It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How they will get inside our homes!!!(It's starting...)

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+7 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:03 PM
This is will allow for AMAZINGLY blatant violations of illegal search and seizure protections as outlined by our Bill of Rights!

In Carpinteria, the new ordinance -- which so far has not been put to use -- means that when authorities stop a party by knocking on the door, they’re no longer limited to merely suggesting that the revelers turn down the music. Now, they can detain anybody on the premises who appears to be a minor, and ask them to show ID, he said.

The Carpinteria ordinance defines "party" as any gathering with five or more people. If at least two of the drinkers are minors, the deputies can issue citations.

This is the basis for the new Santa Barbara law...

County leaders targeted underage drinking at house parties with a 4-1 vote on Tuesday to draft legislation that could levy civil and criminal penalties against party hosts, parents and others responsible for property where minors are caught drinking alcohol.
Known as a social host ordinance, the legislation would supplement laws already on the books that make furnishing alcohol to a minor illegal.

Second source

In Santa Barbara,CA, they are about to enact a law that allows police to enter a home on the MERE SUSPICION that there is underage drinking going on. This was brought about because police could not just enter a home unless they received enough noise complaints.

This is only presented as allowing the police to fine property owners for parties on their property by underage drinkers. Seems fair, right?

Well, beyond those basic arguments, let's remember that in California, you are required to ask I.D. for anyone who appears under the age of 30 years old. So that means the police can enter the home of ANYONE they feel looks under 30, if the home is believed to have alcohol in it! They will then have to see EVERY I.D. in the premises!

So what keeps them from then searching for other violations? From running every I.D.? This is not about underage drinking! (I'm neither underage, or a drinker) It's about YOUR AND MY RIGHTS!!! You worry about the laws our Government is passing, this is how they will get to us!

FLAG this thread! This is AMAZINGLY BRAZEN! Conspiracies aren't fulfilled overnight people, it's in these little steps that they take away our rights!!!

Edit to better declare this an opinion that this leads to future Gestapo type actions.
Corrected by semperfortis...

I proffer that this law allows police easier access to your home. It may not stand up to a Constitutional challenge, but it will amount to a lot of harassment until someone can afford to fight it.

So Now the police are saying that 5 people, one of whom looks underage, and one beer in that residence, equals a police "probable cause" to see every resident, and see every I.D. Refusal to do so will equate with a guilty plea, and allow the fines to begin.

This is not necessarily a violation of the 4th amendment, but leaves open the door for SERIOUS misuse of this law. I do not wish to be harassed in my home, under the guise of preventing underage drinking.

This has been an EDITED OP.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:13 PM
Is there anyone who knows of a successful challenge to this type of law?

Our local police chief is involved with more and more scandals, and over 5 youths have been stabbed to death in the last year in Gang wars.
This is a Severe violation, and I feel the most important thread I have written here thus far. Please help me if you can ATS. I'm already at court for my cat anyways, maybe I can do something here?

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:31 PM
Any chance that 1 out of the 100 of you that looked at this might have some input here? It's just me that sees this as a danger maybe?

Are we all that pacified all ready?

Edit to add; Now I know that my guns are no longer safe where they are. Seems to me that the local government is preparing for something.... I am a little lost right now.

I feel like I HAVE to do something about this, but missed the meeting...

[edit on 25-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:35 PM
Its not illegal, and its not unconstitutional. No one is being searched, and no one is forced to show their ID. You don't have to show it - the police are being allowed to ask for you to show it. Your freedom to assembly only extends as far as my freedom not to be harassed by the noise your assemblage creates. You do not have a right to bring down the house with music.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by ALightinDarkness


I know for a fact, repeat, FACT, that the loacl polica are constantly staking out areas to gain noise complaints in orer to shut down parties. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

BUT, to be able to approach any residence with 5 or more people, and then be allowed to search and see I.D.'s, or they will fine people with graduating penalties.


Since you edited; This does not require a previous noise complaint. The law was created to appease a few residences who live near houses in the RICH part of town. But the law extends to EVERY part of town. I don't party my friend, but I do look younger than my age of 29.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:50 PM
It's not a 4th Amendment issue, I'll explain why.

California is VERY liberal compared to many states here in the East. In all three states I have worked in, this law is not needed for one very good reason.

