The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[Bill O'Olberman]

Also, let's not forget the theme of this thread - which is the erosion of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and seizure, by laws and policies such as check points, cell phone restriction laws, search and seizure conditions of probation regardless of the triggering offense, etc.

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen don't work on me anymore, you collectivist authoritarian dickweed.

There is no misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen...you won't answer for one reason...because you can't say you would defend polluting your property as my individual right.

Jebus H Rice... You just don't get it. When discussing the 4th Amendment, and then to go off with the equivalent of demanding to know the airspeed velocity of an unladen Swallow, African OR European, you are not engaging in debate, but distraction. To ignore the question is not only polite but the intelligent thing to do. No matter how many graphs, sources and quotes you find about whether a swallow is unladen or burdened by a coconut is irrelevant.

The graphs and charts show that the air speed of a 'police state' is about to break the sound barrier. So it IS relevant.

The fact that America incarcerates more human being per 100,000 citizens than Russia or China SHOULD make you look up in the sky to see that coconut heading our way. Plus I have a cranium, you only have a pea...so beware...

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, let's not forget the theme of this thread - which is the erosion of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and seizure, by laws and policies such as check points, cell phone restriction laws, search and seizure conditions of probation regardless of the triggering offense, etc.

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

I tend to agree with this. When we all have to share the roadways and highways, it is in the public interest to make that as safe as can reasonably be accomplished. So I don't have any problem with requring drivers licenses, speed limits or traffic controls or laws re driving impaired or laws requiring attention to one's driving such as restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Such laws keep us from unreasonably endangering others.

And those laws have to be enforced in order to be effective and check points are one way of enforcement.

I know its an old saw and all, but when they are used appropriately and professionally by law enforcement, those who aren't breaking any laws have no reason to fear them whatsoever. They actually secure rights, so what's the problem?

 

[George Costanza]

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

Yes, they are. But they are court sanctified exceptions to the 4th Amendment. In other words, the courts say, "we recognize that check points are violations of the 4th Amendment. However, since they involve a minimal intrusion into the privacy of the individual and since they serve a justifiable purpose, we are going to allow them anyway and make an exception in the case of checkpoints." I am paraphrasing here, obviously, but that is basically the position which the courts have taken.

Do I agree with it? Nope.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

You are missing my point here. Yes - the officer has to observe the violation. But that doesn't mean that cell phone laws are not within the ambit of the OP. Cell phone laws are but another inroad into allowing police to stop vehicles. And once a vehicle is stopped, the search usually begins. Granted, they can't stop you for a cell phone violation and then just order you to open your trunk. But they can ask you if you have anything illegal in the car - something they could not do if they could not have stopped you in the first place. And when you say no, they can then ask if you would have any objection to their searching the car. Sadly, most people will say OK, and thus begins the "consensual search" of the vehicle.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

You are begging the question here. Using this line of logic, they could require you to undergo forty lashes in the public sqaure as a "condition of probation" and that would be OK by you, right? "If you don't like it, then go to jail instead."

The issue is not whether a person would prefer jail to probation. The issue is whether it is legal to impose a search and seizure condition to probation where such a condition is not reasonably related to the crime committed. The law never used to allow such. Now it does. All part of a slilppery slope into unlimited police power in the area of search and seizure, i.e., the not so gradual erosion of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

George, if a person is in his own driveway or driving his own private road, I would agree 100% with you.

But did the 4th Amendment intend to give license to people to endanger others? To prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law?

Once we enter a public highway, we are putting ourselves and others at personal risk. I can't see that the 4th Amendment is license to do whatever we wish wherever we wish on public property without restriction. So, I'm not seeing that the intent of the 4th Amendment is violated if somebody commits one crime that results in discovery of another crime. If no crime is committed, then yes, no 'search' should be acceptable. That would be true at checkpoints too.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

Also, let's not forget the theme of this thread - which is the erosion of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and seizure, by laws and policies such as check points, cell phone restriction laws, search and seizure conditions of probation regardless of the triggering offense, etc.

