Terror Alert Worries?

[+budd-rdc]

I'm going to steer the discussion in a different direction based on personal experience.

 

When I was crossing the border to British Columbia, Canada from Washington State, I was stopped by Canadian Customs and my car was searched. The Canadians were polite, and I was on my way quickly, but I suspect they were searching for illegal drugs.

 

Last I heard, no one has declared "victory" for War on Drugs.

 

So maybe the issue isn't just about terrorism. Of course, the discussions about civil rights and the Constitution still apply.

[+Renegade Knight]

"He just looked hinky - kinda nervous"

 

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

There was a case where the driver looked "twitchy" or something like that and the passenger was drunk. The resulting search resulted in the LEO's finding 3 bags of crack cocain.

 

It went to court and the search was deemed Illegal. I don't konw if they gave permission or refused at the time. Either way the evidence was tainted.

 

I think it's entirly reasonable to be polite and cooperative, right up until it's time for them to get a warrent. Then you can be polite but still say no. The only times i've ever been questioned it's never got past questions and so I've never had to wonder what I'd do if they wanted to search my rig or my house.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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?

 

The Constitution was, is and hopefully will always be a living, changing document.

 

Amended (changed) 28 times so far (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), Bush's Marriage Amendment would be the 29th (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html).

 

Ed

 

Edit - Since we're this far off topic anyway!

 

Everything changes, even the Christian Bible! See http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

 

An incident happened while I was doing disaster relief in Biloxi after Katrina - A fellow I had gotten to know during my stay there came by my campsite one night and started talking about how he was gonna re-write the Bible.

 

He left for a minute, went to his van and returned - with a fully automatic Italian sub-machine gun!

 

He leaned the gun against my Jeep and went on to tell me how he was going to rewrite the Book of Revelations and he was going to have an effect on the end of the world, that this storm was just the beginning and now his time had come!

 

I placed myself between him and the gun and let him ramble on, until he went to sleep, then called Biloxi's finest, who showed up quickly in full SWAT mode and took this idiot off my hands.

 

A search of his van revealed a small bag of pot, two pistols and a hand grenade!

Edited December 5, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+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)

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?

The Constitution itself isn't changed, how it's interpreted does. For instance, do you think that the framers of the Constitution could possibly conceive of internet pornogrpahy? There wasn't anything remotely like that at the time, so in order to make laws to govern that, the intent of the Constitution has to be interpreted. The legislatures and Congress can pass any law they want, but it's up to the courts to determine if they meet what is currently determined to be what the constitution intended.

 

As it applies to this discussion, search and seizure laws, most coming out of the fourth amendment, are constantly changing and differ throughout the nation. What is permissable in one area of the country for search and seizure may not be somewhere else. Assert your rights, that's why they are called that, not privileges. Just be aware that they might not apply in the situation you find yourself in.

[CoyoteRed]

Assert your rights, that's why they are called that, not privileges. Just be aware that they might not apply in the situation you find yourself in.

Actually, I don't know of any place where you can be forced to give permission regardless of the situation.

 

Like I said above, a search can legally happen with or without your permission in certain situations. But if they can't legally search without your permission they can always ask for it. Once you answer in the affirmative then anything they find is fair game.

 

(Coercion aside, that is.)

[+RobRee]

Actually, I don't know of any place where you can be forced to give permission regardless of the situation.

 

no person in our country can force you to give permission.

 

your permission can be taken out of the equation.

 

under certain circumstances, permission is not necessary. Search incidental to a lawful arrest, inventory and exigent circumstances are a few. plain view items can change the whole situation also. you still have the right to ask why, and what is being sought. chances are at this point the individual usually knows what is being sought. i have recovered guns from autos in plain view, and the operator of the vehicle legitimately did not know they were there... music industry in NYC is very interesting. it has been my experience that many, if not most innocent people offer a search without being asked.

 

that said.. EVERY search that leads to an arrest should, and will be challenged in court. as a police officer i agree that every search should be challenged in court. i make about 100 arrests a year, and they are based on street encounter, and observations. all felony, and most misdemeanor arrests are challenged on validity of the initial stop. i take that as a challenge to do my job properly... i seek a higher standard of evidence to make sure that all my cases are solid. i use video, audio and other means to achieve a solid base for a case.

 

back to the main issue.....

