23 Apr 2009, 9:54 pm
demeus wrote:
First off, this kid is a fool because there is a supreme court case that allows for checkpoints and customs/border patrol now has a 100 mile area in which they are allowed to do their job (and you constitutional rights are not valid with customs/border patrol). If anyone has issues with this, contact your congresscritter.
No. Within US territory, you need not submit to arbitrary searches, ever.
Quote:
In any case, all the person has to do is pass papers that sufficently proves they are US citizens. You do not have to answer any other questions and according to the supreme court, 20 minutes is the general rule for detaining someone without probable cause but as this person pointed out, you have to request to leave in order for your right to leave to be valid.
His refusal to show a driver's license is probably an issue, since the legal precedent for showing identification to a police officer is pretty well established.
Re him acting "suspicious": So, let's see if I understand this. Because of the 4th Amendment, we are protected from searches that are made without any suspicion. So if a police officer asks to search my car and he has no reason to suspect me of anything, I can simply say "no" and be well within my rights as an American citizen. However, if I refuse to allow a police officer to search my car, that is suspicious (because there is no reason why I would refuse if I had nothing to hide) and therefore they can search my car without my consent.
Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning.
Master_Shake
Toucan
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 262
Location: Michigan, United States
23 Apr 2009, 10:24 pm
Orwell wrote:
Re him acting "suspicious": So, let's see if I understand this. Because of the 4th Amendment, we are protected from searches that are made without any suspicion. So if a police officer asks to search my car and he has no reason to suspect me of anything, I can simply say "no" and be well within my rights as an American citizen. However, if I refuse to allow a police officer to search my car, that is suspicious (because there is no reason why I would refuse if I had nothing to hide) and therefore they can search my car without my consent. Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning.
Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning.If they question you first, which they are allowed to do, and find probable cause they can search your vehicle. Whether its right or not is a philosophical question, but in reality it happens all the time. Never had it happen to me though.
23 Apr 2009, 10:37 pm
Master_Shake
Toucan
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 262
Location: Michigan, United States
24 Apr 2009, 4:06 pm
24 Apr 2009, 7:26 pm
Master_Shake wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Re him acting "suspicious": So, let's see if I understand this. Because of the 4th Amendment, we are protected from searches that are made without any suspicion. So if a police officer asks to search my car and he has no reason to suspect me of anything, I can simply say "no" and be well within my rights as an American citizen. However, if I refuse to allow a police officer to search my car, that is suspicious (because there is no reason why I would refuse if I had nothing to hide) and therefore they can search my car without my consent. Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning.
Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning.If they question you first, which they are allowed to do, and find probable cause they can search your vehicle. Whether its right or not is a philosophical question, but in reality it happens all the time. Never had it happen to me though.
We need to understand the legal definition of "probable cause".
"The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[1] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2]"
Source
Asserting your rights and/or acting like a twit do not count as probable cause. So, for instance, if an officer sees a roach in your ashtray or smells mary jane, that's probably cause. If you "look stoned", that is not probable cause.
This guy probably was out to get a video like this, but that isn't a crime. Whether or not it's foolish is pretty much irrelevant.
Master_Shake
Toucan
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 262
Location: Michigan, United States
24 Apr 2009, 10:02 pm
24 Apr 2009, 10:25 pm
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
24 Apr 2009, 10:41 pm
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
24 Apr 2009, 10:44 pm
Master_Shake wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Yes, I know. But if they take you asserting your fourth amendment guarantee of freedom from arbitrary search as probable cause, I see a problem.
Master Shake concurs.
Yikes. scary 3rd person option in use