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

I tend to agree with this. When we all have to share the roadways and highways, it is in the public interest to make that as safe as can reasonably be accomplished. So I don't have any problem with requring drivers licenses, speed limits or traffic controls or laws re driving impaired or laws requiring attention to one's driving such as restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Such laws keep us from unreasonably endangering others.

And those laws have to be enforced in order to be effective and check points are one way of enforcement.

In other words, since checkpoints serve a laudible and justifiable purpose, we should allow them in "the public interest." Of course checkpoints serve such a purpose. The question is, do they serve enough of a purpose to justify carving an exception into the 4th Amendment in order to maintain them? And make no mistake about it - checkpoints are clearly 4th Amendment violations because they involve the stopping and detaining of citizens by the police without ANY probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is engaged in any form of criminal activity prior to the stop.

Whether checkpoints should be allowed depends pretty much on one's own, personal philosophy. "Law and order" types (generally, conservatives) should probably be in favor of checkpoints on the basis of the (flawed) reasoning utilized by them as set forth in the last paragraph of your post here, which I shall discuss in a moment. Liberals should resist checkpoints as 4th Amendment violations.

That the courts are generally upholding them these days, should tell us a great deal about the political makeup of our current judiciary. But that may be a topic for another thread.

I know its an old saw and all, but when they are used appropriately and professionally by law enforcement, those who aren't breaking any laws have no reason to fear them whatsoever. They actually secure rights, so what's the problem?

It not only is an "old saw," it is also the height of short sightedness and fuzzy thinking. "Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear from the police."

I would bet you don't have drugs stashed in your house. So you should have no problem with the police searching your house, right? Do you know how police search a house? Let's just say that, when they are done, the homeowner generally has a major cleanup problem to deal with at best and, quite often, major house repair bills for fixing things that have been smashed in order to gain access to closed off areas.

But there is more to it than this obvious example. Using this line of thinking, innocent people should have no objection to a police search. Suppose an innocent person allows the police to search his house or car when they would otherwise be prevented from doing so by the 4th Amendment. During the search, the police find contraband the innocent person did not know was there. The visiting relative left some cocaine in the bathroom or their son has a stash of grass hidding somewhere on a high shelf in the kitchen. Possibly there is a gun in the house which, unbeknownst to the innocent homeowner, is stolen. The possibilities are endless.

The contraband is discovered. The homeowner protests innocence based on lack of knowledge. Do you think the police are going to say, "Oh, well then - since you say you didn't know about it, then foget it. Have a nice day," and leave? Guess again, Mojambo.

And now, suddenly, you as the innocent homeowner, are in a place you have never been before, wearing a type of bracelet you have never had on before. And now, suddenly, you are beginning to have second thoughts about your previous philosophy as it relates to innocent people allow the police to search without probable cause.

That is but ONE example, and ONE reason why this "if I am innocent I have nothing to fear" business is not smart. There are many others.

 

[George Costanza]

George, if a person is in his own driveway or driving his own private road, I would agree 100% with you.

But did the 4th Amendment intend to give license to people to endanger others? To prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law?

Once we enter a public highway, we are putting ourselves and others at personal risk. I can't see that the 4th Amendment is license to do whatever we wish wherever we wish on public property without restriction. So, I'm not seeing that the intent of the 4th Amendment is violated if somebody commits one crime that results in discovery of another crime. If no crime is committed, then yes, no 'search' should be acceptable. That would be true at checkpoints too.

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.

I have to go to court. Back in a couple of hours and I will address this.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you George! Great post!

Our pea brain friends on the right believe they are tough on crime, but all they are tough on is freedom and liberty. What totally floors me is they have no problem calling you, me or any liberal a 'Statist' if we support a government program intended to help Americans. And they constantly show utter contempt and disdain for government. It is so inept that it can't chew gum and walk at the same time...BUT when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings; government is our benign friend. It suddenly becomes flawlessly efficient, totally competent, always just, fair and NEVER EVER heavy handed or deserving of scrutiny ...

The right never questions how law enforcement does it's job? Could we try to ground a conversation in some semblance of reality for a moment.

