Warrantless Searches

[All American Nightmare]

You gotta choose your words carefully. Not necessarily diplomatically, just carefully to avoid running afoul of Rule #6:

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc)... (red emphasis added by Citizen).

I'm not saying you should hold off rhetorically beating the stuffing out of Novacop. I'm saying you must construct your sentences and use words that avoid violating Rule #6. With just a little effort you will discover you still have lots and lots of lattitude to show him for the statist boob he his without once even coming close to violating Rule #6.

I guess I need to go and make notes on the video and point them out to novacop.

 

[peter nap]

I guess I need to go and make notes on the video and point them out to novacop.

Or just ignore him XD. John is right to a point about not attacking him personally...but he eggs it on trying to get a reaction.
I do the same thing but figure he has it coming.

If everyone would just put him on ignore he'd go away.

 

[Citizen]

Originally Posted by xdm guy
I guess I need to go and make notes on the video and point them out to novacop.

Or just ignore him XD. John is right to a point about not attacking him personally...but he eggs it on trying to get a reaction.
I do the same thing but figure he has it coming.

If everyone would just put him on ignore he'd go away.

I'm not sure whether XDM is saying Novacop229 violated the rules himself.

Of course, Peter's approach is just grand. No objections.

On the other side, if Nova229cop violates the rules, XDM could also just call him on it by bringing it to everybody's attention, including a moderator. No sense passing up a chance to further discredit him if you're not going to ignore him.

 

[Citizen]

Back to the Thread Topic. Sort of. Warrantless Scanner Searches--General Public

There is an article in the current USA Today (paper version), which I guess means its really the Friday 3/14/11 edition, about TSA or DHS scanner contracts.

ETA: Here is a link to the on-line edition of the story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-04-bodyscans04_ST_N.htm

It turns out that in 2005 and 2006 the fedgov contracted for the development of scanners that could covertly scan people walking down the street. The contract(s) were for several million dollars.

At least one company delivered a prototype. It didn't work for technical reasons (unexplained), and the idea was abandoned. (Hah!)

The article then goes into the objections from privacy advocates.

Then the bombshell is quietly laid down in the article without further elaboration:

The fedgov agency is quoted as saying it reviews all technology for privacy considerations. But, the covert scanners were abandoned as unworkable even before the project progressed to the stage where privacy consideration occurs.

You get that, right? The fedgov went forward with a multi-million dollar contract without first reviewing the privacy considerations. Meaning without first reviewing the 4th Amendment legality of the intended results of the project. Meaning, if they could not establish the 4th Amendment legality, they could not possibly have known whether they even had legal authority to proceed with giving out the contracts.

[Insert long string of the strongest epithets here.]

PS: Notice that since the project was abandoned for technical reasons before the privacy concerns were evaluated, there is nothing to stop the fedgov agency from trying again once the technical problems are solved. And, you can bet those contractors will be eager to win new contracts. I'll bet it only takes 1.963 nano-seconds from the time the engineers come up with a solution to the time somebody in that company is calling the government to let them know.

 

[eye95]

...There is no way in hell that he could have stopped the power hungry cops from doing what they did. You remind me of novacop

In the wake of implications of "He started it," I thought I'd quote the post in this thread that brought one of the posters into it. Calling someone out who has not even participated in the thread is kind of "starting it."

Just an observation from someone who has no dog in the fight. I won't expound on this further.

 

[All American Nightmare]

In the wake of implications of "He started it," I thought I'd quote the post in this thread that brought one of the posters into it. Calling someone out who has not even participated in the thread is kind of "starting it."

Just an observation from someone who has no dog in the fight. I won't expound on this further.

I never called out novacop until he said I did. When I did call him out I made it very clear what I was doing.How is saying you remind me of novacop calling someone out?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You can't Monday morning quarterback their actions, however, it's what those officers truly believe (and can articulate) at that moment to make entry.

Yes we can we are are your masters you are the servants. Did you watch the whole video? The cops themselves knew they messed up and then talk about making things up to cover their actions.

I am obviously pro-police and give them the benefit of doubt in most cases. This is not to be confused with providing excuses for bad police, which I would like removed just as much as you. It's just a very difficult and dangerous job that requires split second decisions by humans and a job that is 100% necessary in our society... so of course, mistakes will be made.

Give me a break? I am so tired of hearing this argument don't take the job then, and it really isn't that dangerous or necessary. Arming the public gives you more bank for your buck than hiring police. Professor John R. Lot has done some extensive studies on this. And so have I. I am 8 times more likely to die in construction than in your job. I have worn my body out, busting my ass all day. It has also been proven many cops take the job for the "adventure" and when they find out how boring 99% of the time is spent as revenue collectors they actually push for and create situations making them more dangerous than they are. Oh yea and then you can murder native wood carvers and not even be tried for it.

I understand that you don't like police from your numerous posts. I would hope you are smart enough to realize their importance in maintaining our society. Good policing videos don't make youtube or make it into the media. It's the 1% of police videos that depict bad or questionable behavior that you seem to depict your opinion about LEOs on.

