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.

[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.

[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?

[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/headline...r-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.
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".