First of all the laws, in of themselves, are not a problem or violation of anything. They would fit a libertarian view that you should be free to do what you want to do so as long as it doesn't endanger others. As for the right to search you, I'm no legal expert, but I believe probable cause must be shown.

 

[ConHog]

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

I tend to agree with this. When we all have to share the roadways and highways, it is in the public interest to make that as safe as can reasonably be accomplished. So I don't have any problem with requring drivers licenses, speed limits or traffic controls or laws re driving impaired or laws requiring attention to one's driving such as restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Such laws keep us from unreasonably endangering others.

And those laws have to be enforced in order to be effective and check points are one way of enforcement.

In other words, since checkpoints serve a laudible and justifiable purpose, we should allow them in "the public interest." Of course checkpoints serve such a purpose. The question is, do they serve enough of a purpose to justify carving an exception into the 4th Amendment in order to maintain them? And make no mistake about it - checkpoints are clearly 4th Amendment violations because they involve the stopping and detaining of citizens by the police without ANY probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is engaged in any form of criminal activity prior to the stop.

Whether checkpoints should be allowed depends pretty much on one's own, personal philosophy. "Law and order" types (generally, conservatives) should probably be in favor of checkpoints on the basis of the (flawed) reasoning utilized by them as set forth in the last paragraph of your post here, which I shall discuss in a moment. Liberals should resist checkpoints as 4th Amendment violations.

That the courts are generally upholding them these days, should tell us a great deal about the political makeup of our current judiciary. But that may be a topic for another thread.

I know its an old saw and all, but when they are used appropriately and professionally by law enforcement, those who aren't breaking any laws have no reason to fear them whatsoever. They actually secure rights, so what's the problem?

It not only is an "old saw," it is also the height of short sightedness and fuzzy thinking. "Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear from the police."

I would bet you don't have drugs stashed in your house. So you should have no problem with the police searching your house, right? Do you know how police search a house? Let's just say that, when they are done, the homeowner generally has a major cleanup problem to deal with at best and, quite often, major house repair bills for fixing things that have been smashed in order to gain access to closed off areas.

But there is more to it than this obvious example. Using this line of thinking, innocent people should have no objection to a police search. Suppose an innocent person allows the police to search his house or car when they would otherwise be prevented from doing so by the 4th Amendment. During the search, the police find contraband the innocent person did not know was there. The visiting relative left some cocaine in the bathroom or their son has a stash of grass hidding somewhere on a high shelf in the kitchen. Possibly there is a gun in the house which, unbeknownst to the innocent homeowner, is stolen. The possibilities are endless.

The contraband is discovered. The homeowner protests innocence based on lack of knowledge. Do you think the police are going to say, "Oh, well then - since you say you didn't know about it, then foget it. Have a nice day," and leave? Guess again, Mojambo.

And now, suddenly, you as the innocent homeowner, are in a place you have never been before, wearing a type of bracelet you have never had on before. And now, suddenly, you are beginning to have second thoughts about your previous philosophy as it relates to innocent people allow the police to search without probable cause.

That is but ONE example, and ONE reason why this "if I am innocent I have nothing to fear" business is not smart. There are many others.

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

Cracks me up when those , usually on the left, who get a Court ruling they don't like start screaming that the Court got it wrong or that they are making law from the bench, they are doing neither, they are instead doing exactly what the FF were smart enough to design them to do and interpreting the COTUS, which by its very nature means giving a learned opinion.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

Cracks me up when those , usually on the left, who get a Court ruling they don't like start screaming that the Court got it wrong or that they are making law from the bench, they are doing neither, they are instead doing exactly what the FF were smart enough to design them to do and interpreting the COTUS, which by its very nature means giving a learned opinion.

I guess the court decided there is a "compelling state interest" in sobriety check points and I agree. But to his point, is this the type of "incrementalism" that Republicans, Tea Party members, etc usually rail against?

