Terror Alert Worries?

[+nfa]

A member of Northern New York Geocachers posted on the board about placing a cache and being pulled over by 3 police cars immediately after he pulled away in his truck. Besides checking license, registration, and insurance, they questioned him at some length, frisked him, and searched his truck before letting him go.

 

I assume that the police were as "vigorous" as they were because this geocacher lives quite near the Canadian border, and I have been hearing about a heightened alert-status leading up to a intelligence-backed threat against NYC over the upcoming holidays.

 

Please make sure to have any caches you may be hiding clearly marked as such, don't cache with anything in your geo-ride that you wouldn't want found, and be supportive and polite to law enforcement if they stop you...as much of an inconvenience the stop may be to you, remember the goal of the stops/checks, and how unnerving these types of stops must be for the law enforcement personel.

 

jamie

Edited December 4, 2005 by NFA

[Hugh Jazz]

And be sure to memorize the fourth amendment. That's right, Memorize it:

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Remember that all law enforcement officers on this side of the border regardless of their uniform (FBI, BATFE, Border Patrol, Local & State Police) are sworn to uphold the Constitution. That includes ALL the amendments as well. If they ask to search your vehicle, you may politely refuse, and if you do so, they cannot search it. Remember anything you say can be used against you, and that is exactly what they are looking to do with their questions, to find something to use against you if possible. If they get heavy-handed or intimidational, politely refuse the search and ask to speak to an attorney.

[+nfa]

You're entirely right about our constitutional rights...and I could inform them of all that (which they already know), and then they could then detain me while they get a warrant, which they would likely get, and would probably want to pursue after my refusal to submit to a search...

 

They would almost certainly be deemed to have probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle parking near the border, hiding ammo-cans, and marking points with GPS receiver...why make life harder for them, and certainly for you?

 

As I cache with my son quite often and don't wish to subject a 3 year-old to that kind of playtime with dad, I'll just cooperate with people simply trying to do their jobs

 

I've been stopped and checked out while benchmarking along the US/Canada border, and while it isn't fun, I figure that it is the cost of doing business that close, and on both sides of the border...

 

I'm not happy that this is the reality we live with, but it is, and we have to deal with it...hassling "The Man" doesn't make it go away...

 

jamie

Edited December 4, 2005 by NFA

[bogleman]

Just curious if they mentioned the location where they were placing the cache? If it was placed in a sensitive area this may have been the problem. To have 3 LEO’s stop you is highly unusual. Someone was watching them and called in a complaint. I don’t think the officers stumbled on the person placing the cache. As mentioned you have the right to refuse the search (to a point) but if you have nothing to hide then it should not be a problem. They were resolving a complaint that they felt was serious enough to go to the extent that it went. If you are acting stealthy or trying to be sneaky about what you are doing people will think you are up to no good, just think about that little old lady looking out the window watching the neighbors house while they are on vacation. She sees you walk by with a backpack and a box - she calls 911 and reports a burglar. LEO’s arrive on scene and find you matching the description. The rest goes from there.

[Hugh Jazz]

Oh, I don't consider it "hassling the man" if "the man" is breaking the law. And I have time to wait while they secure the necessary legal paperwork. They know what they are doing is illegal and that they *personally* can be sued, and it does help to remind them of this by asking them if, for example, they own a house, a boat or a nice car. Assure them that if they detain you, it may take six months and some legal fees, but you will own their house, boat, and car when the dust settles. Then ask to speak to an attorney again.

 

Fortunately the nearest border to me is the Oklahoma border, which last I checked is not heavily patrolled, and on the other side of it I can actually exercise more of my rights than I can here in Kansas.

[ATMouse]

I have had times when I have had officers talk to me when I was caching - I didn't challenge their reasons, I spoke to them and answered their questions. Most of them were interested in the sport. It is the job of officers to investigate unusual behavior.

 

Edited to keep it on topic.

Edited December 4, 2005 by ATMouse

[+LadeBear68]

Isn't this getting a little off topic?

