From The Seattle Times website via http://www.drudgereport.com/ (http://www.drudgereport.com/)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009873854_medina16m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009873854_medina16m.html)
Sickening.
QuoteMedina City Councilmember Lucius Biglow said crime prevention "outweighs concern over privacy."
A 2005 city survey showed that nearly a half of Medina's residents agreed with the camera installation.
So... the reason the cameras were installed is that the U.S. Constitution was blatantly violated? And with more than half of the residents of the town NOT supporting it? Think I'll be staying out of that overpriced, underintelligent locale.
Roads are a public place, so nobody should have expectation of privacy. Regardless, the government has declared that anything within 100 miles of the coast or an international border to be a Constitution-free zone. It's unconstitutional to have a Constitution-free zone, but it's being done anyways.
I'm tempted to commit a crime there just so I can challenge that law
Quote from: corco on September 17, 2009, 05:35:59 PM
I'm tempted to commit a crime there just so I can challenge that law
Use your one phone call to report back to one of us.
Only if you'll post my bail
Better be a petty crime. Like changing lanes without signalling...