We have no more rights, even those given to us by the constitution.

[Theory5]

I am not a big fan of America, but I do try to learn all I can to prevent so called authority figures from abusing their powers. But last night a friend of mine (not a close friend, more of an aquantice) was arrested for possesion. This, while being bad in itself has been made worse due to the fact that he wasnt doing anything, and a policeman searched him for no reason at all. This is based on what I have heard via word of mouth from my other friend, he doesnt have all the details either.
Anyways, what I want to know: is there any part of acts passed such as the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement to search somebody for no reason or an unrelated reason, (such as "tresspassing" when somebody is hanging around in a public parking lot?). What happened to needing a warrent, and/or seeing something illegal happening, leading to arresting and a search of the person? The US constitution and the UN's book on crimes and punishment both clearly state people cannot have themselves or their property searched without reason and a warrent.
Is there anyway to combat this horrible infringment of human rights?

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Theory5

I am not a big fan of America

Well, that is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Theory5

but I do try to learn all I can to prevent so called authority figures from abusing their powers

Police is not the "so called authoritiy," but the only legitimate law enforcement.
You should learn about the system you live in, and appreciate the system you live in, for your own safety, mental stability, and enjoyment of life.

Originally Posted by Theory5

But last night a friend of mine (not a close friend, more of an aquantice) was arrested for possesion. This, while being bad in itself has been made worse due to the fact that he wasnt doing anything, and a policeman searched him for no reason at all. This is based on what I have heard via word of mouth from my other friend, he doesnt have all the details either.

Since you do not have all the details, you should speak with abundance of caution, before accusing anyone.

Originally Posted by Theory5

Anyways, what I want to know: is there any part of acts passed such as the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement to search somebody for no reason or an unrelated reason, (such as "tresspassing" when somebody is hanging around in a public parking lot?).

No. Patriot Act does not take away your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which is the law that governs this situation.

Originally Posted by Theory5

What happened to needing a warrent, and/or seeing something illegal happening, leading to arresting and a search of the person?

Warrant is only required for the search of your house. Today, to stop a person, and pat down for weapons, a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion: In his/her experience and training, considering the circumstances, a police officer must reasonably belive that something fishy is going on to stop you, pat you down, and ask questions--to seize you and investigate further.
To search you, a police office must have a probable cause; meaning, after something arouses suspicion in officer, and after you have been seized and questioned, an officer must have a reason to know that violation has occured -- have a probable cause. In addition, if officer sees a violation -- crack in your car seat, smell of marijuana coming from the window, license plate hanging on one nail, etc.--officer may stop you and search you; officer has a probable cause because of the violation.
A good case to read on this is Whren v. United States, Whren et al. v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)..

Where probable cause has existed, the only cases in which we have found it necessary actually to perform the "balancing" analysis involved searches or seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to an individual's privacy or even physical interests--such as, for example, seizure by means of deadly force, see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), unannounced entry into a home, see Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. ___ (1995), entry into a home without a warrant, see Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), or physical penetration of the body, see Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985). The making of a traffic stop out of uniform does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice, and so is governed by the usual rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken "outbalances" private interest in avoiding police contact.

Originally Posted by Theory5

The US constitution and the UN's book on crimes and punishment both clearly state people cannot have themselves or their property searched without reason and a warrent. Is there anyway to combat this horrible infringment of human rights?

Do not violate law, do not drive drunk or high. If officer stops you, keep your car clean, and ask what the problem is. This will appraise you of the reason for the stop. If it is traffic, provide documentation and do not talk. If it is on the street, ask what the reason for the stop is. If it is just for information, excuse yourself politely; say that you have business to do and do not wish to talk. If the officer seizes you --does not let you go--do not resist. Get the answer of why the officer is seizing you. If they search you get the answer of why the officer is searching you. Do not talk beyond this. If they arrest you do not talk and ask for a lawyer.

[TheBigDog]

My only experience with questionable search came back in 2003 at the Denver International Airport. I lived in Colorado and traveled for a living, so I was VERY familiar with the airport and the security. I liked my trip through the airport to be as smooth as possible, so I bought myself shoes that did not set off the metal detectors. Then came the signs that read, "we recommend that you remove your shoes to speed your passage through security". And that is when I got a serious stubborn streak.

