It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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!!
i would love to see 30 + million armed americans rise up against the goverment .
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.
, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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