Eh? The police around here aren’t agents of the US goverment. Are you saying civilians can conduct searches without warrents and that any evidence uncovered could be used in a court of law? That citizens arrests can be made willy-nilly?
And a police officer is?
What if she’s using the binocs her husband the country engineer has? The low-light goggles from her son the FBI agent? Or what if the officer is using the Bushnells he bought himself to watch the Bears get pummled at Soldier Field? What about the glasses that he got through the eye care benifits from his employer? How does the purchaser of the equipment change the act?
Wow, you should be on T.V. Did you hurt your arm patting yourself on the back?
I didn’t say they were the same. (And, yes, I have a BIG problem with that English rule, if it is indeed the case.) I was merely asking a provocative question to figure out your justifications.
I simply don’t feel comfortable with the government spying on me. The justification that “well, if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about” fails. Who’s to say they’re not watching you for your political views, and not your criminal activity? I don’t want them watching me for ANY reason without probable cause. Where do you personally draw the line kid? Would bugging your house for the heck of it be acceptable? I mean, after all, what do you worry about if you’re an upstanding law-abiding citizen.
An airport is HARDLY a good model for a traffic stop. Christ.
Too broad definition of “search”? Unlike your very narrow view of “reasonable”…?
Well, while 6 supreme court justices agree, two don’t. So it isn’t so cut and dried. When you are pulled over for a speeding violation, using a trained animal with a sense of smell far more sensitive than a human nose to sniff your car is NOT EXACTLY what is necessary to give a speeding ticket. “Period.”
When they enter my house, that’s crossing the line, unless they think I’m a SuperVillian and can get a warrent. Anything coming out my house, electromagnetic radiation, particulate matter, garbage or gasses is fair game. They leaving my domain and entering a public one.
UK privacy laws are generally similar to US - including judicial process required for searching a home. Kid, maybe you’re playing on the specific term “search warrant” here ?
In practice, during the 5 years I lived in the UK, I was stopped and searched at least a dozen times with no explanation or justification (young poor male). My experience in the US was similar, but sometime around the age of thirty I turned respectable, and haven’t been looked at since…
They are agents of the government, specifically the state or local government, and the 4th amendment of the US Constitution applies to them as state actors under the doctrine of 14th amendment incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
A true “civilian” – someone not a police officer or other agent of the state – is not a state actor and therefore the fourth amendment does not apply to their actions.
Civilians can in fact conduct searches (at risk of being charged with breaking and entering and similar offenses) and the product of their searches can in fact be used in a court of law. The only exception would be if the police get a civilian to perform a search on their behalf.
Searches by civilians do not offend the fourth amendment.
A citizen making an erroneous citizen’s arrest is potentially subject to a variety of tort claims. If you’re not a cop and you wanna catch a crook, you’d better be goddamned sure you’ve got the right guy and that you use minimal force. Even then, it’s a bad idea. You will be sued, and you will probably lose.
Yes, he is, if he’s acting within the scope of his duties. The only reason cops can be sued is because the government waives its immunity for certain kinds of cases. Absent that waiver, the doctrine applies.
Well actually it IS cut and dried, since it’s majority rule and all that, but even so, I agree that no one should be detained for an extended period of time JUST to have a K9 check a car. But again, if you’re not in posession of an illegal substance, what have you to worry about?
If you believe this, would you support simply scrapping the fourth amendment and just saying, “People shall not be unreasonably seized”? If not, I’d really, really love to hear why in a way that is somehow consistent with your opinions expressed so far.
It isn’t similar at all. First, you are stopped and searched at an airport, period. If you do not wish to be searched, you simply avoid airports. Generally, there are alternatives, with some notable exceptions but being searched at an airport falls under other Supreme Court rulings regarding weighing public safety. How does one avoid a dog sniff which, by the reading of Place and Caballes, could happen anywhere, at any time, for no reason at all? In fact, let me just quote Justice Ginsburg from the dissent in Caballes:
Me? --I consider that a significant difference, too. And I haven’t had illegal substances on my person or in my body for years and years, nor have I any intention to. What I have in my trunk isn’t anyone’s business. Not a police officer, and not a police dog, especially if that dog is just a means of bypassing requests for permission and warrants. Are judges so unreasonable that they wouldn’t issue warrants? If there is suspicion that I am a criminal, is there not a reason to detain me already within the rulling in Terry v. Ohio? Yes. So why the need for this?
Well, let me just tell you why, I don’t want to leave you guessing. The only reason is to bypass protections afforded by the Constitution. It’s disgusting. You wanna see what’s in my trunk? Ask. As you say, “period.”
[My emphasis] Fancy that.
