The Catch-22 of Freedom

A friend of mine was recently arrested. For what seems to me, to have been for no reason other than perhaps because it was a car full of male teenagers - presumably vagabonds and ruffians - a police officer decided to pull this group of teens over. They were pulled over for, again, no reason, and the officer proceeded to search their car with a fiery gaze. Without consent he reached outside of his view, without permission, and picked up a marijuana pipe stowed deeply within a seat pocket. The boys were all taken to the station.

I will preface my proceeding words with an introduction. I like the police, generally. I am a strong believer that the guilty should be punished and that our law enforcement officers can be trusted. However, I am also a strong believer in privacy, security, and personal liberties. I am afraid that the latter three must take precedence.
How can a country that is so absorbed with whether politicians in Washington are defending our rights be so lax when these privileges are taken away in our very communities. Certainly these boys were in the wrong, but there is a procedure to be followed in our justice system to bring that information to light through proper terminals. We can not turn a blind eye to injustice next door while scrutinizing under a microscope every action of our legislators.
Such a story brings to my mind a catch-22. In the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, the Air Force during World War II puts in place a policy called catch-22. The rule says that only the sane can fly into battle. They test sanity by asking the airmen whether they want to fly their bombers, if they don’t then they are sane (who would want to soar into an overwhelming likelihood of death?) and must fly the plane; however if they do want to fly into danger then they are insane and must stay grounded.

This is, in my opinion, comparable to the search and seizure laws in America. Police officers can search and seize with a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. The latter being the loosest of the excuses to search private property. If one allows the officer to search their property, then they can search that person’s belongings; however, if they decline then it demonstrates suspicious behavior that could be argued to qualify as reasonable suspicion - when coupled with any other minor indicators - and allow them access to your property.

Nonetheless, in our case of these young men, the officer did not even have the decency to ask. He took from others like a common thief without thought for the rights of others and without notifying them that he had probable cause, which it is unlikely he could have honestly claimed. Will the officer get away with this offense? Probably. Who’s to stand up to such monolithic institution of trustworthiness as the neighborhood cop? No one. Not a soul. These rights are violated and in all honesty will continue to be violated until such a time when reform is realized by a new, enlightened America. Freedoms can not be held by a double-standard. We must have them in Washington. We must have them here too.