Highway Body Cavity Search in America...It's Happening. Are You Still OK With it?

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by jude11
 


It's funny...I actually thought the police officer in the first thread broke the law and didn't follow procedures, yet this case sounds like he actually did follow the law.

They did find drugs first, which opens up the defendant to searches of this caliber. I oppose the war on drugs, so don't take me as supporting the actions, but just saying it is legal.

Now performing it on the side of the road, I am not sure about the legality of that. But without a doubt, if the police officer had taken her to jail, which he did have the authority to do at that moment, would have been 100% legal.


Nothing against you personally, Ghost, but I do frequently get quite irritated when others use the LAME excuse about such-and-such being 'legal"! No, it was not legal! It was most definitely a violation of the Fourth Amendment, for one. For another, Marbury vs. Madison explicitly states that 'all laws repugnant to the Constitution are in and of themselves null and void'--the law allowing such BS is definitely against the Constitution. And then there's this: "They" can make any law. Any! That does not make it Constitutional nor right. What if 'they' made a law that all property now belongs to the federal government and/or raised payroll taxes to perhaps 90% of gross income???? What then? It's 'legal', right?
I don't agree with the laws, but it is legal.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by jude11
 


It's funny...I actually thought the police officer in the first thread broke the law and didn't follow procedures, yet this case sounds like he actually did follow the law.

They did find drugs first, which opens up the defendant to searches of this caliber. I oppose the war on drugs, so don't take me as supporting the actions, but just saying it is legal.

Now performing it on the side of the road, I am not sure about the legality of that. But without a doubt, if the police officer had taken her to jail, which he did have the authority to do at that moment, would have been 100% legal.

I don't agree with the laws, but it is legal.


Well, I just wrote a rather long comment, which conveniently is gone! I will not take the time to do it again. This behavior was not legal, it's against the 4th Amendment. In addition, Marbury vs. Madison says that 'laws against the Constitution are in and of themselves null and void'. "They" can make any law, but that does not make it Constitutional (the Supreme Law of the Land) nor necessarily right! Maybe "they" will make a law that the federal government owns all property. How about that? It would be legal, right?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


Your original comment is there, it's just stuck in with the quote of ghost375 that you posted.
It happens sometimes.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I don't mean to be condescending or judgmental in anyway. But I just don't get it. The only words I can come up with is - if you don't know if this is legal or not then you deserve it. It's not as complicated as they will have you to believe.

The Constitution is the highest law. All subsequent laws, on any level must comply. If they don't then those responsible are lawbreakers themselves. The only way to change it is by amendment.

The constitution clearly defines this type of action and it's not that hard to understand or read. It can be read in under 30 minutes.

Politicians, law enforcement, even the supreme court have been breaking the law for decades because no one gives a damn.

As long a liberty is a moving target, government is happy.
edit on 7-7-2013 by joer4x4 because: grammer



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Runciter33
 



Problem is, what happens if you refuse? An honest question, I certainly agree with your sentiments and that this is a clear violation of basic human rights. I suppose the answer would depend on what officers you were dealing with. However if you were dealing with two officers intent on molesting you on the side of a public road, then things could (and have before plenty) escalate and turn ugly.


I’m in no way trying to make light of this situation because I think it’s deplorable but….I heard a good defense for rape is to shart your pants. I’m sure this would work in this scenario as well. Let’s face it, do you really think they’d go through with the cavity search if you shart yourself?

Hey, it’s an option!!


haha! Well that's one option for sure. Might just work if you don't mind ___ ing yourself. Reminds me of that Martin Lawrence bit in You So Crazy.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
this kind of crap is going to stop, and it's going to stop soon. more precisely, it's going to BE stopped. by force of numbers (think egypt). they brought it on themselves and i don't want to hear them crying when they get their rewards for this fascistic stasi oppression.
i would love to see 30 + million armed americans rise up against the goverment .

i would get the beers in pizza on sit back and watch that GAME ON
edit on 7/7/13 by billdadobbie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


The fourth amendment is not some blanket right that prevents you from being searched.




, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,


That bolded part is what makes this case legal, per constitution.

I don't know about the precedent for doing the search in public, but they had probable cause for sure.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


The fourth amendment is not some blanket right that prevents you from being searched.




, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,


That bolded part is what makes this case legal, per constitution.

I don't know about the precedent for doing the search in public, but they had probable cause for sure





Then they need a warrant for that "type" of search. At least that is how I read it.