But hey, once we’ve stopped you, might as well search… right? Well, no, actually. That’s why we have to play semantic games and suggest that dog sniffing isn’t “searching” as meant by the Fourth Amendment. And Steve MB and I, and others, are the ones playing semantic games? Because we recognize dog sniffing for what it is, or because you don’t care about your Fourth Amendment rights and figure no one else should, either?
Your attempt to draw a paralell between my point and the scrapping of the entire 4th amendment is bereft on it’s own fantastic voyage I’m afraid. An example simply put; if you’re not speeding, you have no fear of a speeding ticket, following that simple line of logic, if you’re not carrying drugs, you have no fear of being arrested for posession. I’ve made this point throughout the thread
**Are you? Me, because of my size and the clothing I ususally wear to travel, am pulled out of the line and searched each and every time. My wife, however, has yet to be searched going through an airport. So just on my paltry experiences, your example is faulty, even with the alternatives (which are what, by the way?).
Here again; One does not avoid a dog sniff, if one is in the general locale of said dog for any reason, whether on a legitimate traffic stop or walking through an airport. Because when a person is out in public, whatever they do is then (usually)in plain view. I simply opine that a sniff is simply an extension of plain view. [\b]
What both you and the good Justice seem to be forgetting is that the law is not meant to allow the concealing of illegal activity. Police aren’t using twinkie sniffing dogs, they’re using DRUG sniffing dogs, to find illegal DRUGS. Like it or not, drugs are against the law. Having them is against the law. Using them is against the law. Concealing them is against the law. If the law enforcement community needs another tool to combat drug use, posession and smuggling, 6 of the 8 most high jurists just handed that tool to them.
[QUOTE=erislover]
What I have in my trunk isn’t anyone’s business. Not a police officer, and not a police dog, especially if that dog is just a means of bypassing requests for permission and warrants. Are judges so unreasonable that they wouldn’t issue warrants? If there is suspicion that I am a criminal, is there not a reason to detain me already within the rulling in Terry v. Ohio? Yes. So why the need for this?
Well, let me just tell you why, I don’t want to leave you guessing. The only reason is to bypass protections afforded by the Constitution. It’s disgusting. You wanna see what’s in my trunk? Ask. As you say, “period.”[\quote]
**The question about your trunk contents, comes down to two things; expediency and exigency. If I suspect that you may have drugs on your person, or in your vehicle, and you refuse to consent to a search, I as an officer would be acting on your behalf to bring a K9 to the scene, so that IF you’re found NOT to have drugs on your person or in your vehicle, that you wouldn’t have to wait the several hours it can take a judge to sign a warrant for your vehicle or person. If I let you go, or don’t detain you, you may destroy the evidence before I can take it and you into custody, which is an exigent circumstance, and gives society the advantage in this idiotic war on drugs. **
**I don’t know all of the particulars on Indianapolis v. Edmond, but I’d hazard a guess that the searching that went on at the checkpoint was a bit more inclusive than fido sniffing some tires. [\b]
I didn’t scrap the whole thing. Just the part about requiring a reason for a search. Apparently, that isn’t anything you feel police officers should concern themselves with, since only lawbreakers need worry about a search.
As you say, it is a DRUG SNIFFING DOG. Which means it is… seeking out drugs! Which is searching by the simplest possible reading of the word. Now, in Place, the court held that the dog, by virtue of its inability to alert of anything else but illegal drugs, was a unique specimen. Since there’s no right to hide drugs, there’s no right to avoid a sniff. But to get away with that, of course, you have to say that what the dog is doing, that is, searching, isn’t searching as meant by the Fourth Amendment.
When is a search not a search? When it is for DRUUUUUUGS. Or when the dog thinks it is drugs. Or when I gave my dog the “drugs” signal…
Wait, I’m sorry. That was really uncalled for. Cops never use their position of authority and power to break the laws they are meant to uphold. Let’s just give them more power, shall we?
Now, hey, how can I possibly wish anything but that a magnificent success of a war that this war on drugs is be made easier. I would consider it my most solemn duty to help these guys out if I just happened to see a drug deal going down and a cop was within shouting distance and it was a sunny spring Tuesday afternoon and I didn’t suddenly and mysteriously find the need to urinate. But that doesn’t mean I want my property searched for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I know that’s hard to follow, so I bolded the really critical parts for you.
And if you’re not growing pot then you won’t mind us stopping by your greenhouse and if you’re not a traitor you won’t mind us watching your reading habits and if you’re not plotting you won’t mind us listening to all your phone calls. Hey, that really is a simple line of logic!
Yes, usually in plain view. Of course, a trunk, closed, made of steel which is more or less totally fucking opaque, does not have contents in plain view. Why don’t we make the more obvious extension that it isn’t anyone’s business, then, what I’ve got in there?