[+NotThePainter]

If they ask to search your vehicle, you may politely refuse, and if you do so, they cannot search it.  Remember anything you say can be used against you, and that is exactly what they are looking to do with their questions, to find something to use against you if possible.  If they get heavy-handed or intimidational, politely refuse the search and ask to speak to an attorney.

I'm not so sure of this. Check into the full definition of a Terry stop. The criteria here is 'reasonable suspicion' not the 'probably cause' standard.

 

And of course the Patriot Act may rear its ugly head here...

 

I know some officers (and lawyers!) cache, hopefully one of them can speak up, as far as these topics are concerned, I'm just as uninformed as most people.

 

Paul

[+Team Boxer]

Remember that all law enforcement officers on this side of the border regardless of their uniform (FBI, BATFE, Border Patrol, Local & State Police) are sworn to uphold the Constitution.  That includes ALL the amendments as well.  If they ask to search your vehicle, you may politely refuse, and if you do so, they cannot search it.  Remember anything you say can be used against you, and that is exactly what they are looking to do with their questions, to find something to use against you if possible.  If they get heavy-handed or intimidational, politely refuse the search and ask to speak to an attorney.

I gotta tell you I don't usualy get involved in this type of discussion but when I read a statement like that It's all I can do to keep my head from exploding!

 

I mean no disrespect toward you or your views but in this time of hightened national security the very last thing I would do is refuse a search of my person or property. I am not a terrorist nor a criminal...I have nothing to hide! Let them search and ask the questions. When they are done and satisfied and send me on my way before I leave I'll shake their hands and thank them for being out there watching out for us.

 

If the PO seems to have an attitude at the beginning of the situation...so what! By the time it's over they may turn out to be a nice person just doing his/her job.

 

I would rather have the police search and question me (and others) than turn my TV on to watch another 9/11 or worse yet look out my window and see it.

 

My Opinion...

T*B*

[Hugh Jazz]

Cooperate with the nice policeman, after all, you have nothing to hide. You are so happy to give up the rights that people, including your uncles and sisters and brothers and ancestors have fought and got injured and died to defend for you. You just happily toss them away? Here, Mr. Policeman, take this right, I'm not using it. It's in the name of security after all. Here, sit in this cell, no lawyer, no phone call, no due process. Now don't you feel secure?

 

If you don't exercise your rights, you have none. Yes it's inconvenient to exercise your fourth amendment rights. Yes you are innocent of any wrongdoing. But the guys doing this (and the congress passing such laws as Terry Stop and Patriot Act) are doing something illegal. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You can't pass a law that invalidates the fourth amendment. It's a pre-existing right.

 

Remember, if you let the police trample your freedoms in the name of security, then you have handed a sweet victory to Mr. Bin Laden and his deputies. Think about that next time they're frisking you and you haven't done anything wrong.

 

The rest of you go ahead and chime in about how you have nothing to hide so you don't care if they search you. "Rough Men" who give a d*mn about freedom will one day have to fight and die to get your butt out of the mess you're willingly walking into. Wake up before it's too late.

 

Edit to add: I mean no disrespect by this post to anyone who holds a differing opinion but you do need to read some history, because you are standing on a slippery slope and are quite happy there for some reason, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Edited December 4, 2005 by Hugh Jazz

[bogleman]

- off topic - you have the right to remain silent so shut up -

relax just being silly

 

(still have yet to master this) Please make sure to have any caches you may be hiding clearly marked as such, don't cache with anything in your geo-ride that you wouldn't want found, and be supportive and polite to law enforcement if they stop you...as much of an inconvenience the stop may be to you, remember the goal of the stops/checks, and how unnerving these types of stops must be for the law enforcement personel.

 

It happens to the best of us, we get excited and want to hide the cache and sometimes get careless. Not all LEO contact happens in a negative manner.

[+Team Boxer]

Cooperate with the nice policeman, after all, you have nothing to hide.  You are so happy to give up the rights that people, including your uncles and sisters and brothers and ancestors have fought and got injured and died to defend for you.  You just happily toss them away? Here, Mr. Policeman, take this right, I'm not using it.  It's in the name of security after all.  Here, sit in this cell, no lawyer, no phone call, no due process.  Now don't you feel secure? 