If I get a call about a loud party, I have a citizen complaint and therefor "Reasonable Suspicion"...

When I get there, if I see or hear a party going on with juveniles and alcohol present, I now have "Probable Cause". I'm going in the house, period. Arrests will be made.

Remember that the 4th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter, does NOT provide protection for people to break the law. That is NOT it's intent and to subjugate it to that role is a disservice to all Americans.

Also understand that asking for an ID is not a 4th Amendment issue. The Supreme Court has CONSTANTLY upheld the right of the police, (Yeah go figure, police have rights too) to request and even demand an identification from any person being stopped under Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.

Google "Terry Frisk" or "Terry Stop"


posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:51 PM
And I know for a FACT, a FACT that your right to assemble does not mean you can infringe on my freedoms. If you bring down the house with music and it infringes on my rights, then you can be fined for refusal to stop infringing on my rights.

I don't know what your reading, but nothing about this that I read in your OP allows for them to search anything. It allows for them to ask for an ID. You do not have to show them an ID if you do not want to, although they can force it if they have reasonable suspicion.

It doesn't really matter why or who created it. Its not illegal or unconstitutional.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Since I value your opinion, I ask this;
At what point does reasonable suspicion become more than that?

If I have a gathering of 5 people, and we look under 30, the definable line that shopkeepers and bartenders ask for I.D.'s, then the police can come to my house under this law and ask everyone for i.d.'s and search my home for both extra persons and alcohol? I find this hard to believe my friend...

The most widely held, common definition is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime."[1]
An alternative definition has been proposed, "reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause", which is claimed to be more protective of individual rights as was intended by the authors of the United States Bill of Rights.[citation needed]
Another definition is that is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true."[2]
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

And what about once they are in my home? where does the rights I have become infringed upon? This law steps above the previous one because of the fact that there are a limited number of homes in the area in question. But it would affect MANY OTHERS, that have long been covered under current laws.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

At what point does reasonable suspicion become more than that?

Depends completely upon the circumstances my friend...

No way to determine... In this scenario the citizen complaint is reasonable suspicion, seeing young people and alcohol would bring it to PC... In my opinion of course.

As for the rest of your post, I, like the poster before, did not see any reference to a search of the premise in your source....

As I stated earlier, asking for an ID is NOT a 4th amendment issue.. In other words, I can ask for an ID on reasonable suspicion and it is not a violation of your rights.

If you refuse to show one, or you show one and your underage, the situation gravitates to probable cause and I AM coming in your house then... The Supreme Court has determined that "Reasonable People" will show an officer their ID if they have nothing to hide, or at least give the police their information.

Again, see Terry Stop...

Remember that with sufficient probable cause the police can enter your home no matter what resistance you put up. The 4th amendment only guarantees against, "Unreasonable" Searches and probable cause means there are FACTS that the law is being broken, the search and entry is NOT unreasonable.. 4th goes out the window..


posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

I would have to believe that someone would also have a reasonable reason to enter my property and ask for I.D. in the first place.

Before, there were required to be a number of complaints or previous violations. I feel this new law opens up the rights and property of average citizens to be searched. Because have no fear, if a cop comes on your property, hi eyes are roving and remembering.

Just wait till you are typing a "subversive" thread and leave your computer open.

This is a scary law to have on the books.


posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
And what about once they are in my home? where does the rights I have become infringed upon? This law steps above the previous one because of the fact that there are a limited number of homes in the area in question. But it would affect MANY OTHERS, that have long been covered under current laws.

They are not allowed to search for anything while inside your house. They cannot look for anything without a warrant. If you decide to shoot someone in front of them while they are there, then they would be able to arrest on you "reasonable" suspicion of a crime. Which is why there is nothing unconstitutional or unlawful here.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I guess that depends on your belief that everything you do that is legal now is going to be legal in the future. With this law on the books all it will take is a new law that bans, WHATEVER, and then there you are.

It's about setting the groundwork, and I thought that was obvious. That's my fault for not specifying. (no sarcasm)

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:27 PM
As the constitution explicitly protects against anyone being tried ex post facto, you have no need to worry about it. If you seriously believe that we will be in a situation where the constitution is ignored, then you have no need to worry now, because you'll be better off being dead. I see no evidence of that ever occurring within my lifetime.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

They don't need to.

