Random police searches ruled constitutional. . .

[episodic]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200608...TRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-NEWYORK-DC.html


I know there is this part in the constitution about 'unreasonable search'. Why is it being ignored?

Random bag searches today, what will be allowed to be randomly searched next? This bothers me. I'm a big believer that you can have freedom or security - not both. You should not be subject to search simply by being in a public place.

 

[straightalker]

Definitely unConstitutional to demand access to people's personal private property with no probable cause. Random highway searches of your car at checkpoints is the same thing. Unconstitutional search.

The article names Richard Clarke as an expert witness. The Colbert Report recently roasted his butt and outed him as mole. Very funny to see Clarke squirm under the clever comedic antics of Colbert's roasting technique. heehe.

A Federal Court can say just about anything these days is ok, if it suits the current Neo Fascist agenda. The Judicial Branch of the USA Government has never been more corrupt and it gets worse every year. They even have been ruling that local Governments can take away private property and hand it over to a private contractor to build something that generates more tax revenue for that local Government. They take a bunch of 100 year old homes for instance and put in a shopping mall. Totally unconsititutional but they just do it anyways.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Definitely unConstitutional to demand access to people's personal private property with no probable cause. Random highway searches of your car at checkpoints is the same thing. Unconstitutional search.

Assuming the entire terror alert is not the sound of one dog wagging, an immediate threat of the use of liquid components to create and detonate explosives on multiple air flights would make the cause for such searches probable, in, and it isn't any stretch to consider random searches of boarding passengers as unreasonable.
The article names Richard Clarke as an expert witness. The Colbert Report recently roasted his butt and outed him as mole. Very funny to see Clarke squirm under the clever comedic antics of Colbert's roasting technique. heehe.[/quote]
Cute. You're giggling, but you seem to forget that Colbert's entire show is a put on, as would be any "roasting" of Richard Clarke, who I think is a national hero.

Where you got this crap that he's some kind of "mole" is beyond me. Links to something more substantial than a comedy show would help. If you don't have that, you're blowing smoke. If you do, I'd like to know about it.

 

[zendari]

The subway is specific government property. You have the freedom not to use it.

 

[her209]

Are they going to ban liquids, toothpaste, etc. as well?

 

[Witling]

I flame well to the left, the Democrats are way too conservative for me, I think the government has overreacted. BUT, having said that, I'm of a mixed mind on random checks (it seems to me that "searches" is too strong a word). One one hand, I think it's clearly unconstitutional. On one hand, I don't like the erosion of civil liberties. On the other hand, I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that a group of people would want to just randomly kill civilians for the terror effect. As far as I know, what we think of as terrorism now, i.e., attacks on random groups of civilians in an attempt to achieve a political goal, was not a feature of the 18th century. In the 18th century, the blew up the rulers instead.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Witling
On the other hand, I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that a group of people would want to just randomly kill civilians for the terror effect. As far as I know, what we think of as terrorism now, i.e., attacks on random groups of civilians in an attempt to acheive a political goal, was not a feature of the 18th century. In the 18th century, the blew up the rulers instead.

Native Americans?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Witling
I flame well to the left, the Democrats are way too conservative for me, I think the government has overreacted. BUT, having said that, I'm of a mixed mind on random checks (it seems to me that "searches" is too strong a word). One one hand, I think it's clearly unconstitutional. On one hand, I don't like the erosion of civil liberties. On the other hand, I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that a group of people would want to just randomly kill civilians for the terror effect. As far as I know, what we think of as terrorism now, i.e., attacks on random groups of civilians in an attempt to achieve a political goal, was not a feature of the 18th century. In the 18th century, the blew up the rulers instead.

Even if that was true (which it isn't, terrorism was widely used by even major world powers at the time), I still don't think it would have made a difference in the minds of the founding fathers...nor should it make a difference to us. Freedom is not really freedom if others can make exceptions for us. What good is my 4th amendemnt freedom against unreasonable searches if the government can simply decide that the latest problem overrides the constitution?

That being said, I think random searches in public places are slightly different than, say, warrantless wiretapping. We accept certain limitations on our freedoms in order to enjoy public spaces like subways and airports. You don't hear the NRA, 2nd amendment fanatics though they may be, arguing that you have a right to carry a gun onto an airplane. But it's ok because WE choose to accept the limitation...or not. With more invasive and illegal actions like warrantless wiretapping, you have no choice in the matter.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As long as these searches are truly random, I don't think, under previous Constitutional criminal procedure decisions, that they create a Constitutional problem.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: DonVito
As long as these searches are truly random, I don't think, under previous Constitutional criminal procedure decisions, that they create a Constitutional problem.

That is one thing about it - truly random is dang near impossible.

 

[kage69]

Cute. You're giggling, but you seem to forget that Colbert's entire show is a put on, as would be any "roasting" of Richard Clarke, who I think is a national hero.

You're a man after my own heart Harvey :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

If the finer points of satire escape him, I think you may need to *cough* open a window...

 

[Moonbeam]

When I read Straightalker's post I often feel as though I'm reading musing from the Straitjacket.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DonVito
As long as these searches are truly random, I don't think, under previous Constitutional criminal procedure decisions, that they create a Constitutional problem.

That is one thing about it - truly random is dang near impossible.

Right, how could the searches be anything near random? Are they drawing lots from the phone book?

 

[mc00]

I live in NYC, and NYPD do morning searches near my train station.. I was telling my friend like this ****** going stop them, If I was smart nutjob I would just walk few block down and got on next station if some searches going on there than go next one so on so on, and than carry on with my mission. but for this so called "random" search is illusion to make the people feel they are protected some how.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DonVito
As long as these searches are truly random, I don't think, under previous Constitutional criminal procedure decisions, that they create a Constitutional problem.

Really? So if they're searching for bombs in handbags and come across a baggie of drugs, do you really think they're going to send that person on their way because it wasn't what they were looking for? I want to see this one make it to the USSC.

Deine papieren, bitte.

Deine papieren, bitte.

Deine papieren, bitte.

This country is going to hell.

 

[dmcowen674]

Welcome to 1930's Germany part II AKA U.S.A circa 2006