 

If you don't exercise your rights, you have none.  Yes it's inconvenient to exercise your fourth amendment rights.  Yes you are innocent of any wrongdoing.  But the guys doing this (and the congress passing such laws as Terry Stop and Patriot Act) are doing something illegal.  Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  You can't pass a law that invalidates the fourth amendment.  It's a pre-existing right. 

 

Remember, if you let the police trample your freedoms in the name of security, then you have handed a sweet victory to Mr. Bin Laden and his deputies.  Think about that next time they're frisking you and you haven't done anything wrong. 

 

The rest of you go ahead and chime in about how you have nothing to hide so you don't care if they search you.  "Rough Men" who give a d*mn about freedom will one day have to fight and die to get your butt out of the mess you're willingly walking into.  Wake up before it's too late.

 

Edit to add: I mean no disrespect by this post to anyone who holds a differing opinion but you do need to read some history, because you are standing on a slippery slope and are quite happy there for some reason, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

WOW!

 

I knew it, I knew, I knew it I never should have responded to that statement...

 

*Note to self* Never, Ever do that again!

 

T*B*

[Hugh Jazz]

I knew it, I knew, I knew it I never should have responded to that statement... 

 

*Note to self* Never, Ever do that again!

 

T*B*

Again, no disrespect intended.

Let's just agree to disagree. I got caches to find.

Edited December 4, 2005 by Hugh Jazz

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

For several reasons I am one of the most checked-out geocachers in the game - I cache almost daily and travel quite a bit to do it, and get stopped sometimes twice a week while caching, usually at night in urban areas...a few months ago I got stopped twice while poking around places people rarely go and checked out at a cache site all in one night!

 

Often there will be 5-6 cachers in my Suburban behind a shopping mall at 2 a.m.!

 

No big deal, they most often listen to my explanation of geocaching, sometimes run my license to check for warrants, twice have searched my vehicle.

 

My response? Thank You! This is exactly what we tax-payers PAY them to do (and not nearly enough!), expect them to do, and rarely thank them for doing! And man do we raise a stink when we think they aren't doing it!

 

If a truck with out-of-state tags can park behind a mall at 2 a.m. and NOT get checked out is when I'll have a problem with it!

 

When some jerk destroys cemetary markers, we're mad and screaming for the cops to do something, catch somebody, protect this place, how-could-you-let-this-happen, but when you get stopped in a cemetary it's somehow a violation of your rights?

 

While the I-Know-my-rights attitude might restrict the police to doing a bare minimum, strictly according to the law...the corralary would be the cops saying I-know-my-job-description and doing the bare minimum required by it - which would be a disaster and calamity for everyone!

 

Cops do FAR more than they are required to do, and thank God for 'em!

 

Folks that don't like our police practices and procedures might get out and travel a bit - of the 18 countries I have visited and 3 I have lived in I'll take American policing and justice anytime! My family owns a home in Bannanera, Morales Ixabal, Guatemala - you're welcome to go down, spend a month. When you get back you'll likely have a whole new vision of our police!

 

Have fun out there!

Ed

[+CamoCacher]

Hugh Jazz

 

I am one of those people who defend your right to freedom, as well as your right to speak freely, have your own religion, etc. and I have got to say that A)either you had a bad experience with LEO's you just like to be a devils advocate or C)???

 

As a citizen I am not giving up my rights if I or anyone cooperates with law enforcement or anyother agency.

 

ATR great post!

[Hugh Jazz]

I'll take American policing and justice anytime!

Agreed, as long as it's done legally. If it's an unconstitutional search it's illegal, by definition.

[+martinell]

Fear. People let their rights be trampled due to fear. Please don't want their rights trampled due to fear of another sort. Both groups are ultimately motivated by fear. I know I fear loseing rights. I also fear that somebody will slip through the cracks because of this fear and cause more devastation.

 

As a nation we suffer from "loss of innocence" syndrome. No matter how much we don't like it, the terrorist of the world has acheived some impact on our lives. As such we all need to understand that we need to change with it - and find a way to do so without giving up that which we have fought to attain.

 

No - I don't know what that answer would be but it lies somewhere between sheep-like obedience and hostility towards law enforcement. Rather situation dependent.....