You are missing my point here. Yes - the officer has to observe the violation. But that doesn't mean that cell phone laws are not within the ambit of the OP. Cell phone laws are but another inroad into allowing police to stop vehicles. And once a vehicle is stopped, the search usually begins. Granted, they can't stop you for a cell phone violation and then just order you to open your trunk. But they can ask you if you have anything illegal in the car - something they could not do if they could not have stopped you in the first place. And when you say no, they can then ask if you would have any objection to their searching the car. Sadly, most people will say OK, and thus begins the "consensual search" of the vehicle.

Then every single traffic violation is just an inroad into allowing police to stop vehicles. Why just single out the laws that prohibit cell phone usage while driving? If people consent to the search that is their ignorance. And if the officer desides to search the car anyway they must articulate that there was reasonable suspicion in court right? Granted I dont know if thats easy or not in a court...

You are begging the question here. Using this line of logic, they could require you to undergo forty lashes in the public sqaure as a "condition of probation" and that would be OK by you, right? "If you don't like it, then go to jail instead."

The issue is not whether a person would prefer jail to probation. The issue is whether it is legal to impose a search and seizure condition to probation where such a condition is not reasonably related to the crime committed. The law never used to allow such. Now it does. All part of a slilppery slope into unlimited police power in the area of search and seizure, i.e., the not so gradual erosion of the 4th Amendment.

Well, the forty lashes by todays standards would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment and a substantive due process violation. However, upon conviction of a crime I think that its okay to deprive someone of their liberty and privacy rights (essentially prison). Again, this would should only apply to people who have been found guilty of a crime through a process of substantive and procedural due process under the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are check points really 4th amendment violations? I dont see why checks points that indiscriminately stop people using roadways are eroding rights. Now if they stop you and then open up your trunk for no reason thats violation of your rights.

As for cell phone laws, I assume an officer has to see you on the phone in order to ticket you for doing such. I dont see how this is really any more of 4th amendment violation than an officer seeing someone speeding and then pulling that person over for speeding.

If you dont like the rules set forth by probation I guess jail is swell alternative to serve out your sentence.

I tend to agree with this. When we all have to share the roadways and highways, it is in the public interest to make that as safe as can reasonably be accomplished. So I don't have any problem with requring drivers licenses, speed limits or traffic controls or laws re driving impaired or laws requiring attention to one's driving such as restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Such laws keep us from unreasonably endangering others.

And those laws have to be enforced in order to be effective and check points are one way of enforcement.

In other words, since checkpoints serve a laudible and justifiable purpose, we should allow them in "the public interest." Of course checkpoints serve such a purpose. The question is, do they serve enough of a purpose to justify carving an exception into the 4th Amendment in order to maintain them? And make no mistake about it - checkpoints are clearly 4th Amendment violations because they involve the stopping and detaining of citizens by the police without ANY probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is engaged in any form of criminal activity prior to the stop.

Whether checkpoints should be allowed depends pretty much on one's own, personal philosophy. "Law and order" types (generally, conservatives) should probably be in favor of checkpoints on the basis of the (flawed) reasoning utilized by them as set forth in the last paragraph of your post here, which I shall discuss in a moment. Liberals should resist checkpoints as 4th Amendment violations.

That the courts are generally upholding them these days, should tell us a great deal about the political makeup of our current judiciary. But that may be a topic for another thread.

I know its an old saw and all, but when they are used appropriately and professionally by law enforcement, those who aren't breaking any laws have no reason to fear them whatsoever. They actually secure rights, so what's the problem?

It not only is an "old saw," it is also the height of short sightedness and fuzzy thinking. "Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear from the police."

I would bet you don't have drugs stashed in your house. So you should have no problem with the police searching your house, right? Do you know how police search a house? Let's just say that, when they are done, the homeowner generally has a major cleanup problem to deal with at best and, quite often, major house repair bills for fixing things that have been smashed in order to gain access to closed off areas.

But there is more to it than this obvious example. Using this line of thinking, innocent people should have no objection to a police search. Suppose an innocent person allows the police to search his house or car when they would otherwise be prevented from doing so by the 4th Amendment. During the search, the police find contraband the innocent person did not know was there. The visiting relative left some cocaine in the bathroom or their son has a stash of grass hidding somewhere on a high shelf in the kitchen. Possibly there is a gun in the house which, unbeknownst to the innocent homeowner, is stolen. The possibilities are endless.

