The Fourth Amendment

[ConHog]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


Another Amendment that people sometimes incorrectly cite.

For example, if you CHOOSE to fly, you have lost all reasonable expectations of privacy; so claims that the TSA searches are unconstitutional are invalid.

[Mr. P]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


Another Amendment that people sometimes incorrectly cite.

For example, if you CHOOSE to fly, you have lost all reasonable expectations of privacy; so claims that the TSA searches are unconstitutional are invalid.

So, you're saying the TSA has "probable" cause AND a valid warrant? And are an arm of the criminal justice system?

[ConHog]

So, you're saying the TSA has "probable" cause AND a valid warrant? And are an arm of the criminal justice system?

I'm saying that walking into an airport is the equivalent of telling a LEO who has pulled you over for speeding that you consent to his searching your person and vehicle.

See you are showing a prime example of what I am talking about, A LEO doesn't have to have probable cause if you give permission.

[Mr. P]

I'm saying that walking into an airport is the equivalent of telling a LEO who has pulled you over for speeding that you consent to his searching your person and vehicle.

See you are showing a prime example of what I am talking about, A LEO doesn't have to have probable cause if you give permission.

I'm not showing any such example. I asked a question. You clarified. Now are you saying TSA is LEO?

[ConHog]

I'm not showing any such example. I asked a question. You clarified. Now are you saying TSA is LEO?


For intent and purpose, yes. Same as say Game and Fish, or Coast Guard, or Secret Service, or what have you

[Mr. P]

For intent and purpose, yes. Same as say Game and Fish, or Coast Guard, or Secret Service, or what have you

Game an Fish are LEOs as well a SS. Coasties are DOD.

[ConHog]

Game an Fish are LEOs as well a SS. Coasties are DOD.

Coasties have LEO authority. SS is treasury department, as are IRS agents who have arresting authority.

Now of course that opens up another thread of how many freaking federal policing agencies do we need.........


But in actuality , unless things have changed since the last time I looked , TSA agents have no arresting powers, BUT there searches and such are conducted as agents of the local police. If an arrest need be made though the local police make said arrest. I won't swear that is still right, but I think it is.

[Nell's Room]

I believe that if a person chooses to fly, they have the right not to be treated like a criminal. It is shameful that Americans cannot get on a plane without being groped first. They are not criminals, so stop treating them like criminals!

[DragonStryk72]

I'm saying that walking into an airport is the equivalent of telling a LEO who has pulled you over for speeding that you consent to his searching your person and vehicle.

See you are showing a prime example of what I am talking about, A LEO doesn't have to have probable cause if you give permission.

So what you are saying is: People who are performing a completely legal act in a legal manner, and who have not been pulled over for any violation at all, are criminals?

[ConHog]

I believe that if a person chooses to fly, they have the right not to be treated like a criminal. It is shameful that Americans cannot get on a plane without being groped first. They are not criminals, so stop treating them like criminals!


So what you are saying is: People who are performing a completely legal act in a legal manner, and who have not been pulled over for any violation at all, are criminals?



No, there is a VAST difference between a search and treating someone like a criminal. I get searched when I go to UA football games, it's pretty low key and I don't feel like a criminal at all. Just as an example.

To be fair, I've also flown many times post 9/11 and never felt like a criminal either, but I acknowledge that some of the searches aren't performed correctly.

[avatar4321]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


Another Amendment that people sometimes incorrectly cite.

For example, if you CHOOSE to fly, you have lost all reasonable expectations of privacy; so claims that the TSA searches are unconstitutional are invalid.

As much as I despite the TSA, I think you have a valid point.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. It doesn't say anything about reasonable search and seizure. And it can be argued that it's reasonable to be searched for protection. Im not entirely sure I like that. But if we are going by the letter of the law...

[ConHog]

I
As much as I despite the TSA, I think you have a valid point.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. It doesn't say anything about reasonable search and seizure. And it can be argued that it's reasonable to be searched for protection. Im not entirely sure I like that. But if we are going by the letter of the law...

