Freedom of speech: only if your opinion is pro-Bush

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Frostillicus *
It may be a public school, but it is certainly NOT a public building. The general public does not have the right to enter a public school whenever they want. Anyone who does so without relevant business will usually be asked to leave and then can be arrested for trespassing should they refuse. This cop entered at 1:30 am because he knew that he could not legally demand admittance to the teacher’s classroom during the school day, or when the administration was present. He had no legal right to enter that school. He could (and should) be arrested for trespassing as well. The fact that a janitor let him in is irrelevant. That is not the janitor’s decision to make.

Oh, good grief.

What are the elements of criminal trespass? Do you even have the slightest clue?

Under these facts, if the janitor consented to his entry, there is no way he could be convicted of trespass as a matter of law.

*Originally posted by Blalron *
First Amendment. He is acting under color of law to deprive the teacher and his students of their first amendment rights to free speech, by intimidating them into silence.

This is an innovative argument.

But it’s a loser. He may have been in violation of the federal law that prohibits acting under color of law to deprive people of their civil rights, but not in violation of the First Amendment.

Do you know why, and what the distinction is?

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Dogface *
However, cloaked in the imprimis of his government-supplied uniform, he felt it necessary to come into the building in the dead of night. This certainly violates the “against unreasonable searches” portion of th IVth Amendment. Given the time and the fact he felt the need to wear his government-supplied uniform to enter this building, a building that he would have been DENIED access to without his government-supplied uniform, it is obvious that only a fellow Stalinist would claim that his actions would qualify as a “reasonable” search.

Yes, the building is “public”, but not at one blasted thirty in the blessed a of em, it isn’t!!!

Dogface, I cited several ACTUAL SUPREME COURT CASES that give the lie to your theory.

Can you point to any cases that support your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment?

• Rick

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Dogface *
However, cloaked in the imprimis of his government-supplied uniform, he felt it necessary to come into the building in the dead of night. This certainly violates the “against unreasonable searches” portion of th IVth Amendment. Given the time and the fact he felt the need to wear his government-supplied uniform to enter this building, a building that he would have been DENIED access to without his government-supplied uniform, it is obvious that only a fellow Stalinist would claim that his actions would qualify as a “reasonable” search.

Yes, the building is “public”, but not at one blasted thirty in the blessed a of em, it isn’t!!!

Dogface, I cited several ACTUAL SUPREME COURT CASES that give the lie to your theory.

Can you point to any cases that support your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment?

• Rick

[John_Mace]

I don’t care if the teacher was having the kids recite poems of praise to “Dear Leader Kim Il Jong”, the cop had no busniess sneaking into a public school at night. Whether or not the teacher was doing the right thing, the cop should be punished according to the standards of his police department. If that means firing the guy, so be it. If a crime was committed, he should be prosecuted

But I do agree with those who doubt whether the act was unconstituational. If he had been acting in the official capacity of a cop, maybe. But it appears he was not.

[John_Mace]

or even if they recited poems to Kim Jong Il…

[Rashak_Mani]

This story stinks… cops playing moralistic and students getting caught in the “crossfire” ?! I guess critical thinking is dangerous afterall… all others keep your head down and your votes lined up. Sheep are to be shorn.

 One of the pictures does show a sentence about protect our troops... so I do suppose some pro-war stuff was on the walls too.

[musicguy]

Wow, I finally agree with John Mace

[Blalron]

But it’s a loser. He may have been in violation of the federal law that prohibits acting under color of law to deprive people of their civil rights, but not in violation of the First Amendment.

Do you know why, and what the distinction is?

If you wish to get snooty with me, it’s the First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, having the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation, enacted into law what is now known as United States Code Title 42 Section 1983, which provides remedies against those acting under color of law to deprive people of the rights enjoyed to them by the Constitution.

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**Something posted on a wall in a public school classroom has no expectation of privacy, and no person has standing to assert Fourth Amendment rights as regards the viewing of it.
**

I haven’t read the cases you’ve cited, and I’m not sure I’d understand them if I did. So, my question - does the fact that it’s displayed on a public school wall make any search reasonable, even though there is no prior investigation of any crime in progress leading the officer to this classroom, nor any expectation that anything gathered from this ‘search’ can be used in any way as evidence of any crime?

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
If you wish to get snooty with me, it’s the First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, having the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation, enacted into law what is now known as United States Code Title 42 Section 1983, which provides remedies against those acting under color of law to deprive people of the rights enjoyed to them by the Constitution.

Hey, I’m all about snootiness. You betcha.

Here’s the distinction you’re not making. It is not, for example, unconstitutional to rob a bank. But Congress, acting under the authority of the Constitution, and finding that banking was vitally important to interstate commerce, passed laws making it a federal offense. So robbing a bank is a federal crime, but not an action that offends the Constitution.

Even if I were to concede that the officer’s actions triggered 42 USC § 1983, all that does is provide a method of seeking civil remedies for violations of civil rights – rights guaranteed by statute as well as Constitutionally.

I do NOT concede that the officer’s actions, given that he acted alone as not as part of an official government policy, violated the Constitution. The First Amendment prevents Congress (and, through the Fourteenth, the states) from restricting free speech. When a private person, acting under “color of law”, takes actions that may chill free speech – and in this case, there’s no showing that it had any effect at all – it gives rise to a cause of action under federal law. It does NOT violate the Amendment.

If you contend otherwise, I’d be interested in having you offer a citation to any piece of case law that supports your theory.

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
I haven’t read the cases you’ve cited, and I’m not sure I’d understand them if I did. So, my question - does the fact that it’s displayed on a public school wall make any search reasonable, even though there is no prior investigation of any crime in progress leading the officer to this classroom, nor any expectation that anything gathered from this ‘search’ can be used in any way as evidence of any crime?

Yes. The fact that it’s displayed on a public school wall utterly destroys any Fourth Amendment protection it might have. It is of no moment that there was no crime being investigated.

It’s absolutely amazing to me that with so many legitimate beefs that may be had with the officer’s absolutely outrageous and disgraceful actions, people are babbling about things that DIDN’T happen. The Constitution was not “torn.” There was no criminal trespass.

EVERY BAD THING IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The Constitution does not consist of a list of all prohibited actions. That’s what laws are for. While it’s true that all laws are made under the authority of the state and federal constitutions, it’s not accurate to say that the violation of a law represents violence done to the constitution.

• Rick

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**It’s absolutely amazing to me that with so many legitimate beefs that may be had with the officer’s absolutely outrageous and disgraceful actions, people are babbling about things that DIDN’T happen. The Constitution was not “torn.” There was no criminal trespass.

EVERY BAD THING IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL! **

Hey, relax there, big guy I’m just trying to beef up my understanding of the law. This was a point I was not clear on, thank you for clearing it up.