Well, I travel for work quite a bit, and I’ve been screened at pretty much random points. Of course, my bags (Place) conceal (Caballes) what I put in them, and those are searched every time. Now, maybe the public security risk outweighs the inconvenience of a little 4th trumping, maybe it it makes it reasonable. Not this thread.
Of course, interestingly enough, when they want to take a look at my bag, the scanners always ask me nicely. Formalities, I know.
The alternatives, of course, are other means of transportation. Like driving.
No one has forgotten that. You think I’m upset because some guy might get his coke discovered? You know the constitution wasn’t written to protect criminals, but decent people. And yet…
Quite so. Except my concern isn’t that the boys in blue will take down more drug users and dealers.
One problem with this. Suspicion is irrelevant. Indeed, if there was suspicion in the first place, it would be a reasonable seizure and there wouldn’t be a case before us like this. This case is a means to sidestep any pretense of suspicion. Maybe that means less cops will lie about “smelling marijuana,” maybe it means a bunch of honest cops are feeling better about their expanded power to catch the bad guy. Either way, my shit could get searched without suspicion, permission, or a warrant. That’s what concerns me.
You seem to be missing this. An airport is not, and has never been, treated the same way as a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. The key concept you need to understand here is Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. You don’t have it at an airport (or you do, but it is lesser, more is allowed etc etc). You possess it to a much greater extent in a car. Comparisons with airports are just not valid.
Some interesting language from Souter’s dissent regarding the reliability of drug dogs:
It is easy to be dismissive of this problem until you are the one who gets waylaid and whose belongings get ransacked as a result of a falsely-alerting dog.
Yeah, and also they’re all Robocop-like cyborgs with absolutely no facial expression, and thus do not give any of the cues that trigger the Clever Hans Effect.
We’ve gone beyond the ordinary straw man here. Upon being asked to blank your mind in order to deny Zuul a vehicle for physical manifestation, you focused on the image of the scarecrow in Grandpa’s back forty, and now it’s 500 feet tall and rampaging through the city.
Obviously, the key issue here is the definition of “reasonable”. A search that is reasonable when applied to a self-selected group engaged in an activity with serious public-safety implications (e.g. airport passengers) is not reasonable when applied to the general public engaged in more routine activities (e.g. automobile drivers and passengers).
This is one reason why search warrants are required to have specific targets – the requirements to follow up on a tip about a terrorist bombing plot is, and should be, a bit looser than those to follow up on a tip about some slacker’s pot stash, and it would be clearly abusive for the police to offer accusations about the former in order to get a “foot in the door” and find the latter.
Actually, once you admit enhanced-sensory scans of emissions, you have to forfeit this argument.
No, somebody is not going to destroy the evidence if you’re allowed to use a technology that can detect minute traces. Thus, you have no justification for holding a suspect – if you have legitimate grounds, get a warrant for chemical sniffing and prove that he’s been handing illegal drugs.
Similarly, modern technology removes any justification for “no-knock” drug raids – a just-flushed stash is still going to be detectable.
And no-knocks are justified on that very ground. Might be too broad, but it happens. It is most common with drugs as, apart from the evidence distruction, it is easier to convince a judge that a no-knock warrant is necessary because of safety when there is the specter of drug-related violence to which to point.
**Indeed the key qualifier in ANY search is reasonableness, I’ve never attempted to argue otherwise, however your definition of reasonable apparently differs from that of the majority of the SCOTUS and a whole mess of lawmakers.
The arguement for reasonableness can be made, using your own public safety position, that the threat that accompanies the existance of drugs in our society is large enough to cause what you are defining as a search to become reasonable.
More people die because of drugs and the violence surrounding them, than will likely EVER die in aircraft related terrorism or violence, ergo, it can be opined that the search for drugs is equally, if not MORE important than the search for explosives on airplanes. Further, it’s been said that the drug trade fuels and funds terrorists and their activities, so by putting the brakes on drugs, on some level you may actually help stem terrorism.**
**Yes, indeed search warrants are place and item specific, but in the search for drugs, they usually include anyplace drugs could be hidden, which could be virtually anywhere. Sure, in theory it would seem that it would be better to have a wider scope of authority when hunting down potential terrorists and terrorist plots, but in reality, civil rights get trampled in BOTH cases, people are needlessly arrested and jailed in BOTH cases, and this, unfortunately, is the world we live in. LE needs tools to do the job, and they’re getting them. We’re trading liberty for security because we HAVE to, not because it’s the right thing to do. We’re forced to because we can’t have truth-in-sentencing, and we have to work on the “rehabilitation” of societal wreckage and career criminals, rather than relying on a penal system that punishes wrong-doing, rather than trying in vein to correct it.