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

[Quantum Windbag]

What are you talking about QW? When people say if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about they don't normally mean its ok if you get searched because you have nothing to hide, normally they are saying if you're not doing anything illegal you won't get stopped and or searched in the first place. Outside of sobriety checkpoints I cant think of any legal situation where it can happen. If the LEO in your home city are going house to house and searching without warrant, yes you have a problem. Otherwise you don't.

But go ahead QW list for me all the stories you've heard where someone was searched for no reason. I'm sure they will all be like George's 36 month prison sentence for talking on a phone wile driving..............meaning you'll tell half the story

DUI checkpoints stop everyone, even the people who are not doing anything wrong. Each and every person at that checkpoint was searched for no reason other than they were in the way of the cops. Here are some recent stats from a checkpoint in Riverside, CA.

Four arrests; 17 tickets at Perris DUI checkpoint - Riverside CA Inland Empire Southern California News

Look at that, a 2% ratio of arrests and citations to interactions with 2426 stops. Do you really think inconveniencing 2376 innocent drivers, and their passengers is worth that rate of return? Don't you think it would have made a lot more sense to have those same LEOs out on patrol dealing with real problems?

Check points are a waste of resources and personnel for a negligible return on the investment, you you think they are good idea because you have bought into the law and order talking points of statists. If you really want to be a conservative and cut government waste, checkpoints are an excellent place to start.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's one for ya. I'm told this actually happened. Fla cops put a big sign up just inside the northern border, designed to be read by south-bound traffic coming into Florida. Sign says: "Drug Inspection Station Ahead - Prepare to Stop." The sign is just in front of a big curve in the road.

There isn't any drug inspection station. What here IS, however, is a big, old police car waiting behind some bushes, watching for cars coming down the highway that read the sign and then make an (illegal) U-turn. When that happens, they pull them over.

When a car makes a U-turn to avoid a "drug inspection station," is that PC to search the car? I think it should be, don't you?

Pretty clever, hey?

No it is not, and you know it. They can ask to search, and have to let them go if they say no.

Except you are wrong.

1) Most of the time the vehicle which is sent after you will in fact be a K9 unit and that dog barking is probable cause.

2) LEO aren't stupid and they generally set up sobriety checkpoints in an area where a legal turn off just isn't possible; and of course if you're seen committing a traffic offense they can and will pull you over.

If a dog alerted on my vehicle I would be able to get the search tossed in court because drug dogs are prone to false alerts. If I was a drug dealer I would love drug dogs and would probably donate money to the local PD in order to get them more of them.

 

[ConHog]

What are you talking about QW? When people say if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about they don't normally mean its ok if you get searched because you have nothing to hide, normally they are saying if you're not doing anything illegal you won't get stopped and or searched in the first place. Outside of sobriety checkpoints I cant think of any legal situation where it can happen. If the LEO in your home city are going house to house and searching without warrant, yes you have a problem. Otherwise you don't.

But go ahead QW list for me all the stories you've heard where someone was searched for no reason. I'm sure they will all be like George's 36 month prison sentence for talking on a phone wile driving..............meaning you'll tell half the story

DUI checkpoints stop everyone, even the people who are not doing anything wrong. Each and every person at that checkpoint was searched for no reason other than they were in the way of the cops. Here are some recent stats from a checkpoint in Riverside, CA.

Four arrests; 17 tickets at Perris DUI checkpoint - Riverside CA Inland Empire Southern California News

Look at that, a 2% ratio of arrests and citations to interactions with 2426 stops. Do you really think inconveniencing 2376 innocent drivers, and their passengers is worth that rate of return? Don't you think it would have made a lot more sense to have those same LEOs out on patrol dealing with real problems?

Check points are a waste of resources and personnel for a negligible return on the investment, you you think they are good idea because you have bought into the law and order talking points of statists. If you really want to be a conservative and cut government waste, checkpoints are an excellent place to start.

if a single life was saved, yes it was worth it.

Now , can you tell me of a single incidence outside of sobriety checkpoints where someone was searched without a warrant?

 

[George Costanza]

If they are dealing with us "good guys," they are nice, polite and act like the good police officers they are being at the moment. Those same officer, however, become instantly not so nice and polite, if they are dealing with a "bad guy." We only see thier good side in our normal, day to day lives.