[Hugh Jazz]

As a citizen I am not giving up my rights if I or anyone cooperates with law enforcement or anyother agency.

I too defend your right to freedom, that's what I've been saying all along.

 

If it's an illegal search and you submit to it willingly, you have already given up your fourth amendment rights.

 

Again, respectfully, we agree to disagree, because you'll never convince me that submitting to an *illegal* search is ever right under any circumstances.

[+Mopar]

Interestingly enough, I'd love to buy both Hugh and TAR a beer.

[+The Leprechauns]

Interestingly enough, I'd love to buy both Hugh and TAR a beer.

I'd sign up for that event. I've met you, Mopar, on several occasions -- and that helps me a lot when I read some of your more snarky forum posts. Likewise I have met The Alabama Rambler at two GeoWoodstocks. He is on my list of most admired geocachers. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Lowracer/Hugh Jazz yet, but I have no doubt that it would be fun.

 

Despite often taking contrary positions in the forums, nearly all of the people you see here regularly are awfully nice when you meet them in person. So everyone should either do that, or at least pretend like they'll see the other posters at an event next weekend before firing back their own post.

[Hugh Jazz]

Interestingly enough, I'd love to buy both Hugh and TAR a beer.

Yeah let's set up an event to meet and discuss. Would probably skip the beer so we could all head out to the shootin' range and take the shine off some metal pigs and chickens.

 

I may not have made it clear enough that I do not harbor hostility to law enforcement, but rather the *illegal* actions of law enforcement. Big difference there. I've got relatives who are cops and know they have a tough job.

 

I also harbor no hostility toward posters with contrary views to mine. Just feel strongly about this one issue, maybe a half dozen others enshrined there in the Bill of Rights.

[+oldnavy59]

I honestly think we are seeing the extreme ends of this topic I agree that if we dont stand up for our rights they will vanish you cannt surrender them, but thats not to say that you cannt or shouldnt question them(policeofficers or law enf), because they wear a uniform doesnt make them right 100% of the time. Guess im lucky ive never been stopped or questioned but if stopped i would explain what i was doing if they wanted to search me or my vehicle i would question that and ask for there supervisor to be sent to the scene. and I too serverd my country defending OUR rights and blind obedience is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing

just my opinion

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Well, not being a lawyer and taking it back to geocaching, it's been my experience that a smile and willing cooperation goes a long way to making the encounter pleasant and brief!

 

What's the next cache?

 

And Mopar, I don't drink but can't wait to meet you! I'll be at CCCA's Pa. event on the 10th if you are anywhere close!

 

[Edit: Ooops - just saw Lep's post - kind words and thank you! Hope to see y'all soon!]

 

Ed

Edited December 4, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+RobRee]

And be sure to memorize the fourth amendment.  That's right, Memorize it:

 

make sure you are fully aware of your rights, as well as the duties of a law enforcement agent. your rights to fourth amendment protection are sacred. probable (edited my spell checker mistake - probably cause. lol) cause, and reasonable suspicion are two things you should familiarize yourself with before you get snippy with a L.E.O. your actions, and many other factors can lead to a legal search. many, many people have spouted amendments while i used my knowledge, the law and my experience to effect a lawful search. half knowledge of a particular subject can really get you in deep do-do.

 

that said... carry the "Let's Go Geocaching!" Brochure from Geocacher U PDF document on Geocaching with you while placing caches. be well versed in the sport, hobby or addiction we call geocaching. be able to articulate what you are doing.

 

don't get snippy. most law enforcement officers are there to help.

 

my $.02

Edited December 4, 2005 by RobRee

[+martinell]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

[+RobRee]

If it's an illegal search and you submit to it willingly, you have already given up your fourth amendment rights.

 

you have the right to say "NO" in front of witnesses... it will not hold up if it is illegal. you do not give up your rights... you can say yes, and still beat a search in court... if it is illegal. there are too many circumstances to discuss on a board. you should really take a peek at some court documents on the history of search and seizure, as you may be surprised at what has transpired throughout the last 50 or so years.