LOL.....get rid of the bad police than and we won't have anything to bitch about. This whole bad apple thinking is erroneous, I was held at gun point illegally detained, threatened 4th amendment violated and when I went to complain about it was illegally held at gun point, arrested, handcuffed, stood out in the hot sun, interrogated threatened, my 4th amendments violated, my free will of recording them denied. Heard of Coercion? I am going to venture there is way more than 1% of those caught on video. I saw the entire department close rank and defend the illegal actions of those officers, much how you are doing now for the illegal actions of these officers.

PS. Jonesy, I think I answered your question in this post. We don't know what the police perceived was was in the house, but if there were exigent circumstances, they could make entry. I believe they thought something serious was going on since numerous officers went priority response to that house with guns drawn (which is very abnormal). I can only guess it was legal since the arrest was upheld.

I call bull on this since you can hear them saying the are going to make stuff up right there. I read that case verez v. commonwealth and it doesn't apply. That very decision you mentioned specifically said a house is not to be searched. But the reason Verez's case it was ok because the informant was in there and the other was expected back in and there was felonies being committed at the time.

A neighbor called about a guy shooting and they assumed it was something bad and when it wasn't when they got there they created the situation. You are rationalizing and trying to justify the illegal actions by the officers. I am assuming the guy is broke and can't fight it and had to plea, I know how that works and it sucks, the prosecutor and the cops get you over a barrel, spend you life savings defending against our tyrannical behavior or take the plea.

Oh P.S. many officers commit felonies daily it's called perjury, and this also has been proven by extensive studies. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf

Another thing is the crime of being misleading on police reports.

I have had the opportunity to read several over the past year or so, and it was the rarity for one to be mostly honest and not use boiler plate language, and either stretch the truth or out right lie.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349169_lying29.html

We have two deputies in my not so large county that have proven they lie on reports and have committed perjury in the courtroom they cost the county $500,000.00 in a law suit and they are still deputies. Deputy VanderVeen and Freeman.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP...many officers commit felonies daily it's called perjury, and this also has been proven by... http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf

Wow. What a nasty hidden mess. Thanks for the link!

 

[Citizen]

Rib-aching Funny Comments on a 4th Circuit Opinion

Let me start with the funny comment from the blogger, an obvious criticism of police:

Ever notice how nobody who ever put a gun under a car seat managed to get it all the way under? There's always some part of the gun sticking out from under the seat so that any cop who looks through the window into the interior can see it in plain view?


The 4th Circuit Opinion is US vs Foster. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/095161.P.pdf

It contains some interesting commentary about police, as quoted in the blog:

...We also note our concern about the inclination of the Government toward using whatever facts are present, no matter how innocent, as indicia of suspicious activity. We recognize that we must look to the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the reasonableness of a stop. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273. However, an officer and the Government must do more than simply label a behavior as "suspicious" to make it so...

...Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the way in which the Government attempts to spin these largely mundane acts [the "suspicious" activities of the "suspect" in this particular case] into a web of deception.Although these matters generally only come before this Court where a police seizure uncovers some wrongdoing, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that the exclusionary rule is our sole means of ensuring that police refrain from engaging in the unwarranted harassment or unlawful seizure of anyone—whether he or she is one of the most affluent or most vulnerable members of our community...
(parenthesis above added by Citizen)

Here is the blog: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/03/05/suspiciously-mundane.aspx?ref=rss

With a hat tip to Radley Balko at http://www.theagitator.com/

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Wow. What a nasty hidden mess. Thanks for the link!

Yep it is, your welcome I spread this link anywhere I can. Good luck on getting them prosecuted for it though.

And on a personal level I have had discussions with local prosecutors, County and city and they just won't prosecute cops, although this is much larger offense than me being there for traffic related issues.

 

[END_THE_FED]

......It turns out that in 2005 and 2006 the fedgov contracted for the development of scanners that could covertly scan people walking down the street..........

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0...homeland-security-aclu-drive-by-snooping.html

 

[Gunslinger]

Hmmmmm. Interesting. I guess curtilage is a complicated area of law. It seems to me I've seen case law in so many words saying that areas that are part of daily life are part of the definition. As though, just maintaining an area would not be enough to call it curtilage. A field is maintained by way of cultivation, weed and pest killing, rotation of crops, etc. So, I guess there is more for me to learn. Although this rule pretty much covers it:

Some cops is gonna go where ever they want, whenever they want and let a judge sort it out later. And, plenty of judges will use a results-oriented basis for deciding--meaning there is a reasonable chance the judge will find a creative way to twist the law in support of the copses.

In United States v. Dunn, the Supreme Court identified four factors as critical when assessing the limits of curtilage: "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."

 

[simmonsjoe]

[...]Why would the man in the video have to tell the cops they need RAS before they could search? He has NO idea what the police were told when they were responding to the scene and the police usually aren't going to share their RAS with you.[...]

Interesting. The recently posted video of VCDL meeting with Fairfax police regarding Man With A Gun calls has training officers stating that anything they receive over the radio is hearsay at least twice removed and cannot provide RAS. The officer even does a Role Play where Philip Van Cleve has been called in as MWAG by someone who saw him conceal his handgun. Philip refused to talk to the officer and left the contact. The officer did not go past the voluntary contact stage because he himself was unable to notice RAS of a concealed handgun.

I agree that people don't know what the cops info is. Because of this you never know what position your in. Be careful. Perhaps if your being wronged your best remedy is post-contact?