Of course they do. Doesn't everyone? I don't interact with a drug dealer the same way I interact with my pastor.

The thing is, police are supposed to be professionals - which means they are supposed to treat all who come in front of them in the same manner: professionally. We sometimes hear people say, "Yes, but they are only human too," when the cops are caught beating the stuffing out of the perp driver at the end of a high speed chase.

No dice. Professionals are not allowed the luxury of giving in to their own, personal emotions when it comes to dealing with their clients, patients or, in the case of the police, their arrestees. Oh, they are not required to be robots, of course, but they are expected to be objective and, above all, to refrain from taking their own frustrations out on those with whom they are dealing.

 

[George Costanza]

I got that from the SC itself "searches conducted without a warrant are presumptively or per se unreasonable".

Correctamundo, amigo. When we commence a motion to suppress evidence, the first thing we do is call for a stipulation that the search was conducted without a warrant. Once that stipulation is accepted by the prosecution, the search is presumed to be unreasonable, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that it was reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[ConHog]

If they are dealing with us "good guys," they are nice, polite and act like the good police officers they are being at the moment. Those same officer, however, become instantly not so nice and polite, if they are dealing with a "bad guy." We only see thier good side in our normal, day to day lives.

Of course they do. Doesn't everyone? I don't interact with a drug dealer the same way I interact with my pastor.

The thing is, police are supposed to be professionals - which means they are supposed to treat all who come in front of them in the same manner: professionally. We sometimes hear people say, "Yes, but they are only human too," when the cops are caught beating the stuffing out of the perp driver at the end of a high speed chase.

No dice. Professionals are not allowed the luxury of giving in to their own, personal emotions when it comes to dealing with their clients, patients or, in the case of the police, their arrestees. Oh, they are not required to be robots, of course, but they are expected to be objective and, above all, to refrain from taking their own frustrations out on those with whom they are dealing.

Says a man who has undoubtedly never chased down a man who was running because he broke the damn law. Do some go over board? Well of course, but unless you've been there, you don't have any idea., and here's an idea, let's place some of the blame on the damned perps themselves. Don't run and the LEO wont chase you down and kick your ass. Gee isn't that a novel concept?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What are you talking about QW? When people say if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about they don't normally mean its ok if you get searched because you have nothing to hide, normally they are saying if you're not doing anything illegal you won't get stopped and or searched in the first place. Outside of sobriety checkpoints I cant think of any legal situation where it can happen. If the LEO in your home city are going house to house and searching without warrant, yes you have a problem. Otherwise you don't.

But go ahead QW list for me all the stories you've heard where someone was searched for no reason. I'm sure they will all be like George's 36 month prison sentence for talking on a phone wile driving..............meaning you'll tell half the story

DUI checkpoints stop everyone, even the people who are not doing anything wrong. Each and every person at that checkpoint was searched for no reason other than they were in the way of the cops. Here are some recent stats from a checkpoint in Riverside, CA.

Four arrests; 17 tickets at Perris DUI checkpoint - Riverside CA Inland Empire Southern California News

Look at that, a 2% ratio of arrests and citations to interactions with 2426 stops. Do you really think inconveniencing 2376 innocent drivers, and their passengers is worth that rate of return? Don't you think it would have made a lot more sense to have those same LEOs out on patrol dealing with real problems?

Check points are a waste of resources and personnel for a negligible return on the investment, you you think they are good idea because you have bought into the law and order talking points of statists. If you really want to be a conservative and cut government waste, checkpoints are an excellent place to start.

if a single life was saved, yes it was worth it.

Now , can you tell me of a single incidence outside of sobriety checkpoints where someone was searched without a warrant?

You cannot prove any lives were saved. All you can do is speculate and argue from a standpoint that you like them, therefore they are good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course they do. Doesn't everyone? I don't interact with a drug dealer the same way I interact with my pastor.

The thing is, police are supposed to be professionals - which means they are supposed to treat all who come in front of them in the same manner: professionally. We sometimes hear people say, "Yes, but they are only human too," when the cops are caught beating the stuffing out of the perp driver at the end of a high speed chase.