I can see a magistrate or equivalent being woke up out of bed at 3am for this type of search warrant.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Terminal1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-7-2013 by Terminal1 because: Craptastic formating errors



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal1




, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,


That bolded part is what makes this case legal, per constitution.






Then they need a warrant for that "type" of search. At least that is how I read it.

nope, the comma placement and use of "and" make it so it reads, under the rules of grammar, as how I describe . They don't need a warrant for searches(of this type), they just need probable cause. And finding drugs would give them probable cause.

Also, once you are placed under arrest, they can search anything regardless of probable cause.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I disagree. Otherwise your desccription of the comma splices would include shall not be violated upon probable cause...

No.. the inclusion of "but" means they need probable cause to gain a search warrant which makes sense. A "check" on unreasonable searches.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 


I'm sorry. You're wrong. Both the rules of grammar and countless legal precedents say I'm right.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by RubberDuckGB
maybe the cops where new recruits?


Thats even worse because that would mean they've been TAUGHT to RAPE people.

One possibility might be that the female officer was a rookie, and would never deny any request from a veteran officer.






edit on 7/7/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Terminal1
 


I'm sorry. You're wrong. Both the rules of grammar and countless legal precedents say I'm right.



Agree to disagree then.

Would like someone else to chime in or if I had the time (curses of night shift) I'd create a thread.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Somebody, whether by consent or inaction, allowed a cavity search to happen in a squad car by an obviously ill-trained individual (didn't change gloves!!!!). The request went out on the police frequency. All active police heard it. Nobody said a word against it. It's collusion or it's inaction.

Surely if you know a law is being broken and you do nothing to stop it...
At least that's what the police would say to you.

Bad policing. Even if the officers were just doing what they thought was right. It's bad policing.

Someone should be sending these videos (and there's a lot of this ilk) to the AG on a daily basis.

"Dear AG:

We know all cops aren't bad, but there's a lot getting caught doing bad things. Often on camera. Isn't it time someone besides the police took a look at what's going on? After all, when they do the investigating the chances of a conviction diminish quite rapidly! So far the best responses have been laws against filming police. This just means that evidence is harder to come by. It only helps the 'bad cops' and their departments' wallets.
There's a lot of people fed up with this.

Your inaction sends a message that you simply don't care about what's going on. Unless you are in open war with the common people (in which case you should come out and say so), there's really no need for this police brutality. We'd use our constitutional rights to protest, but the police departments have shown on untold occasions that they view this as a bad thing and respond with violence."



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Will they at least buy me breakfast after they're done???



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by muse7
I'm okay with them they are useful in catching illegals and drug smugglers


So lets say you ran over a joint on the road, and a k9 gets a positive, OR at least thats what the cop claims.

Your okay with Jim-bo bob the state trooper with a large state trooper gloved hand, which has zero medical training exploring your anus and lower intestine digitally?

Wow your willingness to give up dignity for safety is amazing.

ME, I may have a problem with that, which would probably end up in violence or worse for me.


The K9 does not have to pick up a positive, police handlers train the dogs to make false positives. I can't point you to the source but this info is from an ex drug enforcer in the US. There are some interesting Youtube videos about this too, he talks about profiling and other techniques used by Police to obtain stop and search powers.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Besides all of this being disgusting, and most of all invasive to anyone on a personal level, if that is not upsetting enough even the x-ray scanners are dangerous with woman that are pregnant, especially if they are not aware.

When I was pregnant I was NOT allowed to go through metal detectors or x-ray machines, they knew then that this was dangerous. But of course I guess since no one is actually considering the damage long term on expectant parents, especially those that are not even aware of many of the locations of the machines, time will have to tell.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008

Originally posted by muse7
I'm okay with them they are useful in catching illegals and drug smugglers


How many illegals do you suppose have been apprehended with a body cavity search?

My mind does things it shouldn't sometimes. Thanks for that


I agree with muse7, in fact, if their friends or family ever leave a prescription bottle in their car, by definition they are drug a smuggler and I agree they should be body cavity searched at any and every checkpoint they go through.






posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I think the last time they did this they got sued.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The War on Drugs has been used to expand the US police state to tyrannical, militaristic levels. Right wingers should be loving this state of affairs. By right wingers, Im also including all Obama supports since, as you know, he is an ardent admirer of Reagan and has vastly expanded right wing policies.

In america we have the right, dems, the far right, repubs, and the insane batcrap crazy right, tea party.

Still think Obama, a proven mussolini-defined fascist, is a liberal socialist? LOL Please pay less attention to what he SAYS, but more to what he DOES.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join