 

there are many factors that elevate a LEO from observe - stop - reasonable suspicion - probable cause - arrest.

 

many misconceptions regarding law in the civilian world.

[Hugh Jazz]

many misconceptions regarding law in the civilian world.

I have read the cases and I am not at all surprised at what has transpired in the courts. That doesn't make things right. You can pass a law that says that people have to obtain a permit to practice Catholicism in public, for example, and a court can uphold that law for 100 years in case after case. It still does not make it legal (or right), because the Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion. That is, a law itself can be illegal (unconstitutional).

 

A police officer can be put in the tricky position of having to enforce an illegal law. If he's sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, however, his course of action (and his conscience) should be clear.

 

Geocaching is not a crime.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"He just looked hinky - kinda nervous"

 

Spoken by the officer that recovered my stolen car, when I asked what made him stop the perp.

[+RobRee]

You can pass a law

 

by the way... who passes laws?

 

"Love it, or leave it."

[+JMBella]

I think Jay-Z said it best:

"The glove compartment's locked, so is the trunk in the back and I know my rights so you gonna need a warrant fo dat"

 

[+RobRee]

joe-

 

"and that said Mr Z... leave the car, and keys. you can retrieve your auto in whitestone after the warrant is executed."

 

good call though. if it is locked, and no warrant.... gotta have exigent circumstances, or no joy.

[+CompuCash]

Remember that all law enforcement officers on this side of the border regardless of their uniform (FBI, BATFE, Border Patrol, Local & State Police) are sworn to uphold the Constitution.  That includes ALL the amendments as well.  If they ask to search your vehicle, you may politely refuse, and if you do so, they cannot search it.  Remember anything you say can be used against you, and that is exactly what they are looking to do with their questions, to find something to use against you if possible.  If they get heavy-handed or intimidational, politely refuse the search and ask to speak to an attorney.

I gotta tell you I don't usualy get involved in this type of discussion but when I read a statement like that It's all I can do to keep my head from exploding!

 

I mean no disrespect toward you or your views but in this time of hightened national security the very last thing I would do is refuse a search of my person or property. I am not a terrorist nor a criminal...I have nothing to hide! Let them search and ask the questions. When they are done and satisfied and send me on my way before I leave I'll shake their hands and thank them for being out there watching out for us.

 

If the PO seems to have an attitude at the beginning of the situation...so what! By the time it's over they may turn out to be a nice person just doing his/her job.

 

I would rather have the police search and question me (and others) than turn my TV on to watch another 9/11 or worse yet look out my window and see it.

 

My Opinion...

T*B*

 

I do not pick your posting especially except it was about the 4th (have not read further) and I gotta keepm MY head from exploding.

 

While in some respects I do agree with you regarding the OP being so close the the Canadian border, all along I have been thinking of a quote.

 

this came up on TOP of my Google search! " b franklin quote on freedom" - gawd Google is good!

 

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve

nor will he ever receive either. Benjamin Franklin

 

Our rights are being chizled at daily.

 

You know that muscle in the back or your leg that hurts when you haven't cached for a while -- you know what they say - use it or lose it?

 

Well if we don't exercise our right we will certainly lose them.

 

cc\

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Hugh Jazz-

 

Spot on, sir. The vast majority of people I see pulled over around here are guilty of DWB, and nothing else. If there isn't enough cause to go through the trouble and time of getting an actual warrant, there's probably not enough cause for the stop in the first place.

 

BTW, if we're talking about national security, how many explosive-laden ammo cans have been found lately in the US? Don't even get me started with all the measures our government needs to take if they really wanted to make our borders secure!

 

That's it for my unpopular post. (I've had a few of those lately... ) Had to throw a bit support to Mr Jazz.

 

One more BTW- Never even had a speeding ticket, here, so it ain't personal

[+martinell]

One more BTW- Never even had a speeding ticket, here, so it ain't personal

Speeding tickets aren't personal either...I've had a few - all of them on my way to gaurd drill.

 

I have noted one confusing statement: According to RobRee you can only refuse a search if there are witnessess. What does this mean exactly? If I were of a paranoid nature I would surmise that as long as there is nobody around to back up your story the officer is going to lie through his teeth just because he can. I am fairly certain this isn't true.....