The contraband is discovered. The homeowner protests innocence based on lack of knowledge. Do you think the police are going to say, "Oh, well then - since you say you didn't know about it, then foget it. Have a nice day," and leave? Guess again, Mojambo.

And now, suddenly, you as the innocent homeowner, are in a place you have never been before, wearing a type of bracelet you have never had on before. And now, suddenly, you are beginning to have second thoughts about your previous philosophy as it relates to innocent people allow the police to search without probable cause.

That is but ONE example, and ONE reason why this "if I am innocent I have nothing to fear" business is not smart. There are many others.

But George, dear, and you KNOW I love you dearly, you're doing what so many leftist do--okay even some on the right do it too--and that is extrapolating a narrow definition into a much broader one.

Yes I would have a problem with police coming in to search my house unless they had a valid search warrant in hand, and they better have a damn good reason to have that warrant. I would have a problem with a policeman stopping me at random on the street and demanding to see what was inside my purse or pockets or patting me down to see if I was carrying contraband. I would have a problem with law enforcement personnel stopping me on the street and demanding to see the contents of my brief case.

There was nothing in my post that even remotely condoned that.

But I don't have anything to fear when I happen to come up upon a random check point on a public street or highway. I have a valid driver's license, current registration, and my insurance is up to date. The police officer will inspect each, and wave me through. Now if he wanted to search my car also just in case I had something illegal, yes I would have a problem with that.

But if he spotted the plastic bag containing white flour for my kid's science project and wanted to inspect that further, I see that he would have valid reason to do so. I would not see that as unreasonable search and seizure. I would expect him to verify the contents and wave me on. If the bag contained cocaine though, I would expect him to have authority to see what else was in the car.

I know there are police that overstep their authority, who behave irreponsibly and illegally. And I know you probably see the police far more as being bad cops in that way than I do.

But I fear the consequences of anarchy or lawless society far more than I fear the police simply doing their jobs in a responsible and ethical manner.

 

[ConHog]

I tend to agree with this. When we all have to share the roadways and highways, it is in the public interest to make that as safe as can reasonably be accomplished. So I don't have any problem with requring drivers licenses, speed limits or traffic controls or laws re driving impaired or laws requiring attention to one's driving such as restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Such laws keep us from unreasonably endangering others.

And those laws have to be enforced in order to be effective and check points are one way of enforcement.

In other words, since checkpoints serve a laudible and justifiable purpose, we should allow them in "the public interest." Of course checkpoints serve such a purpose. The question is, do they serve enough of a purpose to justify carving an exception into the 4th Amendment in order to maintain them? And make no mistake about it - checkpoints are clearly 4th Amendment violations because they involve the stopping and detaining of citizens by the police without ANY probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the citizen is engaged in any form of criminal activity prior to the stop.

Whether checkpoints should be allowed depends pretty much on one's own, personal philosophy. "Law and order" types (generally, conservatives) should probably be in favor of checkpoints on the basis of the (flawed) reasoning utilized by them as set forth in the last paragraph of your post here, which I shall discuss in a moment. Liberals should resist checkpoints as 4th Amendment violations.

That the courts are generally upholding them these days, should tell us a great deal about the political makeup of our current judiciary. But that may be a topic for another thread.

I know its an old saw and all, but when they are used appropriately and professionally by law enforcement, those who aren't breaking any laws have no reason to fear them whatsoever. They actually secure rights, so what's the problem?

It not only is an "old saw," it is also the height of short sightedness and fuzzy thinking. "Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear from the police."

I would bet you don't have drugs stashed in your house. So you should have no problem with the police searching your house, right? Do you know how police search a house? Let's just say that, when they are done, the homeowner generally has a major cleanup problem to deal with at best and, quite often, major house repair bills for fixing things that have been smashed in order to gain access to closed off areas.