 

we hide items in woods, and city spaces. thank (insert religious icon here) we have law enforcement agents that are aware enough to check it out.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

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.

Mopar,

 

I am going to guess that you and I agree a lot more about what the Constitution means and what it was intended to mean than we ever do here.

 

But I would say that the Federalist Papers are the point of view of only one group that was involved in writing the Constitution. There were two or more sides to what should have been in there and what was meant by what was in there and why. Their differences were in many cases huge. It took years for Jefferson and Adams to come to terms with it. And don't even make me bring up Hamilton. They were far from a single minded or like thinking group when it came to the Constitution. And the document reflects that. And I think that is a good thing. I think it is a great piece of work and it is vile how it is being distorted today.

[+BlueDeuce]

Ok, I'm in my truck, and as I'm driving off several police cars pull me over.

 

Is that when I'm supposed to argue about my civil rights?

 

And that works?

 

“So sorry sir, my mistake, carry on then”

[+Harry Dolphin]

The Ben Franklin quote is apocryphal. It is, however, still a great quote.

LEO knows that his/her mere presence intimidates people. This leads a large number of people to agree to a search of their vehicle. This is intimidation.

I worry about the direction in which this country is heading. A national identity card is required for many things these days. You may think that that's just a driver's license. A driver's license is a license to drive, and nothing more. Somehow, it has become a National Identity Card. Try getting on a plane or train without one. I seem to need Six Points of Identification to renew my license. Why? Because terrorists sometimes have valid driver's licenses. Hunh? The thought "Police State" comes to mind.

I am told, though I do not know if it is true or not, that a passport is now needed to visit Puerto Rico. This from a coworker returning to the Isla Encantada for Christmas. HUNH??!? PR is part of this country. Will I need a passport to go to Hawaii next?

On my last few trips to Vermont, I was stopped at a Customs and Imigration Check Point on I-91 southbound near White River Junction. This is sixty miles below the Canadian Border, and everyone knows where it is. It's been there for years. I guess it stops really stupid terrorists?

Enough ranting about the police state. How does it apply to geocaching, IMHO?

One or two caches, I've walked away with a DNF with LEO stopped nearby. Other than that, I've been lucky. I'm sure that the police and FBI have files on me. I don't need an 'acting strangely' added to it. Okay, so I frequently act strangely...

I've only been questioned by the police once, so far. With 650 caches and 202 benchmarks logged, that's not too bad, I guess.

I've mentioned this before, so forgive me if I'm being repetitious. I was searching for a benchmark on the Brigantine Bridge (which connects Atlantic City to Brigantine, NJ.) Benchmarks are there for surveyors to use, AFAIK. This is not a major bridge. It is the only way off of Brigantine. We were in Atlantic City, not Brigantine. A Brigantine Beach Patrol Officer stops on the bridge to question us. We had parked at Harrah's Marina, and walked over, so he didn't feel he could ask for my driver's license (not really sure why that stopped him...) He was a beach patrol officer, not even a full-fledged Brigantine police officer. What was his reasoning? "You're not allowed to hang on the bridge." No signs to that effect. Not his jurisdiction. It's a public bridge with a sidewalk. I explained that were doing volunteer work recovering benchmarks for the NGS, and showed him the NGS print out. "You're not allowed to hang on the bridge."

Public security gone haywire is what creates the police state.

[+BlueDeuce]

nevermind,

Edited December 6, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+RobRee]

I'm sure that the police and FBI have files on me.

 

Member yet???

[Hugh Jazz]

This is a good one too, lots of black helicopters flying around and a charismatic TV personality to boot:

 

Infowars

 

I find it immensely entertaining.

Loads of fun to watch while stockpiling MREs and ammunition out in the bunker.

 

Oh and since I used to work in the blackest depths of the military-industrial complex, the FBI does have records on me in fact, but they're filed under another name, not "Hugh Jazz."