 

you have the right to say "NO" in front of witnesses....

[+RobRee]

I have noted one confusing statement: According to RobRee you can only refuse a search if there are witnesses. What does this mean exactly? If I were of a paranoid nature I would surmise that as long as there is nobody around to back up your story the officer is going to lie through his teeth just because he can. I am fairly certain this isn't true.....

 

written word is so open to interpretation.... in the spirit of the paranoia i have seen in earlier postings.... it is always in your best interest, anywhere in life to have witnesses. no, all officers don't lie through there teeth. please note... i am actually quite the fair, and honest one.

 

According to RobRee you can only refuse a search if there are witnesses.

you will have to point out to me where i said... "you can only refuse a search if there are witnesses."

[+martinell]

Like I said, I found the statement confusing. It was a question that I felt I needed cleared up in my own mind.

 

Back to the original post, I do think that if the request to search is resonable, why not do it and get it over with. I do know that if you cross the border between US/Canada your vehicle will probably be searched when coming in to the US. At least mine always is. This seems reasonable since you have been out of the country doing who knows what. I could apply that logic to areas along the border as well.

[+RobRee]

let us get back to the main post.. the original poster gave great advice.

 

-- mark the container well

-- don't have "bad stuff" in your car

-- be polite

-- i will add.. carry the PDF document i suggested earlier

-- be ready to explain in detail what you are doing

 

remember that we are placing packages in the woods, and cities of the USA for our fun in finding them. we leave packages in public space, and walk away. to Geocachers this is normal, but to others it seems a bit odd. i took a quick poll of 10 fellow cops... 3 had heard of Geocaching. that leaves seven cops with a heightened level of suspicion when observing our game. not every person out there knows of this hobby, sport or addiction. approach every stop with diplomacy, and all will work out fine.

 

be smart, but not a smart a**. know your rights, but i don't advise trying to lecture an investigating officer on search and seizure... i would probably hear you out, because i am patient... others may not humor the situation.

 

the person being stopped does not know much of what has brought the officer to the situation. was it an observation, or a radio call. did the caller embellish (oh, and they do!) and say the bad guy putting the box of explosives in the woods has a gun???

 

i have been a police officer in a major metropolitan area for thirteen years, and i understand the concerns of people being searched. just be careful.

 

from me -- understand your rights. understand the rights of the officer. understand the law....

i cannot tell you whether or not you can do something, or cannot, you have free will. i can tell you the consequences of your actions. choose wisely.

Edited December 4, 2005 by RobRee

[+Ambrosia]

Cooperate with the nice policeman, after all, you have nothing to hide. You are so happy to give up the rights that people, including your uncles and sisters and brothers and ancestors have fought and got injured and died to defend for you. You just happily toss them away? Here, Mr. Policeman, take this right, I'm not using it. It's in the name of security after all. Here, sit in this cell, no lawyer, no phone call, no due process. Now don't you feel secure?

 

If you don't exercise your rights, you have none. Yes it's inconvenient to exercise your fourth amendment rights. Yes you are innocent of any wrongdoing. But the guys doing this (and the congress passing such laws as Terry Stop and Patriot Act) are doing something illegal. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You can't pass a law that invalidates the fourth amendment. It's a pre-existing right.

 

Remember, if you let the police trample your freedoms in the name of security, then you have handed a sweet victory to Mr. Bin Laden and his deputies. Think about that next time they're frisking you and you haven't done anything wrong.

 

The rest of you go ahead and chime in about how you have nothing to hide so you don't care if they search you. "Rough Men" who give a d*mn about freedom will one day have to fight and die to get your butt out of the mess you're willingly walking into. Wake up before it's too late.

 

Edit to add: I mean no disrespect by this post to anyone who holds a differing opinion but you do need to read some history, because you are standing on a slippery slope and are quite happy there for some reason, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Amen.