No dice. Professionals are not allowed the luxury of giving in to their own, personal emotions when it comes to dealing with their clients, patients or, in the case of the police, their arrestees. Oh, they are not required to be robots, of course, but they are expected to be objective and, above all, to refrain from taking their own frustrations out on those with whom they are dealing.

Says a man who has undoubtedly never chased down a man who was running because he broke the damn law. Do some go over board? Well of course, but unless you've been there, you don't have any idea., and here's an idea, let's place some of the blame on the damned perps themselves. Don't run and the LEO wont chase you down and kick your ass. Gee isn't that a novel concept?

The point is that they are held to a higher standard, and they know it by the time they hit the street. I demand that they do not take it out on me, or anyone else, because they had an argument with their wife last night. Why do you have a problem with them accepting the responsibility that comes with the power we give them?

 

[ConHog]

DUI checkpoints stop everyone, even the people who are not doing anything wrong. Each and every person at that checkpoint was searched for no reason other than they were in the way of the cops. Here are some recent stats from a checkpoint in Riverside, CA.

Four arrests; 17 tickets at Perris DUI checkpoint - Riverside CA Inland Empire Southern California News

Look at that, a 2% ratio of arrests and citations to interactions with 2426 stops. Do you really think inconveniencing 2376 innocent drivers, and their passengers is worth that rate of return? Don't you think it would have made a lot more sense to have those same LEOs out on patrol dealing with real problems?

Check points are a waste of resources and personnel for a negligible return on the investment, you you think they are good idea because you have bought into the law and order talking points of statists. If you really want to be a conservative and cut government waste, checkpoints are an excellent place to start.

if a single life was saved, yes it was worth it.

Now , can you tell me of a single incidence outside of sobriety checkpoints where someone was searched without a warrant?

You cannot prove any lives were saved. All you can do is speculate and argue from a standpoint that you like them, therefore they are good.

You really think you could defend a position that says sobriety checkpoints don't save lives?

 

[ConHog]

The thing is, police are supposed to be professionals - which means they are supposed to treat all who come in front of them in the same manner: professionally. We sometimes hear people say, "Yes, but they are only human too," when the cops are caught beating the stuffing out of the perp driver at the end of a high speed chase.

No dice. Professionals are not allowed the luxury of giving in to their own, personal emotions when it comes to dealing with their clients, patients or, in the case of the police, their arrestees. Oh, they are not required to be robots, of course, but they are expected to be objective and, above all, to refrain from taking their own frustrations out on those with whom they are dealing.

Says a man who has undoubtedly never chased down a man who was running because he broke the damn law. Do some go over board? Well of course, but unless you've been there, you don't have any idea., and here's an idea, let's place some of the blame on the damned perps themselves. Don't run and the LEO wont chase you down and kick your ass. Gee isn't that a novel concept?

The point is that they are held to a higher standard, and they know it by the time they hit the street. I demand that they do not take it out on me, or anyone else, because they had an argument with their wife last night. Why do you have a problem with them accepting the responsibility that comes with the power we give them?

You're being obtuse. Of course LEO shouldn't take it out on you if they fought with their wives last night, but they should take it out on you if you're stupid enough to run and fight back when they attempt to apprehend you b/c you committed a crime.

Good grief.

 

[jeffrockit]

Sobriety check points. Driver's license check points. Laws prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. Search and seizure conditions of probation.


On your other point - no, driving is not a right - it is a privilege; or, at least, that's the way the law interprets it. But that does not mean that the Constitution has to take a back seat merely because people don't have a right to drive. I don't think you have a right to own a house. Does that mean that the police can enter your house without a warrant or probable cause and search it whenever they feel like it?

You house isn't traveling down the road at 50 to 70 mph with the possibility of endangering the lives of others, especially if you are drunk or high. That analogy is poor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Says a man who has undoubtedly never chased down a man who was running because he broke the damn law. Do some go over board? Well of course, but unless you've been there, you don't have any idea., and here's an idea, let's place some of the blame on the damned perps themselves. Don't run and the LEO wont chase you down and kick your ass. Gee isn't that a novel concept?

The point is that they are held to a higher standard, and they know it by the time they hit the street. I demand that they do not take it out on me, or anyone else, because they had an argument with their wife last night. Why do you have a problem with them accepting the responsibility that comes with the power we give them?