I had gone out and bought shoes that I knew did not set off the detector. I had been wearing them for months. But when the signs went up I experienced a new thing from the TSA. When I removed my shoes I was ushered right to the area to collect my bags. When I kept my shoes on I was ushered to the area for a pat down. It was never stated, and it was flat out denied, but the TSA folks were under instructions to search anyone who did not remove their shoes. These were under the guise of "random selection", but random cannot have such specific criteria. Being who I am I experimented with this for several months and 100% of the time when I took off my shoes I was sent through without search, and 100% of the time I did not volunteer to remove my shoes I was searched.

So I decided to find out why. I stopped volunteering to remove my shoes and I started to ask questions. I would ask, "why am I being searched", and I would be told, "You have been selected randomly". I would comment that they were not intending to search me until they saw that I had not removed my shoes. Sometimes I would have already walked through the metal detector before they saw I still had my shoes on, and they would ask me to step back through and ask if I was going to remove my shoes, and when I said no they would send me to the search area. The key is that in the search are you had to remove your shoes for the search. In essence, they wanted everyone to remove their shoes, but they did not feel they had legal authority to say that, so they went around it through the "random search" ruse.

So I eventually had a meeting with the head of security at DIA. We chatted for a good hour on the balcony overlooking the security area. He said that I was absolutely right about the fact that failure to volunteer to remove your shoes flagged you for random search. The trouble he said was that the attorneys for the TSA could not agree on the legality of requiring people to remove their shoes. Because they could not determine that they could be up front about it, the used the cloak of a legal random search instead. I liked the guy because he was the first person to actually speak honestly about the policy.

It was just a few months later that they began having everyone remove their shoes, or use the shoe searchers that allowed inspection of your shoes without removing them.

I was actually told by one TSA guy that the 4th amendment did not apply to them, because they were the government. I literally did a head slap when he told me that, and I asked to be searched by his supervisor in hopes of finding someone with a shred of intelligence. His supervisor said something to the effect of "sorry, he's an idiot". Another guy told me that the security area of the airport was not covered by the constitution. I asked him to show me exactly where the line was where I had vanquished my constitutional protections. He was not prepared for this conversation and referred me to his boss himself. His boss also claimed that the constitution did not apply to them, so I laughed and asked him what he did with the crackerjacks (that came with his badge). He didn't get it and let me move along.

The bottom line is that you need to know your rights, and you have to understand how to behave when confronted by those with the duty to enforce the law. There is a line between diligence and abuse of power. Recognizing the difference sometimes takes work and can be very subtle. Also recognize that everyone is constantly learning, so mistakes do not indicate a broken system, they indicate a learning system. Sometime you need too speak up and help people learn, but do it carefully.

Bill

[lawcat]

BigDog,

That is a great story. I hated having to take my shoes off when traveling. I felt like a half-naked idiot in the middle of the terminal.
Airports are specific venues, especially in the context of your story since it happened shortly after 9/11. The issue is often: what is unreasonable? Is it unreasonable to scan travelers, or scan their shoes and make them walk barefoot for 10 feet, at the airport terminal in the wake of 9/11? I would not be surprised if courts and legislators turned a blind eye to that at the time, and even today. The government's interest in safety of travel probably outweighs our expectation of privacy in shoes for that 10 foot walk through the scanner.

But notice that the lawyers advised the TSA to call it "random search" just to avoid the possible problems. This really is not intended to curb legal arguments, but more of a policy to calm the travelers, because no one wants to be targeted specifically, and they usually scream against that. The reason that "random search" has no legal bite is that random searches can not be permanent, such as the barricade at the airport. The government can not randomly search permanently. Random searches are temporary, such as the famous seat-belt stops, which are usually a weekend things; or, alcohol stops over fourth of July. Random searches must be temporary to be legitimate. Otherwise, they are not random, but a wide spread practice.

(Random search is by definition unreasonable; the fact that they may random search thousands of people instead of just one, does not mitigate it, but makes it repugnant to every principle of the constitution. That is why it must be temporary. And your search was random only to the extent to calm you down; but in a legal sense it was not.)

[Theory5]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Do not violate law, do not drive drunk or high. If officer stops you, keep your car clean, and ask what the problem is. This will appraise you of the reason for the stop. If it is traffic, provide documentation and do not talk. If it is on the street, ask what the reason for the stop is. If it is just for information, excuse yourself politely; say that you have business to do and do not wish to talk. If the officer seizes you --does not let you go--do not resist. Get the answer of why the officer is seizing you. If they search you get the answer of why the officer is searching you. Do not talk beyond this. If they arrest you do not talk and ask for a lawyer.

My friend wasnt driving, he was walking down the street, at night 10:00ish.

I have heard that they needed a warrent or something to search your glovebox if it is locked, something about being a thorough search?