[+TeamGuisinger]

We are slowly giving up our freedom because of fear. They're doing their job, but cutting corners because they can. The general population doesn't know their rights or the importance of using them. I have nothing to hide is the first thing out of a good criminals mouth, havent you watched CSI? lol Would you let a cop walk up to your door and let him search your bedroom? You always have the right to say no. You always have the right to question their ability to do their job, they're human too, they make mistakes. Look at all the people freed after DNA evidence has become the norm. I'd say stick to caching like always, and if you get stopped, think before you act. Let them know what you're doing, show them your ID, if they want more, make them do their job. BTW, chances are, they wont get a warrant. At best, they will call for a canine unit to walk around your car before they let you go. I have said no, it psed him off, but........

If we continue to follow the guidelines, we shouldn't have any problems.

[CoyoteRed]

Remember, if you let the police trample your freedoms in the name of security, then you have handed a sweet victory to Mr. Bin Laden and his deputies.

Well said. I'm thinking Bin Laden is thinking himself winning handsomely already. Consider the effected changes in our society we see today. The simple fact this thread exists tells Bin Laden he has changed the landscape of the US. We are well behind in the War on Terror.

 

As for "letting" a LEO search my car, I will never do as policy. If they are asking then they don't have cause. If they do, then they simply won't ask. Doesn't have anything to do with terror and the fight against it.

 

Little story. Volusia County, Florida. Don't carry any large sums of cash on you. The Sheriff's department there have a habit of pulling folks over that look a little "hinky." They pull over for the barest of infractions, even sometimes "courtesy calls." They are all pleasant and smiles. When they are about to go, they pull what I call a "Columbo" - "Just one more thing. We're supposed to be doing so many searches a month and I dont' want to get in trouble with the boss. Do you mind?"

 

So as the stop has been pleasant up to this point many people let them.

 

The problem comes when they find something.

 

It is not illegal to carry large sums of cash so folks aren't generally worried. But what the officers do is "hold" the money until you can explain in front of a jude that the money was not gained by illicit means.

 

Legal? It sure is. It is legal under our "War on Drugs." The local paper, the News and Courier, had a big article about it. A lot of the department's equipment comes from monies seized in such a manner. Much like speed traps of small towns. The article contacted some folks who had been put out in such a manner; one guy was a profession gambler who missed some big game because he had to wait around to get his money. Another was just after Andrew when some folks rented a big uHaul and gathered some moeny to go buy supplies. They had to wait some time to get the money back to get their supplies.

 

Now, see why I'd never give permission?

[+Team Noltex]

I have read the cases and I am not at all surprised at what has transpired in the courts.  That doesn't make things right.  You can pass a law that says that people have to obtain a permit to practice Catholicism in public, for example, and a court can uphold that law for 100 years in case after case.  It still does not make it legal (or right), because the Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion.  That is, a law itself can be illegal (unconstitutional).

 

A police officer can be put in the tricky position of having to enforce an illegal law.  If he's sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, however, his course of action (and his conscience) should be clear.

 

Ahhh. I was waiting for it to finally come through in the arguments, and there it is. It's not about the law to you, it's about what you think the law should be. However, the law is whatever the courts interpret the constitution says it is, at that time. The Constitution never was and was never meant to be an absolute list of what is and is not legal. It is a living document that was meant to be interpreted. The current interpretation may not be what you agree with, but that doesn't make it less of a law. And enforcing it is definately not enforcing an illegal law. Laws and constitutional interpretations get overturned all the time.

 

Don't make it the fault of the cops that you don't happen to like whatever the current interpretation is by the courts. The cops may not like it either, but they are required to obey it. Upholding the court's interpretation of the Constitution is upholding the Constitution.

[+RobRee]

if you don't like a law... change it.

VOTE.

 

be careful what you wish for.

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you in experience

[+Mopar]

the law is whatever the courts interpret the constitution says it is, at that time. The Constitution never was and was never meant to be an absolute list of what is and is not legal. It is a living document that was meant to be interpreted.

Where in the US Constitution does it say this? I must have missed it.

 

 

 

 

Pssst: I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.

Here's another hint. If you're unsure of what the Constitution was and wasn't meant to be, try reading The Federalist Papers, which was written by the same people who wrote the Constitution.

Edited December 4, 2005 by Mopar

[+RobRee]

the argument of how to interpret the constitution is older than all of us. that argument dates back to the original document.