I dont know about you but thats exactly what i want, a government that follows the letter of the law. They cant be trusted to use judgement

[logroller]

I

I dont know about you but thats exactly what i want, a government that follows the letter of the law. They cant be trusted to use judgement

Indeed, but discretion can take a foul turn even under the letter of the law. For example, stop and ID laws. Clearly unconstitutional ImHO. Walking down the sidewalk, I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I was stopped b/c the guy i was with fit the descripion of some burglar; not committed that night or anything, excluding therefor exigent circumstance claims. Giving my name I don't think is unreasonable, but once I was required to scan my thumb into a biometric device-- even after I'd presented ID; pretty clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, if I consent then no; but I told him no and was then ordered to. Of course, I've no warrants and had committed no crime, so "nothin to hide" applies-- but it was a violation nonetheless. What's my recourse though; if I were arrested, then I could claim false arrest; but I'm quite sure had stood my ground I'd have been detained until they could 'verify my identity' or some such-- which could be days realistically. I understand LEO have a job to do, and I don't want to impede their duties--i do benefit from their service--but if walking home from a buddy's house after drinking is reasonably suspicious, and waiving my right to privacy is deemed prudent to assuage their suspicion, there's clearly an issue with their investigation methods.

[DragonStryk72]

As much as I despite the TSA, I think you have a valid point.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. It doesn't say anything about reasonable search and seizure. And it can be argued that it's reasonable to be searched for protection. Im not entirely sure I like that. But if we are going by the letter of the law...

But we already had searches before 9/11. It wasn't caused by a lack of security in the airport, it was caused by the removal of federal marshals from the planes, making them an undefended location. One man with a gun would have ended the threat of terrorists with tiny little knives. But, hey why stop at correcting the breach, when we can radically shift airport security and violate random people?

Let's also bear in mind that the searches we're talking about are specifically at random, and essentially strip searches (You know, like we do to prisoners?), not because they match a description, were acting suspicious or anything else, but because they're, say, the 23rd person in line. That is not reasonable, and certainly not to the level of the naked body scanners that went into use. It's also patently useless for its proposed purpose, since it only detracts from more directed methods of security.

[ConHog]

But we already had searches before 9/11. It wasn't caused by a lack of security in the airport, it was caused by the removal of federal marshals from the planes, making them an undefended location. One man with a gun would have ended the threat of terrorists with tiny little knives. But, hey why stop at correcting the breach, when we can radically shift airport security and violate random people?

Let's also bear in mind that the searches we're talking about are specifically at random, and essentially strip searches (You know, like we do to prisoners?), not because they match a description, were acting suspicious or anything else, but because they're, say, the 23rd person in line. That is not reasonable, and certainly not to the level of the naked body scanners that went into use. It's also patently useless for its proposed purpose, since it only detracts from more directed methods of security.

You are wrong on so many levels here, but one I would like to address is THIS.

I'm sure the TSA would LOVE to use the time honored tactic of profiling criminals, but nope little libbies won't let that happen, and so the searches have to be random instead.

PS - A person can entirely avoid the "strip searches" by walking through the damn x ray machine.

[revelarts]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Jun 4, 2012 8:20pm

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31148237/detail.html).
From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.
“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”
The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual response.
“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this,” Fania said. “The result of the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a suspect.”
The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.




borderline case or did they cross the line?

does the ends justify the means in this case? ... sometimes ? always?
do we toss the 4th and the constitution in crapper when things are difficult
or do we just reinterpret it to mean what we want it to mean TODAY?
And give the gov't the benny of the doubt and the citizen scorn and a crack on the jaw if they don't "cooperate".