But there is more to it than this obvious example. Using this line of thinking, innocent people should have no objection to a police search. Suppose an innocent person allows the police to search his house or car when they would otherwise be prevented from doing so by the 4th Amendment. During the search, the police find contraband the innocent person did not know was there. The visiting relative left some cocaine in the bathroom or their son has a stash of grass hidding somewhere on a high shelf in the kitchen. Possibly there is a gun in the house which, unbeknownst to the innocent homeowner, is stolen. The possibilities are endless.

The contraband is discovered. The homeowner protests innocence based on lack of knowledge. Do you think the police are going to say, "Oh, well then - since you say you didn't know about it, then foget it. Have a nice day," and leave? Guess again, Mojambo.

And now, suddenly, you as the innocent homeowner, are in a place you have never been before, wearing a type of bracelet you have never had on before. And now, suddenly, you are beginning to have second thoughts about your previous philosophy as it relates to innocent people allow the police to search without probable cause.

That is but ONE example, and ONE reason why this "if I am innocent I have nothing to fear" business is not smart. There are many others.

But George, dear, and you KNOW I love you dearly, you're doing what so many leftist do--okay even some on the right do it too--and that is extrapolating a narrow definition into a much broader one.

Yes I would have a problem with police coming in to search my house unless they had a valid search warrant in hand, and they better have a damn good reason to have that warrant. I would have a problem with a policeman stopping me at random on the street and demanding to see what was inside my purse or pockets or patting me down to see if I was carrying contraband. I would have a problem with law enforcement personnel stopping me on the street and demanding to see the contents of my brief case.

There was nothing in my post that even remotely condoned that.

But I don't have anything to fear when I happen to come up upon a random check point on a public street or highway. I have a valid driver's license, current registration, and my insurance is up to date. The police officer will inspect each, and wave me through. Now if he wanted to search my car also just in case I had something illegal, yes I would have a problem with that.

But if he spotted the plastic bag containing white flour for my kid's science project and wanted to inspect that further, I see that he would have valid reason to do so. I would not see that as unreasonable search and seizure. I would expect him to verify the contents and wave me on. If the bag contained cocaine though, I would expect him to have authority to see what else was in the car.

I know there are police that overstep their authority, who behave irreponsibly and illegally. And I know you probably see the police far more as being bad cops in that way than I do.

But I fear the consequences of anarchy or lawless society far more than I fear the police simply doing their jobs in a responsible and ethical manner.

George clearly sees everything in regards to the law through the prism of being a defense attorney, and he also clearly doesn't mind being ummmm less than honest when presenting his case, as a few days ago when he posted about his client who was in prison for 36 months for talking on the cell phone while driving, when in fact it turns out 36 months for drug possession and a prior conviction. Same thing here, George knows the reasoning behind the ruling on sobriety checkpoints, and he also knows that an innocent person has very little, if anything, to fear from them. But as a defense attorney he has to act as he does.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and idiotic strawmen...you won't answer for one reason...because you can't say you would defend polluting your property as my individual right.

Jebus H Rice... You just don't get it. When discussing the 4th Amendment, and then to go off with the equivalent of demanding to know the airspeed velocity of an unladen Swallow, African OR European, you are not engaging in debate, but distraction. To ignore the question is not only polite but the intelligent thing to do. No matter how many graphs, sources and quotes you find about whether a swallow is unladen or burdened by a coconut is irrelevant.

The graphs and charts show that the air speed of a 'police state' is about to break the sound barrier. So it IS relevant.

The fact that America incarcerates more human being per 100,000 citizens than Russia or China SHOULD make you look up in the sky to see that coconut heading our way. Plus I have a cranium, you only have a pea...so beware...

BUt but but... charts... and graphs!.... they're pretty... and and.... see? Lines!

Debunked charts and graphs and lines you hack. Do you keep thinking the more you post it you'll get away with lying like this? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. At least I expect every time this is posted again VERBATIM... it will be debunked again.

Who's insane here? Now go goosestep on over to the rest of your little playtards at the Daily Kos where you will be loved or gulaged for your failure.

 

[George Costanza]

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

That the courts have allowed checkpoints in spite of the fact that they are admittedly violations of the 4th Amendment is not only something that I "well know," it is also some that I previously posted on this very thread. You have been reading this thread, right?