And as I mentioned before about an unrelated violation leading to a search, there has been talk of people being arrested for hanging around public area's and they were searched.

Since you do not have all the details, you should speak with abundance of caution, before accusing anyone.

who was I accusing? I did say I did not have all the details, which means I could be telling you the wrong stuff, or have the wrong details, etc.

I am trying to learn everything about this I can, because I want to know all my options. My sister says that they search kids occasionally at her school. And in my school they have brought in the police for drug searches. I wish to know what rights I have, beacuse I have heard (some) laws have changed, or the way police handle stuff have changed.
Police pick kids up late at night and take them home sometimes. Thats not so uncommon, what are the legallities of that?

Although the sanctity of ones privacy against illegal intrusion is one of the most important basic rights in our Constitution, experiences show that such intrusions occur at the hands of overzealous police officers.
taken from PCH-82 Lyrics by Authority Zero http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/authorityzero/pch82.html

How do you defend yourselves against an unlawful instrusion by an officer? We have been told constantly that the police are the good guys, almost to the point where we dont belive any other side by somebody else. What happens when we are that "somebody else"?

Yesterday I saw an officer flash his lights to make a slower driver pull to the side so he could get past. If somebody can abuse their power in small ways such as this, whats to stop them from doing other things, things of bigger consequence?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Theory5

Yesterday I saw an officer flash his lights to make a slower driver pull to the side so he could get past. If somebody can abuse their power in small ways such as this, whats to stop them from doing other things, things of bigger consequence?

That is an abuse of powers? Huh?

[lawcat]

Do not consent to search of your bag, purse, pockets, mouth, car. If they ask if they may search, say no. If they ask again say no. never consent. Do not break law. Mind your own business. Do not talk. You are free to walk home, unless your city has cerfew ordinance. If it does, do not consent to search. They can pat you down, or your bag, or feel inside your bag, for weapons. If they discover drugs or other contraband while patting down, you will likely be arrested. Do not resist. Do not talk.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Do not consent to search of your bag, purse, pockets, mouth, car. If they ask if they may search, say no. If they ask again say no. never consent. Do not break law. Mind your own business. Do not talk. You are free to walk home, unless your city has cerfew ordinance. If it does, do not consent to search. They can pat you down, or your bag, or feel inside your bag, for weapons. If they discover drugs or other contraband while patting down, you will likely be arrested. Do not resist. Do not talk.

Lawcat - Let me get your thoughts on something. I was always told that if I got pulled over for drunk driving that one should refuse the breathalizer and refuse the field sobriety test (walk the straight line, look up and touch your nose, that whole thing). The idea was that, by agreeing to these tests, you were doing nothing but providing evidence for them to use against you in court, and that if you refused (which is your right) they would have nothing and you'd get off more easily and with lesser (if any) charges.

Now recently, here in Texas, they've implemented a no refusal program. They have checkpoints where they pull people over and they are required to do a sobriety test/breathalizer. If the person refuses, the officer has the right to require a blood draw to test for alcohol in their system. If alcohol is found, obviously they spend the night in jail.

How is that possible? How can they get around protections, and even if a person refuses their test, they have the right to draw blood? What's the deal with that? Any ideas on how this is even constitutional or legal?

[Theory5]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

That is an abuse of powers? Huh?

yup yup. Their lights are for emergencies, just like for fire trucks and ambulences. Im pretty sure there is something that prohibits police from flashing their lights to pass a slow driver. Also, if you fail to yeild to an emergency vehicle when it has its lights or sirens on you are breaking a law, because those lights are only for emergencies. I cant find anything about police car lights being used only in emergencies, but its out there somewhere, I bet.
EDIT: Found it on wiki

The use of emergency beacons is restricted by law in many jurisdictions only for responding to an emergency, initiating a traffic stop, bona fide training exercises, or when a specific hazard exists in the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...#United_States

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Theory5

yup yup. Their lights are for emergencies, just like for fire trucks and ambulences. Im pretty sure there is something that prohibits police from flashing their lights to pass a slow driver. Also, if you fail to yeild to an emergency vehicle when it has its lights or sirens on you are breaking a law, because those lights are only for emergencies. I cant find anything about police car lights being used only in emergencies, but its out there somewhere, I bet.

Good luck trying to prove they weren't on their way to provide back-up for a colleague, or weren't responding to a call that was lower priority. Use of the lights has nothing to do with emergencies. It's about clearing traffing or notifying a driver to pull over so they can effectively do their jobs.

Even if it were for emergencies only, though, you'd have no way of knowing if they were responding to a call for help or not, so it's really moot.