[logroller]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Jun 4, 2012 8:20pm

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber





borderline case or did they cross the line?

does the ends justify the means in this case? ... sometimes ? always?
do we toss the 4th and the constitution in crapper when things are difficult
or do we just reinterpret it to mean what we want it to mean TODAY?
And give the gov't the benny of the doubt and the citizen scorn and a crack on the jaw if they don't "cooperate".
In this situation, absent any description of the subject, it certainly doesn't meet the bar for a warranted search, but FWiW, they were asked to consent. Speculation as to whether they would have been 'cracked in the jaw' had they refused is a bit over dramatic IMHO, but certainly some intimidation wouldnt be beyond the realm of possibility. A bank robbery, assuming it had occurred recently, minutes/hours (not days), could meet the standard for exigent circumstance. But again, "all consented"; so we can only speculate on what would have happened.

[ConHog]

In this situation, absent any description of the subject, it certainly doesn't meet the bar for a warranted search, but FWiW, they were asked to consent. Speculation as to whether they would have been 'cracked in the jaw' had they refused is a bit over dramatic IMHO, but certainly some intimidation wouldnt be beyond the realm of possibility. A bank robbery, assuming it had occurred recently, minutes/hours (not days), could meet the standard for exigent circumstance. But again, "all consented"; so we can only speculate on what would have happened.

Well, we all know Rev is going to assume the worst about the gov't.

As for me, I'm conflicted. Certainly an armed bank robber needed to be apprehended, but I'm not sure that it was necessary to handcuff every person who was on the road at that time to do so.

I think I offer a unique perspective , on here anyway, when I say that I've seen how traumatic children can see it when their parents are put in hand cuffs for ANY reason, little kids don't understand things like "Mommy didn't do anything wrong, we're just looking for a bank robber" I mean it's one thing when a person has been speeding or what have you and gets put in cuffs for whatever reason, for the officer's safety. That is their own fault for putting themselves in that situation. But all but one of these people did nothing to put themselves in that situation.

There has to be a better way. Oh, wait there is. red light cameras, but some of you don't like those either.
'

[revelarts]

....As for me, I'm conflicted. Certainly an armed bank robber needed to be apprehended, but I'm not sure that it was necessary to handcuff every person who was on the road at that time to do so.

I think I offer a unique perspective , on here anyway, when I say that I've seen how traumatic children can see it when their parents are put in hand cuffs for ANY reason, little kids don't understand things like "Mommy didn't do anything wrong, we're just looking for a bank robber" I mean it's one thing when a person has been speeding or what have you and gets put in cuffs for whatever reason, for the officer's safety. That is their own fault for putting themselves in that situation. But all but one of these people did nothing to put themselves in that situation.

There has to be a better way. ......
'

I agree with all of that Con.

I think it's a tough call.
Handcuffs were probably unnecessary though.
At least in this case the police Did, as Log mention, Ask to search. And they had some bit of real probably cause to detain the people (unlike the TSA).

But handcuff everyone , for what?

[ConHog]

I agree with all of that Con.

I think it's a tough call.
Handcuffs were probably unnecessary though.
At least in this case the police Did, as Log mention, Ask to search. And they had some bit of real probably cause to detain the people (unlike the TSA).

But handcuff everyone , for what?

Again , let me interject a little of my perspective based on my experiences.

On one raid I participated in, we went in early because the main guy the drug task force wanted was in the midst of beating the shit out of his old lady when we got to the house. We went in and everyone was put in cuffs except the little woman who was being beaten on. As I was helping hold the guy who was beating her down she clocked me in the back of the head with a ceramic crock pot. The officer who was supposed to cuff her didn't follow procedure and I got to get stitches because of it.

Was this woman some violent offender? No, but people sometimes panic and do dumb things when confronted by men with guns , even when those men (and women) have badges. So for safety sakes, EVERYONE goes into cuffs. And that's for the safety of them , LEOs and any innocents around.

So once stopped, yes I can see why everyone was put in cuffs. I just don't think they needed to detain EVERYONE to begin with.


How do you feel about red light cameras?

[revelarts]

Again , let me interject a little of my perspective based on my experiences.

On one raid I participated in, we went in early because the main guy the drug task force wanted was in the midst of beating the shit out of his old lady when we got to the house. We went in and everyone was put in cuffs except the little woman who was being beaten on. As I was helping hold the guy who was beating her down she clocked me in the back of the head with a ceramic crock pot. The officer who was supposed to cuff her didn't follow procedure and I got to get stitches because of it.

