Yes, I have to admit I do see the situation of disregard for constitutional rights by a governmental agency as 99% black and barely 1% grey. This could be from my past experiences or from my background as a hipppie. I will agree that there are times when a legitimate (strong emphasis on the word legitimate) emergency situation warrants the temporary suspension of some rights. The example of the muffled cries coming from the trunk is an excellant one. Yes, by all means, see what's in the trunk. However, if you think you can then employ the same "emergency" as an excuse to do a warrantless search of the person's home, business, locker at the health club, etc. you are very much out of line. I personally believe that it is a very rare instance where a true emergency exists that will not allow for the time needed to go through proper channels. Emergency measures is a very abused excuse and should always be questioned. If time exists to follow the proper steps then they should be followed. If there is actually a situation where there is an emergency situation then the person should be made to explain the need for such drastic actions afterward and be held accountable if the reasoning is faulty. Let's make emergency measures, like violence, something to be used only when there is no other choice and not a power trip. I actually sat in a trial where a director of public health tried to invoke a section of city ordinance which gave public health emergency powers to make new temporary rules to stop the spread of "dangerous sexually transmitted diseases". His argument was that, while rabies was not a sexually transmitted disease, he felt that the intent of the ordinance was to allow public health broad emergency authority in ANY dnagerous disease. The judge disagreed. And the attorney had a field day making comments about sexually transmitted rabies, the bite victim having sex with the ferret, and how nipping was considered having sex. The problem is that too many people in positions of authority in the public health community (not you Jeff) take themselves and their mission far too seriously and tend to believe that anything they do is justified because they are the guardians of the public health I have always subscribed to the adage, "Never attribute to malice any act which can easily be explained by stupidity". I never assume someone in public health to be evil until their actions prove them so. I always start from the assumption that they are ill-informed. However, I find that, more often than not, these people have minds like steel traps, ready to snap shut at any time. They treat any attempt to correct them as a threat to thier authority, therefore a threat to their ability to protect the public health ( a little over zealous). I firmly stand by my position that any public health official who abuses their emergency authority by invoking it in non-emergency situations should be held accountable financially as well as through disciplinary channels. I guess that makes me a hard-ass but I've been through it far too many times (0ver 200 in the last 12 years). [Posted in FML issue 1719]