What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

Do you have any examples of search warrants being served prior to lawmen of the old west searching cowboys and their horses or wagons?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
Loading thread data ...
There is GENERALLY a track record of "excessive field authority and agressiveness".
Our jails are full, we set world rercords for percapita.
Perhaps there is another way?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
It is _not_ my position that all searches are unreasonable without a warrant. It IS my position that searching people at random, without probable cause, is both unreasonable and unconstitutional.
In the example you give, the officer has witnessed a criminal act, therefor it is both reasonable and constitutional for the officer to conduct a search of the perpetrator. Pulling over drivers who have committed no violation is not reasonable.
It's been "borne out" by activist judges who prefer to make law rather than abide by the Constitution.
BTW, you seem to be defining a "reasonable search" as one in which you think the stated purpose is noble enough -- i.e., "drunk driving is so bad that it's worth violating the Constitution to prevent it". But that's not the constitutional definition of a reasonable search. The Constitution requires that there be probable cause, and without probable cause the search is not reasonable.
Reply to
RayDunakin
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:
Its contradictory that the police can stop you in the middle of your travels with a DUI checkpoint,check your papers,question you,make you get out of the car and do a Breathalyzer test or roadside impairment test and not violate your 4th Amendment rights,yet need a warrant or probable cause(seeing/smelling something) to search your automobile. And further,DRUG (or wanted felon) checkpoints in the same manner are not legal
And strange that some people can't see anything wrong with this.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:
I find it funny that one would think that someone who has decided to obtain and possibly use deadly force against other people is some sort of "Pu$$y".
IMO,the ones who surrender their RKBA to the gov't and depend solely on others for self-defense are the cowards.
(RKBA=right to keep and bear arms)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m03.aol.com:
Some people thought sending Jews off to concentration camps was "reasonable".
Reply to
Jim Yanik
David Erbas-White wrote in news:pyAFd.25$0B.15@fed1read02:
Or probable cause. IOW,one has to see a crime or violation of law in order to act,not merely stop people and see if they have violated some law. That's how "reasonable" was defined;as warrant or PC. Otherwise,written law is simply whatever a judge decides it is,depending on how people feel at that time. THAT'S scary.
That's where probable cause comes into effect.
Except where the USSC has refused to hear cases. Lately they have used what is done in FRANCE as justification for upholding some unconstitutional law.
And the recent "eminent domain seizures" abuse considered "reasonable" REALLY ought to worry you.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Rick Dickinson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I have no problem with requring licenses for operating a motor vehicle(or a horse) on public roads.It IS a priveledge,not a right.(as differing from Second Amendment RKBA) However,requiring one to surrender Constitutional rights in order to exercise that priveledge is not kosher.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
One man's zero restriction access HPR is another man's potential weapon.
Despite any fact or observable long-term condition.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Reasonable is "I saw you with a gun, and you tossed it in the back of the car". Unreasonable is "let me look in the back of your car".
For a search to be reasonable, whatever they are looking for has to have been RECENTLY seen by someone (police, witness) and it must directly tie you to a crime. The police should have to declare what they are looking for and why. And anything they find not related to that exact declaration must be ignored.
No declaration in advance implies unreasonable search and civil rights violation, and perhaps trespassing and/or theft charges.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
The beauty of this is that if it's on private property, government regs don't apply. It's not unconstitutional to strip search government agents entering my home. It's my private property.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I'm giving an 'extreme' example to demonstrate that there is no clear line -- it is all contingent upon what the definition of 'reasonable' is. Society makes that determination.
Actually, I don't agree with any judges who operate this way. It is up to judges to determine points of law -- i.e., the judge will determine that a search must be 'reasonable' because that's what the Constitution says. It is up to a jury to determine points of FACT -- i.e., was the search that was conducted a 'reasonable' search.
One step removed, the legislature is supposed to enact the will of the people and establish laws that the constituents deem 'reasonable'. The public then has the option of keeping that law in place (i.e., don't replace the legislators), or removing the law (i.e., elect legislators to change/remove it). It IS appropriate for a judge to rule that a written law violates the Constitution (or for a state judge, the laws of the state), but it IS NOT appropriate for a judge to rule a law 'unreasonable'.
Bear in mind that IANAL, I'm expressing an opinion. Also bear in mind that all of the above assumes a perfect society, where politics/corruption don't come in to play -- that's not the society we live in, which is why (despite what you may have gathered from my arguments) if push came to shove, I would side with those who say rights are being infringed upon. But as a purely intellectual/perfect world exercise, the above reflects (what I believe) the Constitution to stand for.
That's correct, but you're leaving out several things that I've said in previous posts about what would constitute a 'reasonable' search. In the DUI checkpoint example, the following is 'reasonable' (IMHO): in an area where DUI violations are above the norm, at hours of the day when DUI violations occur the most, and when those suspected of being DUI are actually prosecuted, and where those convicted of DUI actually receive SUBSTANTIAL punishment (particularly for repeat offenders). Lose any one of those, and I think that they are 'unreasonable'. Therefore, I find the current checkpoints to be unreasonable -- but my point is that the CONCEPT itself isn't unreasonable, but that the current implementation of them is. I (in my opinion) believe that the probable cause standard is satisfied if there are a statistically higher number of DUI arrests/convictions in a given area at a given time.
BTW, in my mind, approriate and substantial punishment would be along the lines of: 1 year removal of drivers license on a first conviction, minimum 5 years probation (only under the most exceptional of circumstances, BTW) to 5 years prison as maximum, 5 years minimum to 20 years maximum (prison, not probation) for a second conviction, 25-life (without parole) for a third conviction. DUI that causes a death should be treated as 1st degree murder, and if more than one death that would qualify for special circumstances (i.e., death penalty).
I would add that I've had some very, very close friends convicted of DUI, and I've done my best to assist them were possible. But I would be happy to have pounded the gavel and handed out those sentences to any of them -- especially in retrospect, because few of them learned from their first brush with such a conviction.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Although you may not of meant it the way it reads, that is exactly the case unless used in self defense to protect property and person.
You should see my collection.. My preference, from that collection, for home defense is a loaded Colt .45 ACP Double Eagle and loaded Browning 12 gage Auto 5 loaded with #4 buckshot. I exercise my right.
Fred
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
They do. Greatly.
And despite what you may gather from my statements in this thread, most folks consider me pretty right wing...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
As I have said before, I think a private residence should be MORE secure than Public buildings and common carier facilities, like government buildings, schools, airports, etc. Ideally, entry would be through a Mardex(sp?) security booth...
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
David Erbas-White wrote in news:cIGFd.76$0B.42@fed1read02:
But LIMITED by the Constitution. "Society" does not have unlimited powers.
And keeping in line with the Constitution.
Sure it is,based on Constutionality.In the case of the 4th,"reasonable" is defined as warrant or probable cause.Judges frequently toss out evidence because it was obtained without warrant or PC,despite the "reasonableness" of the officer's search.
But the police do not have any "oath or affirmation" that DUI drivers are actually on that road(specifics,not random chance),thus no probable cause to stop people passing by that point.(and fishing to see if they DO find a DUI or other violator) The checkpoints are just so that they MIGHT find some DUIs -or- other violators or wanted people(warrants);random chance,or fishing.
A checkpoint would be reasonable if the police were seeking a particular vehicle that was described by a witness(oath or affirmation) as having committed a crime or escaped from prison,solely in the area the described criminal was suspected to be in.
Reply to
Jim Yanik

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.