Was this woman some violent offender? No, but people sometimes panic and do dumb things when confronted by men with guns , even when those men (and women) have badges. So for safety sakes, EVERYONE goes into cuffs. And that's for the safety of them , LEOs and any innocents around.

So once stopped, yes I can see why everyone was put in cuffs. I just don't think they needed to detain EVERYONE to begin with.

so a drug house with violent people and a random group of folks at intersecting are the same?
sorry I'm not there, you'll need more than that to convince me that everyone needed to be cuffed in the middle of the street, for the cop's or "their own" safety, sorry.





How do you feel about red light cameras?

let's see.

How about Cameras recording everything the LEOs and elected politicians do all day long for 10-20 years... posted live and recorded online. We see how that goes then we might try it on the unruly citizens.

[ConHog]

so a drug house with violent people and a random group of folks at intersecting are the same?
sorry I'm not there, you'll need more than that to convince me that everyone needed to be cuffed in the middle of the street, for the cop's or "their own" safety, sorry.



let's see.

How about Cameras recording everything the LEOs and elected politicians do all day long for 10-20 years... posted live and recorded online. We see how that goes then we might try it on the unruly citizens.

I am 100% pro LEOs being filmed while on duty. In arkansas a LEO can be terminated for failing to activate his dash cam when making a stop or for failing to turn on his shoulder cam when using either a tazer or drawing his service weapon. I wish all LEOs were under such scrutiny.

I am NOT however a fan of allowing random passerby cameras film LEOs. Now if the person being detained wants to film. Absolutely he/she should be able to do so. Including "wait officer let me turn my camera on before you begin" if the person being detained feels the need.

[Mr. P]

I agree with all of that Con.

I think it's a tough call.
Handcuffs were probably unnecessary though.
At least in this case the police Did, as Log mention, Ask to search. And they had some bit of real probably cause to detain the people (unlike the TSA).

But handcuff everyone , for what?

Well, just a wild ass guess but it was an 'armed robbery'. I gotta assume they had guns. So, in this situation what's the best way to prevent their use...cuff em all while you sort it out IMO.

Damn, I was right: “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.” Now the question is...if able would the perp have used them, perhaps killing some innocent folk/s in an effort to avoid arrest? We'll never know and IMO that's a good thing.

[Kathianne]

I

I dont know about you but thats exactly what i want, a government that follows the letter of the law. They cant be trusted to use judgement

So you are in favor of the police having no discretionary powers?

[Kathianne]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Jun 4, 2012 8:20pm

Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber





borderline case or did they cross the line?

does the ends justify the means in this case? ... sometimes ? always?
do we toss the 4th and the constitution in crapper when things are difficult
or do we just reinterpret it to mean what we want it to mean TODAY?
And give the gov't the benny of the doubt and the citizen scorn and a crack on the jaw if they don't "cooperate".

I can go along with this. The circumstances warranted it.

[Kathianne]

I am 100% pro LEOs being filmed while on duty. In arkansas a LEO can be terminated for failing to activate his dash cam when making a stop or for failing to turn on his shoulder cam when using either a tazer or drawing his service weapon. I wish all LEOs were under such scrutiny.

I am NOT however a fan of allowing random passerby cameras film LEOs. Now if the person being detained wants to film. Absolutely he/she should be able to do so. Including "wait officer let me turn my camera on before you begin" if the person being detained feels the need.

I agree that police should have both audio and video recordings to protect themselves as well as the public.