You're being obtuse. Of course LEO shouldn't take it out on you if they fought with their wives last night, but they should take it out on you if you're stupid enough to run and fight back when they attempt to apprehend you b/c you committed a crime.

Good grief.

Why should they be able to take it out on me if I run? Unless I actually assault them, or they are actively defending someone, they should just cuff me and put me in the back of the car. Using force just because they have to run after me is not justified. Ask your wife if you do not believe me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if a single life was saved, yes it was worth it.

Now , can you tell me of a single incidence outside of sobriety checkpoints where someone was searched without a warrant?

You cannot prove any lives were saved. All you can do is speculate and argue from a standpoint that you like them, therefore they are good.

You really think you could defend a position that says sobriety checkpoints don't save lives?

That is the beauty of the system we live in, I don't have to justify my position that it is an intrusion, the state has to justify that the intrusion is justified. That is a standard you have no problem holding them to when you disagree with them, you should hold them to the same standard when you do.

 

[ConHog]

You cannot prove any lives were saved. All you can do is speculate and argue from a standpoint that you like them, therefore they are good.

You really think you could defend a position that says sobriety checkpoints don't save lives?

That is the beauty of the system we live in, I don't have to justify my position that it is an intrusion, the state has to justify that the intrusion is justified. That is a standard you have no problem holding them to when you disagree with them, you should hold them to the same standard when you do.

Actually sir, you are wrong, big surprise I know. The standard is that SCOTUS has ruled on the matter, if you don't like their ruling, you have two options 1. Sue 2. Shut up. There is no option 3 as they are the definitive arbiters when it comes to deciding what is and what is not constitutional and that means even when they make a ruling you don't agree with.

 

[ConHog]

The point is that they are held to a higher standard, and they know it by the time they hit the street. I demand that they do not take it out on me, or anyone else, because they had an argument with their wife last night. Why do you have a problem with them accepting the responsibility that comes with the power we give them?

You're being obtuse. Of course LEO shouldn't take it out on you if they fought with their wives last night, but they should take it out on you if you're stupid enough to run and fight back when they attempt to apprehend you b/c you committed a crime.

Good grief.

Why should they be able to take it out on me if I run? Unless I actually assault them, or they are actively defending someone, they should just cuff me and put me in the back of the car. Using force just because they have to run after me is not justified. Ask your wife if you do not believe me.

They are not allowed to, they are allowed to use JUSTIFIED force though, and you don't even want to allow them that. Don't bother denying it, we've all seen your input on the various threads, ****** bitch attacks LEO from behind , makes grab for gun, LEO responds by jacking her jaw, and you and others scream about the LEO without saying a damned word about the piece of shit ****** who attacked him to start the whole matter.

No sir, you have no credibility on this matter.

 

[George Costanza]

They are not allowed to, they are allowed to use JUSTIFIED force though, and you don't even want to allow them that. Don't bother denying it, we've all seen your input on the various threads, ****** bitch attacks LEO from behind , makes grab for gun, LEO responds by jacking her jaw, and you and others scream about the LEO without saying a damned word about the piece of shit ****** who attacked him to start the whole matter.

No sir, you have no credibility on this matter.

I would suggest that if you want to talk about credibility, you might want to refrain from using this particular term.

 

[lawbuff]

Conjunctively, any search without a warrant is UNreasonable! Agree or not?

The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.

Right, I am familiar with the AE. The point was, I was trying to convey the 4th AM on it's face does NOT permit it.

Carroll was pre Wolf, but extended when Wolf was decided in 1949.

The 4th on it's face does not permit many elements.

It used to be legal at one time in this country to take a person in for "questioning/investigative detention", emphasis added, without probable cause to arrest.

This was only struck down in 1979, 30 long years after Wolf was decided.

The "plain feel" doctrine was extended as an element to a Terry frisk.

At one time PC/reasonable suspicion was needed to run a license plate before a pull over, etc., now, NO reason need be given as it is now considered NOT a search.

The 4th has evolved and will continue to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

Conjunctively, any search without a warrant is UNreasonable! Agree or not?

The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant as long as he or she has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.