 

mopar- the supreme court would be the final factor in that.

[+CamoCacher]

Wouldn't history itself also be an example -

 

one example being - way back when blacks and women were not seen as covered under The Constitution that was an interpertation to the docuement

 

The is probably one of the most obvious example but there are many more.

[Ctrl-Alt-Delete]

I've been questioned by the police 13 times over the years. I've been out looking at the stars, hiding caches, catching bugs and even trapping mice for my pet rattlesnake to name but a few examples.

 

When they asked me what I was doing once, I told them. "I'm digging a hole for a blind so that I can hide and photograph a green heron." I was! They asked to see what I had in my trunk. I gladly showed them. They looked at the rusty shovel and the rusty old knife. I was very open and offered to show them the hole. They declined.

 

I didn't blame them for wondering what the hey I was up to at the end of that little shady lane down by the sand pits. Besides, it gave me another story to tell my students.

 

Every time they ask me what I'm doing I ALWAYS tell them the truth and ALWAYS -gladly- fully coorperate with their requests with a .

 

Happy hunting!

[+sbell111]

I couldn't help but chime in on this topic, since its one of the few things that CR and I appear to agree on.

 

It is not out of the ordinary for anyone who is cching to be questioned by the police. When this happens, we should certainly be polite and honest. However, I will never agree to a search of my person, car, or home. Anyone who truly believes that an officer can just go to a judge and get a search warrent because someone was out of place or appeared nervous is fooling themselves.

 

I could go through when a search is justifiable and does not require a warrent or consent, but it has been done already on these forums. Just do a search (no pun intended).

[+flask]

put me in the column FOR civil liberties. when you give them up in the name of security you don't get secure and you don't get your liberties back.

 

other hand, when stopped by the police i am nearly always polite and cooperative.

 

sure. i just went into the woods carrying a bag. did i know they have a problem with illegal dumping in the neighborhood? no, i did not.

 

nope, don't care for your stupid INS inland traffic stop. intend to be surly when stopped. haven't been stopped yet. give 'em a bad look as i go by. yes, please. search my car. AFTER you've gotten your warrant. yes, i have all the time in the world. my car is packed to bursting with lots of gear. please search it. AFTER you get your warrant.

 

hey, careful with that expensive equipment. simply being on the interstate does not constitute reasonable suspicion and i intend to be quite firm about it.

[+Team Noltex]

the law is whatever the courts interpret the constitution says it is, at that time. The Constitution never was and was never meant to be an absolute list of what is and is not legal. It is a living document that was meant to be interpreted.

Where in the US Constitution does it say this? I must have missed it.

 

 

 

 

Pssst: I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.

Here's another hint. If you're unsure of what the Constitution was and wasn't meant to be, try reading The Federalist Papers, which was written by the same people who wrote the Constitution.

Marbury vs. Madison. In 1803. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall established that one of the roles of the court is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. It's pretty much been that way for 202 years now.

 

sbell111 and I, along with several others, went around and around on this topic here a while back. I think we all came away with an appreciation of the other side of the argument.

 

Moderation in all things.

Terence, Andria

Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)

[+QDman]

the law is whatever the courts interpret the constitution says it is, at that time. The Constitution never was and was never meant to be an absolute list of what is and is not legal. It is a living document that was meant to be interpreted.

Where in the US Constitution does it say this? I must have missed it.

 

 

 

 

Pssst: I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.

Here's another hint. If you're unsure of what the Constitution was and wasn't meant to be, try reading The Federalist Papers, which was written by the same people who wrote the Constitution.

Marbury vs. Madison. In 1803. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall established that one of the roles of the court is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. It's pretty much been that way for 202 years now.

 

sbell111 and I, along with several others, went around and around on this topic here a while back. I think we all came away with an appreciation of the other side of the argument.

 

Moderation in all things.

Terence, Andria

Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I think there's a big difference between interpreting whether a law is consitutional, and saying that the constitution is a living (by which I believe you mean changing) document. Obviously, laws need to be examined to make sure they're constitutional. But if we're going to change the constitution, why have one?