100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 16, 1993 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1993-06-16

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

" TO " * A VIEWPOINT
\\N.

Wednesday, June 16,1993 - The IchVei DailySummer Weely-5
For the eyes of orientees only
For social egalitarians, orientation represents a flickering
lightin asky of darkness. Young men and women,Black and
white, JewishandMuslim,richand poor-allthrusttogether
for a few days, temporarily free from the burdens of an
oppressive society governed more by inheritance than merit.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. You're wondering if
I'm playing with a full deck. You're saying, "Wait a minute.
My orientation is more like being forced to watch the Repub-
licanNational Convention than some egalitarian Utopia.Just
when I started to have fun this summer, I get dragged off for
a weekend of weirdos telling me that sex without signing a
consensual agreement amounts to rape."
But allow me a moment to explain. From your current
perspective, orientation can be nothing but hell. Any amount
of excitement generated by collegiate freedom and new
friendsis quickly offsetby endless walking toursandhoursof
CRISP lectures.
Frommy worldly perspective, though(I'm asophomore),
orientation represented everything that could be right in the
world. As corny as it is, you're embarking on a new life.
You're about to enter aworld fullofintellectualfreedom, wild
weekends and endless opportunity. While most Americans
suffer fromalackofopportunity,alackofschooling and alack
of hope, you have the world in front of you. One of the most
prestigious academic institutions in the United States has
openeditsarms to you and whatyoudowiththatopening only
the future can tell.
So here's my advice to you: Don't waste the opportunity
orientation offers. Approach that guy making the noises with
his armpits, talk to that woman preaching about the inherent
evils of capitalism. Just don't think you're too cool for any
person in your group. Think of orientation as a cruise ship, in
whichyou'restuckforafewdayswithagroupofpeoplesome
alot like you and some totally different. You can either make
thebestofitor you can hibernate and call your friends at home
long distance. Who knows, the people you meet might just
surprise the hell out of you?
- Flint Jason Wainess

S,/C
a {

a Ii rY .

in + - o
and a, V Ii's4-0

VIWPIN

High Court takes next step in war'
By MARC SPINDELMAN suchextraordinary(asthey were consideredthen) by a police officer who is conducting a lawful
The U.S. Supreme Court last week handed powers over the livesof American citizens was to Terry frisk, and who "plainly feels" the contra-
down a decision in Minnesota v. Dickerson rec- keeppoliceoutofharm's way. It was thought that band during the pat down.
ognizing a new exception to the Fourth the rationale of Terry would extend no further If disheartening tosome, theresult washardly
Amendment'ssearchwarrantrequirement.Some than a frisky to see whether a suspect was in surprising. The court had already interpreted
will praise the ruling, suggesting that a police possession of a weapon which could be used to Terry to permit police to seize "nonthreatening
unencumbered by technical, constitutional re- harm the investigating officer. At very least, contraband"where such contraband was discov-
quirements will be better able to keep our streets Terry left unanswered the question of whether a ered during a Terry search because it was in
safe. Others will criticize it, claiming that it police officer, during the course of such a search, , "plainview"for the officer to see. As well,before
increasespolicepowerattheexpenseofcitizens' could also seize "nonthreatening contraband" thecasereachedtheSupremeCourt,"[m]oststate
constitutional rights. Anyone familiar with the (i.e., contraband other than a weapon), which he and federal courts ha[d] recognized a so-called
debate cannot but be surprised by the concurring detected during the search. The answer seemed 'plain feel' or 'plain touch' corollary to the plain-
opinion of the usually "conservative" Justice clearenoughatthetime Terrywashandeddown: view doctrine." Thus, by adopting the "plain
Antonin Scalia. Non-threatening contraband could not constitu- feel" doctrine, the Supreme Court moved, as