Right, I am familiar with the AE. The point was, I was trying to convey the 4th AM on it's face does NOT permit it.

Carroll was pre Wolf, but extended when Wolf was decided in 1949.

The 4th on it's face does not permit many elements.

It used to be legal at one time in this country to take a person in for "questioning/investigative detention", emphasis added, without probable cause to arrest.

This was only struck down in 1979, 30 long years after Wolf was decided.

The "plain feel" doctrine was extended as an element to a Terry frisk.

At one time PC/reasonable suspicion was needed to run a license plate before a pull over, etc., now, NO reason need be given as it is now considered NOT a search.

The 4th has evolved and will continue to do so.

You know too much. Are you in law school?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really think you could defend a position that says sobriety checkpoints don't save lives?

That is the beauty of the system we live in, I don't have to justify my position that it is an intrusion, the state has to justify that the intrusion is justified. That is a standard you have no problem holding them to when you disagree with them, you should hold them to the same standard when you do.

Actually sir, you are wrong, big surprise I know. The standard is that SCOTUS has ruled on the matter, if you don't like their ruling, you have two options 1. Sue 2. Shut up. There is no option 3 as they are the definitive arbiters when it comes to deciding what is and what is not constitutional and that means even when they make a ruling you don't agree with.

Did you happen to read George's comment about how totalitarian that attitude is?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Sobriety check points. Driver's license check points. Laws prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. Search and seizure conditions of probation.

All of this sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Who is in favor of drunk or unlicensed drivers? How many times has some moron just sat there in front of you yapping on a cell phone when the light turns green? Why shouldn't people convicted of crimes have to submit to searches without probable cause - they're CRIMINALS, aren't they?

Well, in spite of how "good" all of these laws sound, they all have consequences that extend far beyond the face value of what they purport to accomplish. All of these laws have one thing in common - they give law enforcement the opportunity to observe things that are personal to citizens that they would otherwise not be able to observe.

Your friendly law enforcement officer at the conveniently located checkpoint has much more on his/her mind than just checking for licenses or drunk drivers. They are also looking for contraband in plain sight or anything that will give them a wedge into the interior of the car to search it. You and I get stopped at a checkpoint. Assuming we have not been drinking and we have our licenses and proof of insurance, that's pretty much it. Young, Hispanic kid with a bald head and tats gets stopped at a check point, different story. He may have his license and insurance papers and he may be totally sober. He will be asked: "Do you have anything illegal in the car, there?" When he says no, the next question is automatic: "Mind if I take a look?" If he says OK, he has just given consent to search. It they find anything, game over. And remember - but for the checkpoint, they would never have had the opportunity to be talking to him because they would have had no reason to stop him.

A person who gets pulled over for talking on a cell phone is subject to the same type of questions resulting in a "consensual search" of the car. Cars can contain a lot of things. On another thread, I mentioned a client of mine who got pulled over for cell phone usage. When the cop asks, "mind if I take a look inside the car?" what are most people going to say - NO? My client had methampetamine in his pocket and a strike prior. He got 32 months in state prison. If there had not been a cell phone law, he probably never would have been stopped.

It used to be that search and seizure conditions could only be attached to probation where they were reasonably related to the original crime. Drug possession, theft, concealed weapon, etc., are crimes from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person involved may be the type of person who would hide contraband on his person. Hence, there is a logical reason to impose a S&S condition on his probationary status. Well, that has all changed. Current practice calls for S&S conditions regardless of the nature of the original crime.

So what happens now? Every time there is any contact whatsoever between law enforcement and a citizen, the first question out of the cop's mouth (following the obligatory and TOTALLY disingenuous, "How's it going?") is: "You on probation or parole?" If the person says yes, it's game over - he is searched on the spot.

What's the point of this lengthy rant?, I hear you cry. It is this. When you applaud such things as check points and the other ruses mentioned in the first paragraph, know that there is much more at stake than it would at first glance appear. What's at stake, my friends, is the status of the Fourth Amendment in this great land.

And that status is being threatened from all sides these days.

Checkpoints are voluntary. However, the second you turn around you are a marked man and a cop will follow you agressively until you make a mistake. But yes, the real reason for the checkpoints is to get a look inside your car.