 

[lawbuff]

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

Wrong. IF they were a violation of the 4th, states could not operate them.

You are confusing any so called de minimus intrusion of a detention with permissable application of the 4th.

 

[ConHog]

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

Wrong. IF they were a violation of the 4th, states could not operate them.

You are confusing any so called de minimus intrusion of a detention with permissible application of the 4th.

Wrong sir. In his majority opinion in Michigan State Police vs Sitz Chief Justice Renquist in fact exactly what I have stated, that although sobriety checkpoints were a minor violation of the 4th an exception was justified because checkpoints were effective and necessary to protect the greater good.

This is the same argument I think we would see if anyone ever sued the TSA for screening airline passengers.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lawbuff]

George , as you very well know the SCOTUS has long ago ruled that although sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment , the violation is so small compared to the safety value of the checkpoints that it is acceptable. The fact that you as a defense attorney do not like that ruling does not make it an incorrect ruling. Of course that's something else you should realize but apparently don't.

Wrong. IF they were a violation of the 4th, states could not operate them.

You are confusing any so called de minimus intrusion of a detention with permissible application of the 4th.

Wrong sir. In his majority opinion in Michigan State Police vs Sitz Chief Justice Renquist in fact exactly what I have stated, that although sobriety checkpoints were a minor violation of the 4th an exception was justified because checkpoints were effective and necessary to protect the greater good.

This is the same argument I think we would see if anyone ever sued the TSA for screening airline passengers.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That wording is not even found in wiki's analysis, much less the opinion itself.

From the opinion:


Held: Petitioner's highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 496 U. S. 448-455.

 

[George Costanza]

I think you are both right to some extent. Note the following language from Wiki on the Michigan decision:

The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.

By using the phrase, "negligible impact" to describe the effect checkpoints have on 4th Amendment rights, the Court is impliedly admitting that there is SOME impact, however small. Hence, checkpoints DO conflict with the 4th Amendment. The EXTENT to which that happens is so small, according to the Court, that they are justified.

They apply a balancing test, and hold that the inconvenience to motorists by being stopped is not outweiged by 4th Amendment consideration and, hence, checkpoints will be allowed.

Whenever a court applys a "balancing test," watch out - the court is merely saying, "In our opinion, . . . . ." Because that's what this whole checkpoint thing is really all about. Whether you believe that checkpoints violate the 4th or not depends entirely upon your subjective opinion. A court is no different. And, sadly, courts are not immune from political influences on their decisions - especially in cases such as this one.

 

[George Costanza]

If you guys want actual language from the Michigan decision:

In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

When the Court says "we hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment," it is not necessarilly saying that checkpoints do not violate the 4th Amendment. Rather, it is saying that the "intrustion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped" is so slight, that even though there is a violation, the violation is not of a sufficient nature to render checkpoints inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment.

I know, I know - it doesn't say that in so many words, at least not in this quote. But if you read the entire opinion, that meaning becomes abundantly clear.

 

[ConHog]

I think you are both right to some extent. Note the following language from Wiki on the Michigan decision:

The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.

By using the phrase, "negligible impact" to describe the effect checkpoints have on 4th Amendment rights, the Court is impliedly admitting that there is SOME impact, however small. Hence, checkpoints DO conflict with the 4th Amendment. The EXTENT to which that happens is so small, according to the Court, that they are justified.

They apply a balancing test, and hold that the inconvenience to motorists by being stopped is not outweiged by 4th Amendment consideration and, hence, checkpoints will be allowed.

Whenever a court applys a "balancing test," watch out - the court is merely saying, "In our opinion, . . . . ." Because that's what this whole checkpoint thing is really all about. Whether you believe that checkpoints violate the 4th or not depends entirely upon your subjective opinion. A court is no different. And, sadly, courts are not immune from political influences on their decisions - especially in cases such as this one.

Why watch out? That is exactly what the Court is supposed to, render an OPINION about the COTUS. I mean obviously there is noway to know for fact how TJ would have felt about sobriety checkpoints, but there is a way to know he and others were smart enough to plan for such things.