What a great way to prevent anti-government discussion, by raiding every meeting with 5 or more people, without cause. "Just here to check some I.D.s folks..."

This is NOT a stretch...

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:33 PM
What if I refuse to identify myself?

What if you have no right to know who I am just because you have reasonable suspicion?

Not saying that you are, Semper, but A LOT of police officers will arrest you if you don't present an I.D.

That isn't right. Identifying yourself should never have become mandatory like it is now. Police, in general, lie and use scare tactics. The shameful thing is that I live near about four high ranking officers (I know one is chief of state police) and they are ALL bullies, intimidating the neighbors and threatening to arrest of fine people for stupid little things. Maybe our district is just corrupt as all crap... but this is an average city, so if our district is full of corrupt bullies, deductive reasoning tells me that, since this is an average town, that this is the norm.

I have met some really nice cops, no doubt... but more often then not, not so nice, not so forgiving. I think justice is about protecting and serving, not interrupting and a lot of times ruining the lives of people just because they break laws that aren't really hurting anyone. Just doing your job is no excuse for throwing innocent people in jail for smoking a little weed or drinking a little alcohol. There aren't the most healthy things to be doing, but who is the law to tell private citizens what they can and cannot do to their own bodies? Especially when the same government that makes things illegal also facilitates the drug trade and is basically bought and paid for by highly organized crime.

I understand most police officers are just doing their job, but do a lot of police officers question the laws they enforce?

Driving is another mess that I'm not really talking about here... but I don't think anyone has any right to force me to identify myself.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by dunwichwitch]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM
I don't think I put this together as well as it was in my head.

Let's see, I dont want a cop rolling up to my house to look for anything, especially if the argument against it will be, "well, if you've got nothing to hide..."

Why is that? because laws change my friend, And I don't control those changes.

This Forum is my only voice right now, and that changes only the opinions of a few.

I know that the net is dropped to help get the bad guys, but I don't like being swept up as well for what some idiot in Congress might feel serves their interests.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:40 PM
I think the saddest part of all the situations, is that citizens have lost the ability to talk to each other. The police shouldn't have to get involved with a noise complaint. You should go over to the house, and talk to them about the noise. If it's a weekend, just deal with it. Underage drinking shouldn't involve the police. Parents should teach their children about alcohol and how to drink responsibly. This law just allows more people to ignore the fact that we live in a "sue first ask questions later" society, where everyday the job of "big brother" is taken up by our neighbors, friends, and family. I don't think the law is inherently trying to take away rights, but as with any law, it could be used to do so, based on the discretion of the officer. Sure, some officers will abuse it, others won't, such is human nature. The bigger problem is we are losing the ability to discuss and compromise amongst the populace, and would prefer the "authority" to take over the responsibility.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by dragonfire2159

That is an excellent point. These are not issues that we should be willing to give up our rights for. THese are the issues of a few elderly individuals in changing wealthy neighborhoods.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:54 PM
I think the state is chiefly responsible for all the social problems that have been created. Violent neighborhoods are usually low-end project housing, or are near low end project housing... and look at the populace of those neighborhoods. How many white people do you see living there?

Is racism still rampant, and are minorities still suppressed to the point of vigilante justice and cannibalizing each other (not literally)?


It is not entirely the average citizen's fault that they do not understand why things are the way they are, so for the government to come in and re-write and make new laws just because they were able to scare the majority into submissive compliance because they think authority knows better than them is MANIPULATION. Scarer tactics... same thing they've always done. Make us fear each other, therefore we end up distrusting and hating each other, therefore we BEG for the law to come in and TAKE CONTROL.

People are only as responsible as they realize... and if nobody ever gives the people a chance to realize their responsibility, if instead the government keeps adding more and more laws that take responsibility and choice away from the citizen, then what will ensue will be a police state.

Take a look around. The government IS in control of you, the police are just the puppet of a corrupt government. No offense, police officers, but take your pride lightly.


On the same note, average citizen, don't hate the police for "just doing their job", either. You asked for it, whether you were allowed to realize it or not....

It's all very complicated. I guess you can't blame one single side.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by dunwichwitch]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in