The right to video police is coming:

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/08/first-circuit-court-upholds-right-to-record-public-police-action.php


Sunday, August 28, 2011
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif http://jurist.org/images/s.gif
First Circuit upholds right to record public police action
Aman Kakar at 2:55 PM ET
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif

<tbody>
http://jurist.org/topstoryphoto/frontfederalcourtruling.jpg
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/images/s.gif

</tbody>
[JURIST] The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/) [official website] Friday ruled (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A) [opinion, PDF] that there is a clearly-established First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment) [Cornell LII backgrounder] right to film police officers performing their duties in a public space. The case stems from a 2007 incident, when police officers arrested Simon Gilk after he openly recorded three police officers arresting a suspect on the Boston Common. Circuit Judge Kermit Lipez, speaking for the unanimous three-judge panel, rejected the officers claim that they had qualified immunity since the law regarding recordings of police action is not well-settled. The opinion recognized that the undoubted right to gather news from any source, by means within the law, is an important corollary to the First Amendment saying:
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. ... The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs. Lipez cited well established case law and stressed that the right to gather news is not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media but also extends to a private individual. The Court recognized that the right to record is not without limitations and is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Center for Constitutional Rights (http://ccrjustice.org/) [advocacy website] filed an amicus brief (http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR%20Amicus%20Brief_0.pdf) [PDF] arguing that concerned individuals and Copwatch groups have a right to record the activity of police in the public. The police officers arrested Gilk and charged him with violating of the wiretap statute, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. The Commonwealth dropped the last charge recognizing that they did not have probable cause. The other two charges against Gilk were also dismissed by a Boston Municipal Court. In February 2010, Gilk filed a complaint under 42 USC § 1983 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.shtml) [text] for violation of Gilk's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers appealed to the First Circuit court after the district court denied the officers motion to dismiss the case because the officers had qualified immunity.




The IL legislature in their ever infinite wisdom has passed a law saying it's illegal to record audibly, thus ok for visual recordings. :rolleyes:

[DragonStryk72]

You are wrong on so many levels here, but one I would like to address is THIS.

I'm sure the TSA would LOVE to use the time honored tactic of profiling criminals, but nope little libbies won't let that happen, and so the searches have to be random instead.

PS - A person can entirely avoid the "strip searches" by walking through the damn x ray machine.

Unless they get pulled from the line, and need I remind you, CHOOSING to leave the airport rather than be violated is not allowed? And again, why is it reasonable to search people completely at random? It isn't, and thus, it's violates the Fourth Amendment. The entire point was to keep government from turning the entirety of the citizenry into suspects.

Why does the TSA, which is a safety organization (Transit SAFETY Authority), NOT Law enforcement or even Security, get to conduct these searches?

[ConHog]

Unless they get pulled from the line, and need I remind you, CHOOSING to leave the airport rather than be violated is not allowed? And again, why is it reasonable to search people completely at random? It isn't, and thus, it's violates the Fourth Amendment. The entire point was to keep government from turning the entirety of the citizenry into suspects.

Why does the TSA, which is a safety organization (Transit SAFETY Authority), NOT Law enforcement or even Security, get to conduct these searches?

You need to read the fourth in its entirety. UNREASONABLE searches, it's reasonable to expect that you might searched at an airport so hence the fourth isn't violated by said searches.

By the way if your argument is that the TSA isn't even an authorized LE agency, then they aren't bound by the fourth anyway.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, just a wild ass guess but it was an 'armed robbery'. I gotta assume they had guns. So, in this situation what's the best way to prevent their use...cuff em all while you sort it out IMO.

Damn, I was right: “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.” Now the question is...if able would the perp have used them, perhaps killing some innocent folk/s in an effort to avoid arrest? We'll never know and IMO that's a good thing.

Um... no, they wouldn't have? If they had intended to use the firearms, wouldn't they have kept them? Seems to me that I still need to be holding the gun in order to aim and fire it. As far as I know, regular firearms still require that for effectiveness.

[Mr. P]

Um... no, they wouldn't have? If they had intended to use the firearms, wouldn't they have kept them? Seems to me that I still need to be holding the gun in order to aim and fire it. As far as I know, regular firearms still require that for effectiveness.

The story says two firearms were found in the car loaded, right? Close enough to use IMO IF the perps hadn't been cuffed. No?
Like I said, we'll never know.