FBinNY 

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope. It implies that those who defend their rights must be guilty. Cop wants to search your trunk during a traffic stop, if you say no (which is your right) you must have some contraband in there. Cop wants to enter your home? only guilty people would say no.

I make it a point not to surrender right willy nilly, and urge all those interested in preserving those rights to defend them a every opportunity -- guilty of anything or not. I'm not saying don't cooperate with the police when it's appropriate, just don't waive rights without considering the implications.

Some years ago, I was stopped for speeding in "cocaine alley" on the New Jersey Turnpike. The officer took my info, then came back with a story about cocaine alley, and that many of the men they stopped were running drugs, and would I mind if he checked my trunk. I politely explained that I was sympathetic to stopping the flow of drugs, but wasn't willing to waive rights that folks fought and died for, but had a counter proposal --- double or nothing. I let him search the trunk, if he finds anything he gets a drug bust, if not, he lets me walk on the speeding.

He thought about this for about 1 minute, decided I was a wise guy, and didn't have anything to search for, and would just write the original speeding ticket. When he came back, he asked me if that line ever worked, and I told him he was the first time I tried so No. But one thing I've learned is that if you engage cops as humans they respond in kind, and he ended up writing me up for a much lower speed.

Side story aside, I understand that police must use some gray area tactics, but I don't have to like it, and prefer that they make cases without resorting to these methods. But most of all I hate the notion that only guilty people stand on their constitutional rights.