The right to dissent is the only thing that makes life tolerable for a judge of an appellate court... the affairs of government could not be conducte… - William O. Douglas

One who comes to the Court must come to adore, not to protest. That's the new gloss on the First Amendment, Potter.

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.

[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (dissenting)]