Edited December 6, 2005 by Hugh Jazz

[+TeamGuisinger]

True story: A friend of ours was driving home from work one evening and was stopped by the police in a small town. The cop told him the reason for the stop was a burned out license plate bulb. Knowing that he had replaced the bulb the day before, he told the cop he was wrong. The cop got angry and asked to search the car. The driver said "I'm trying to get home after working 14 hrs. I dont have time for a search and you had no right to pull me over." This infuriated the officer and he demanded the driver get out of the car. They walked to the rear of the vehicle where the license bulb was glowing brightly as it was when this all started. The driver said " See? I told you it was fine, is there anything else?" Yes, said the officer. "You seem to be hiding something because you wont let me search your car. What are you hiding in there?" Again the driver explained the long exhausting day and the desire to finish the second half of his 2hr. commute. So now the cop starts talking on the radio to another cop about how the driver that he pulled over for no good reason is refusing a search and he needs backup. (This is a good place to point out the law that says, if an officer makes a traffic stop and upon completion of that stop realizes that the stop was made in error, the stop is void and the driver must be let go) Now comes officer number 2, the big overbearing one. "What the hell is your problem?" says the new cop, What's in your car? "Nothing."states the driver, "I have the right to refuse a search and that's what I'm doing." "We'll tell you what you have the right to do here."says the new cop. "I say we have our K9 come over here and tear the seats out of your car for you, maybe let him piss in your back seat." "Do what you gotta do so I can go home." says the driver "But you'll pay for any damages to my car." "Fine, go get the dog." says one cop to the other. Do you honestly think that anyone on the road should be treated like this? Do you think that every cop in this country is honest, caring, and doing their job properly? If you do, you are naive, if you dont, make sure they do it right while you're around. Dont take this as I dont like cops, I have 2 in my immediate family, but they are good people helping others. They pride themselves in their work and keep it strictly by the book. Cops are fine, bad cops aren't. That's not the only freedom affecting us, it's just a drop in the bucket.

[+TeamGuisinger]

Loads of fun to watch while stockpiling MREs and ammunition out in the bunker.

 

What's your fav. MRE? I'd have to go for the chicken ala' king.

I know, topic.

[+archeangelsk2002]

hello everybody,

in responce to this topic, i approach it like this:

obey now.....aggrieve later.

 

and it wouldnt be that bad an idea to remember the time, date, and place as well as the identities of all involved just in case.

 

a good rule of thumb is that you have no legal rights unless they are applied in an appropriate manner under advice of councel.

 

best regards, and merry christmas

archie

[+sbell111]

...a good rule of thumb is that you have no legal rights unless they are applied in an appropriate manner under advice of councel. ...

I can't express how much I disagree with that statement.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

...a good rule of thumb is that you have no legal rights unless they are applied in an appropriate manner under advice of councel. ...

I can't express how much I disagree with that statement.

Ummm ... yeah just check my copy of the Constitution and I was not able to find anything about having to travel around with my lawyer in order to keep my rights.

 

This kind of thinking I just find to be very worrisome.

 

If you are so willing to give up your rights fine. But don't think for a minute you can give up mine.

[+planetrobert]

The only times i've ever been questioned it's never got past questions and so I've never had to wonder what I'd do if they wanted to search my rig or my house.

I can tell you how it goes as I have refused search twice...

 

Here is the general sequence of events

"NO"

"If you have nothing to hide then why object?"

"If you believe that I have nothing to hide then why search my car?"

Something about nothing to hide again and why not?

"Because it is mine" --this is my favorite response and it is hard to argue with

 

Well it goes back and forth for 15-20 minutes till they get tired of questioning you and the other officer haas not seen anything through the window after a 'window shopping spree.'

 

Yes, you will feel intimidated if you are a normal person, but don't back down and give up your rights.

Edited December 11, 2005 by ralann

[nobby.nobbs]

there will always be some who will abuse their powers, just remember that the vast majority of cops are doing it for the right reasons and are trying their best to do a hard job.

 

doesn't excuse illegal searches though.

 

sometimes it's just easier to play along just to get the idiots off your back and get home. just a balance you have to make between rightous non compliance and desire to be home and warm.....

[+Wadcutter]

(and the congress passing such laws as Terry Stop and Patriot Act)

A person doesn't have much of an argument when they don't understand what they're discussing. Congress never passed any law concerning Terry Stops. Terry v Ohio is a Supreme Court ruling. Congress wasn't a part of it.

Read what the Patriot Act really is. Doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. It's obvious you don't have a clue what it really covers either. When people don't understand the law or rulings from the USSC they tend to blame it on the Patriot Act. They don't have a clue. "Patriot Act"? Oooo, bad. Why? Well, they don't know. They just heard people talking about it and must be bad. What's the Patriot Act say? You might be surprised.

Edited December 11, 2005 by Wadcutter