they are constantly evaluated for retention, or termination. They are on probation for 12-18 months. Another percentage is weeded out and eventually these officers are released from the training program. They are generally still on probation, and under scrutiny. Now these officers continue to make arrests, write tickets, and go to court. In court during their career, they go through a process called voir dire. It is a court recognized process where they can be sworn in as recognized experts in a skill. Officers are routinely sworn in as experts in drug recognition, evidence collection, organized crime or gang recognition, and a whole variety of skills that officers use in their jobs. Many officers go on to teach at police academies, citizen police academies, colleges, or write books on these subjects. Some are nationally recognized for their expertise. Most officers continue their training throughout their careers. They go to yearly law updates, keep current on criminal trends, and take regular tests for career advancement. Some officers even get a law degree and practice law on the side. How is it then that the courts, and the vast majority of society, are willing to recognize an officers expertise in court for almost every possible area of criminal investigations, but they are supposed to mistrust an officers understanding of search and seizure? How is it that the courts and society can tell an officer that they can be a drug recognition expert in the field and make arrests based upon that expertise, but they cannot search unless they wake up a judge? How is that an officer can be given a gun, trained thoroughly in the technical use of the gun, the liability of using deadly force, and then sent on the streets to make life and death decisions, but not trusted to know what PC to search your car? The erroneous points you made in your other post are so numerous that I cannot even begin to address them individually unless you really want me to, and the post is not locked. I recommend that you do go and study law. When you do, you may keep your libertarian viewpoints, but you will find that your law arguments are way off base. Just a bit of personal advice too. I know I am banging my head against the wall arguing with you. In my twenties, I knew everything too. But, there are more than a few people on this board that have a slight bit more knowledge than you in some areas. There are rookie cops, veteran cops, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others here who have a tad bit more knowledge and experience than you have gained in your short lifetime. I recommend you keep an open mind because you come across as already knowing everything there is to know about Chevy's, the law, and the police. I am twice your age, and I learn something new every day. I have been recognized as an expert in a variety of fields in my life, but I still maintain a sharp learning curve every chance I get. You also need to realize that your threats to sue officers are a tired old drum that has been beaten to the point of being ignored. How many times to you think an officer hears that a day? How many times do you think a person prevails in court against an officer criminally and civilly? You might want to look into corporate, personal injury, or real estate law instead. Some criminal defense attorneys make a decent living, some do not. All sell their souls for the buck. But, those that try and make a living suing cops are usually wearing hand me down suits and doing mostly pro bono work. Good luck.