Background
The Fourth Amendment requires, with a few
exceptions,thatthepolicehaveprobablecause to
believe a search will produce evidence of crimi-
nal activity before seeking a search warrant and
that police seek and obtain a search warrant
before conducting any search. The Supreme
Courtestablishedoneofthefewexceptionstothe
Fourth Amendmentin a 1968 case called Terry v
Ohio, which struck at both parts of the Fourth
Amendment requirements. First, it established
thatapoliceofficermay stopanindividual("seize"
himorherinthetermsof theFourth Amendment)
with less than probable cause. All that was
required was that the officer have a reasonable
suspicion that the suspect was, or had been,
engaged in criminal activity. Second, Terry
authorized a police officer, during the stop, to
"conduct a patdown [sic] search 'to determine
whetherthepersonis...carrying aweapon."' Any
weapons found during such a search may consti-
tutionally be seized
At the time that Terry was decided, many
thought that the rationale for giving the police

tionally be seized during a Terry stop, since it
posed no direct and immediate danger to the life
of the officer.
After25 yearsof Terry stops and Terry frisks,
we have grown accustomed to the regular exer-
cise of police powers which once seemed quite
extraordinary. Weneed(we believe)to submit to
such "indignities" (Justice Scalia's term - see
below) because we must do so (we ironically
believe) in order to protect ourselves from the
indignities of being victimized by the criminals
who lurk around everycorner. (And maybe they
do.) We think thatif we are prepared to sacrifice
our constitutional rights we will better be able to
safeguard those which we retain. All in thehope
that ours will be a safer world. But thismay be a
mistake, especially if we have given up so much
that we no longer can remember all that we have
sacrificed.
The Supreme Court has provided (unani-
mouslynoless!)an answerinDickerson which to
those in 1968 would have seemed unthinkable.
Yet,noone seemseven tonotice. Last week, the
Supreme Court held that nonthreatening contra-
band, e.g., drugs, may constitutionally be seized

court observes predicted, to broaden the scopeoft
Fourth Amendment exceptions.
Dickerson was not,however, a foregone con-
clusion. A "plain feel"isnot necessarily (even if
itisnotimproperly)analogized toa"plain view."
When it made its ruling in the case, the Supreme
CourtofMinnesotaconsideredthe analogy inapt.
That court thought that the sense of touch is (1)
"...inherently less immediate and less reliable
than the sense of sight," and (2) "...far more
intrusive into the personal privacy that is at the
coreoftheFourth Amendment,"than thesenseof
sight. The Minnesota court, assessing whether a
"plain feel" were possible, wryly concluded:
"...theofficer'ssense oftouchmustcompare with
that of the fabled princess who couldn't sleep
when a pea was hidden beneath her pile of
mattresses...[A] close examination of the record
reveals that like the precocious princess, the
officer's "immediate" discovery in this case is
fiction, not fact."

on drugs
question - whether a "frisk" is or ought ever to
be constitutionally permissible. With the notable
exception of academic commentators, the foun-
dations of Terry have not been challenged. Not,
that is, until Justice Scalia's concurrence in
Dickerson. Using guarded prose, Justice Scalia
makes the veiled suggestion that the pat down
authorizedin Terry may be unconstitutionalafter
all. He writes, "There appears to be no clear
support at common law for physically searching
a [Terry-stop] suspect .... I frankly doubt, more-
over,whetherthe fiercelyproudmenwhoadopted
our Fourth Amendment would have allowed
themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of
being armed and dangerous, to such indignity [of
aphysicalsearch.]"(One wishes strongly that the
memory of the values for which these fiercely
strong men who were our Founding Fathers
fought - individual rights and liberties, human
dignity and kindness - would inform more of
the decisions of our nation's leaders, including
those of Justice Scalia.)
One should not too quickly conclude, how-
ever, that the suggestions of his Dickerson con-
currencemean that Justice Scaliahaschangedhis
approach to constitutional interpretation (which
approach is often rightly subject to much criti-
cism). His comments in Dickerson are made
quite cautiously and within his traditional inter-
pretative framework. They nonethelessdemon-
strate the finest of the justice's qualities: The
ability and courage to question and to challenge
whatothersaroundhimtake forgranted. Andfor
this, even Justice Scalia'smost vociferouscritics
must admit, he deserves our greatest respect.

The Fundamental Question
Since Terry was originally decided, some Spindelman is a law student. His column will
have been asking the even more fundamental appear every other week.

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan