America Has A Constitution Free Zone? WTF!!????

jheated5
What about those other pesky non constitutional zones in the US??? The "Indian Reservations" forgive my non PC terminology in not calling it Native American....

edit on 01125353_53k14 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)

not to nitpick, or go off-topic, but the term "Native American", isn't a PC term...it's just plain correct....

They're not Indians. The reason they were originally referred to as Indians, is because the first explorers to arrive here(Columbus & co), mistakenly thought they had reached the east indies, and mis-identified the native people as Indians...

so they're NOT indians...they're the native people of this country, they were here first, and it shouldn't be said that referring to them in a way that less incorrect, and less offensive, is simply "PC", and dismiss it out of hand as such.. don't do that.

reply to post by Imightknow


Constitution free zone has a certain innocent ring to it, by using the words "constitution"..."free". Sounds almost something you'd want.

I propose we call it a FUBAR zone.

butcherguy
They could announce that they have decided to increase the zone to 500 miles (essentially nullifying the Constitution in the US) and what would happen???

NOTHING!

We are a nation of sheep.

So much that they do to all of us is Unconstitutional today, like the NDAA and the actions of the NSA.

See anyone fired up to the point that our elected officials are taking action?
Do you see the SCOTUS stepping in?

WE ARE SCREWED.

If you want to be free, I would suggest you move to another country.... just not sure where to tell you to go.

it reminds me of the video where the gentleman walked around the boardwalk, asking people to sign his petition to repeal the bill of rights, and people actually signed the goddamn thing....even after he stood there and explained to them what they were signing, they still did it...

Americans, generally speaking, are the most stunningly unintelligent people i have ever dealt with...now of course, that's a generalization, and it refers to the average citizen...of course there are large segments of the population that actually do pay attention, and behave in a way that would suggest that their IQ is above room temperature, and that they take in air VIA their nose...they pay attention to what is going on around them, they read about issues of substance, and they come to places like this, and talk to other similarly-intelligent people....sadly, there aren't enough of these people left...

instead, what we have is a majority that sees the federal government as some sort of parental figure...the ultimate authority in their lives... they blindly accept what the government tells them (which is why the general public doesn't ask questions about 9/11, or any of the other "war on terror"-related B.S.), allows the government to abuse them, steal from them, bully them, take away their rights....they have no inkling...no capacity to fathom the power they hold, as citizens...they don't understand that right now, the tail is wagging the dog, and that they all have the legal authority to stop it dead in it's tracks..

They're content to sit idly by, while an out of control, corrupt, criminal federal government continues to break the law, and destroy everything this country used to stand for....as long as nobody touches facebook, twitter, reddit, google, text messaging, and reality television.....

this is why we're f**ked...

reply to post by CornShucker


Bottom line if we actually followed the constitution the world we live in would be far better. We have not followed it for many,many years and men like Lincoln and many other presidents did whatever they could to undermine it.




Dear readers we do not follow the constitution. That is why the progressive mindset has invaded every inch it can take. If we followed the constitution to the letter the progressive mindset would sink back into the hole it crawled out of.

Thank you ACLU for messing up things once again.

The laptop search was only done if they has reasonable suspicion. With the way judge Korman rules on Abidor, the wording might make it so future searches don't require any suspicion.

The guy had photos of radical islamists on his laptop for his 'research.' Pretty sure they had reasonable suspicion before they searched.

I'm glad the Judge ruled against the ACLU suit.

HanzHenry
How about all the UNION backed REDCOATS stop carrying out orders that are against the spirit of the constitution?

If there were NOT people LACKING HONOR and INTEGRITY willing to carry out the laundry list of Tyrannical acts, this would be a mute point.

How about the people actually comply with their duty as citizens to hold the government accountable.

Your mindset is exactly what I am referring to. You lump everyone into a preconceived category. Respectfully, what exactly have you done to participate in government at any level (serious question btw)? Do you vote? speak to your reps on a regular basis? Tell them how you fell on a certain issue you are passionate about? Do you offer solutions when bringing these complaints to your reps?

When Franklin got out of the constitutional convention, he was asked "what kind of government have you created a Republic or a Monarchy?"

His response was "A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT".

Contrary to popular belief we do not live in a Democracy. Our system of Government is a Representative Republic. It means we elect people to represent our interests (in the majority) while at the same time it guarantees the minority position is heard (in the minority).

Our government requires citizen participation...
Military / Law Enforcement can not, and should not ever, need to be relied on when it comes to government wrongdoing. That responsibility belongs solely to the people of the US, namely you, me and 300 + million others in this country.

Vote....
Be Heard...
Contact your reps...

We have Federal Term Limits - They are called Elections.
While we have our issues Io am glad that I live in a country where we get to overthrow the government every 2 years (see term limits comment above).

Respectfully, be proactive instead of just laying down blanket stereotyping / accusations and name calling.

As I have said the constitution is some some piece of paper that was written by men and as such it can be ignored or nullified by men.


You cant put your trust in a piece of paper, even if its a well written piece of paper with some good ideas on it.

darn that pesky Constitution! All getting in the way of total enslavement.
I shall destroy you Constitution! Mark my words.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Voting does NOT work. The people ELECT the candidates that others SELECT.

Selecting candidates that we ELECT will not and HAS NOT worked,


I would LOVE police once again if THEY would take the LEAD.

Any act that is against the Constitution should be ATTACKED by the Police Unions. But I know that there will be many casualties early in the fight,

Why can't those whom are given the most power in our society LEADING the charge?

Man, I was personally disgusted everyday for my last year and a half with the DHS monstrosity, and it seemed as if I was a 'lone wolf' in trying to discuss how far off the reservation federal and state LEO's have become.

This is where the most traction can happen. from INSIDE the Police state apparatus.

When I say Badges are redcoats. I want those that wear them to TAKE THEM OFF.

Sure, the departments may get less federal funding. So what.

The Police Unions have done nothing apparent to fight this continuing pitting of police against the citizens, the Constitution and the FREE republic. Self Preservation and continued benefits for the members seems to be the only motive.

Why? What would happen if the police said "enforce a free speech zone? PFFT"
-- "you want us to swat raid the guy's house? why?.that doesn't sound American to us"
-- "speeding cameras are too much like a Nazi police state" -- "plus, we aren't here to generate revenue, we are here to make sure packs of animals don't rob/rape/pillage our town;s people.. that is IT"

"find someone else to help evict a homeowner so some FOREIGN entity can profit"

"For PROFIT prisons? that sounds like a GULAG.. as a member of the American Republic, I won't arrest a single person of they end up in a FOR profit prison"

things like that would go a MILLION times further than voting

"The problem with a Constitution Free Zone is that it nullifies protections under the Constitution. Funny how mad grabs of power can bite you in the butt."
Well, now... If this is the case, and this act was in fact signed in 11 years ago under the Bush Administration, then
ALL of Hawaii is a "Constitution Free Zone". Thus nullifying Obama's need to be a citizen and opening the door for (drum roll, please) Arnold Schwarzenegger! Isn't he The Governor, ironically, and a Citizen of a predominantly "Constitution Free Zone"? As I see it... All of those in this Zone have a "get out of jail free" card and can do Whatever they want. Anyone that may have committed a crime within this zone since it's signing, should be released.
How 'bout them apples?

HanzHenry
Voting does NOT work. The people ELECT the candidates that others SELECT.

Through a primary for each state, where the people vote on which candidate they want. Often times, in a democracy (ability to vote), someone else can win.

The people vote for President / Vice President. While we use the electoral college system, which was designed to protect the institution on the off chance the voters made a mistake, the bulk of the state now have laws that require the electoral college to actually vote in the manner the people of the state chose.

U.S. Electoral College

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
...

27 other states have laws requiring the electoral college to vote for the person the state went to. What are the people of those non law states doing to ensure there vote is not overturned?

We can always modify the constitution to move to the popular vote, however it will create a lot more issues that it would resolve.

Finally our Constitution does not prohibit on who runs for office (residency requirements / age aside). You can run if you so choose, as could I.

HanzHenry
Selecting candidates that we ELECT will not and HAS NOT worked,

It has.. the failure resides with the people who took the attitude of "someone else will vote so I don't need to".

HanzHenry
I would LOVE police once again if THEY would take the LEAD.

I would LOVE for the citizens to take the lead. Police derive our authority from the people, which requires the people to take the lead.

HanzHenry
Any act that is against the Constitution should be ATTACKED by the Police Unions. But I know that there will be many casualties early in the fight,

This portion gets goofy and could alone be a topic in and of itself. In brief, the role of law enforcement is not to protect the individual. It is to protect society as a whole. Secondly Public Safety Agencies fall into grey areas which limit the pull of Police Organizations / Orders / "Unions".

We also have a chain of command, which enters another element.

If you have ever watched the State of the Union addresses, you will notice the Supreme Court and the Military personnel present do not clap, stand, etc. They are neutral and their very nature requires them to be neutral.

When you introduce political motives into the equation of the magnitude you are describing, we have moved beyond the scope of their authority and have instead placed them into a position of essentially performing a coup d'état.

We have civilian leadership over our military and law enforcement for a dam good reason.

Finally - Attacked comment.
What you fail to realize (imo) is law enforcement should not ever attack something, again, on the magnitude you are presenting. When you do that, violating not only the Federal constitution but Federal, State and Local laws, not to mention State Constitutions, you have moved law enforcement into the realm of being driven by ideology instead of the law.

I make a traffic stop when I have reasonable suspicion / PC. Doing what you suggest will result in officers deciding upon themselves which laws to enforce and the manner its done, which is nowhere near law enforcements jurisdiction.

HanzHenry
Why can't those whom are given the most power in our society LEADING the charge?

The one entity that has the power are the people.

Not Law Enforcement.... not Military...

The People.

HanzHenry
Man, I was personally disgusted everyday for my last year and a half with the DHS monstrosity, and it seemed as if I was a 'lone wolf' in trying to discuss how far off the reservation federal and state LEO's have become.

I don't care much for DHS and I gave my reps an ear full and actually wanted them to support / introduce bills to kill the whole thing and be done with it. DHS is nothing more than a ticking time bomb.. Its ill conceived and has created more problems that it has solved.

HanzHenry
This is where the most traction can happen. from INSIDE the Police state apparatus.

I would go so far to say the Police Apparatus should support the people. With that said, I firmly believe its the responsibility of the people to lead the charge. As I said our authority comes from them. If we act without consent, we would be committing the very situation you disdain.

HanzHenry
When I say Badges are redcoats. I want those that wear them to TAKE THEM OFF.

Do you know the history behind police badges?

HanzHenry
Sure, the departments may get less federal funding. So what.

Again a topic that could be its own thread.

HanzHenry
The Police Unions have done nothing apparent to fight this continuing pitting of police against the citizens, the Constitution and the FREE republic. Self Preservation and continued benefits for the members seems to be the only motive.

Respectfully, People - Police relations are where they are because there is a severe lack of communication between the groups, there is a lack of understanding on how law enforcement operates.

Also - its a 2 way street.

Citizens must be involved in their local government. The Police do no Legislate... The Police do not Drat Laws. The Police do not Charge, try or make a ruling.

HanzHenry
Why? What would happen if the police said "enforce a free speech zone? PFFT"
-- "you want us to ..........American to us"
-- "speeding cameras ......like a Nazi police state" -- "plus, we aren't here to generate revenue, we are here to make sure packs of animals don't rob/rape/pillage our town;s people.. that is IT"

See my post above this part.

HanzHenry
"find someone else to help evict a homeowner so some FOREIGN entity can profit"

Constitutionally mandated in just about every state constitution. Civil enforcement is the responsibility of the Sheriff, an elected position might I add.

HanzHenry
"For PROFIT prisons? that sounds like a GULAG.. as a member of the American Republic, I won't arrest a single person of they end up in a FOR profit prison"

Which entity does better when it comes to efficiency?
Private Enterprise or Government entities?

Are all prisons as you described?
Are all police as you described?

HanzHenry
things like that would go a MILLION times further than voting

I would agree - However not in the direction you are hoping it would go.

You are wanting Law Enforcement / Military to essentially usurp the power of the people by leading a charge that is not shared / supported by the majority of Americans.

Because of that, it MUST be the responsibility of the people to lead the charge.

*there are sections with text removed and replaced with ........ This was done to allow me to get all my responses in and was not done to change your words or anything like that...

Im gonna post some research information for those interested in this topic. I will say right now my aim is not to defend government actions. I am simply trying to present that side of the argument. The article I linked has some good information and provides links to the germane information for the issues raised.

Does a Constitution-free zone really exist in America? - Fedbruary 15th, 2013

The ACLU’s Constitution-Free Zone

The American Civil Liberties Union has been saying since 2010 that a regulation allowing customs and immigration agents to search electronic devices at America’s borders without cause is wrong. Two years prior to that, the ACLU also warned of a 100-mile-wide U.S. border called the “Constitution-free zone” where such searches could occur.

DHS 2 Page Review on their Polices with regards to searching electronic items - PDF format

DHS Traveler Redress Form

In the 9th circuit court of appeals (Federal - West Coast)
* - justices ruled against the Government, noting that they must have reasonable suspicion to inspect electronic devices. This ruling ONLY applies to states within that Federal Circuit. The ruling can be used by other Federal Appeals Circuit, or it can be ignored and a separate and possibly conflicting ruling will happen.

In that instance it goes to the US Supreme Court for review (9ths decision was appealed to Supreme court in March of this year).

The doctrine used is called -
Border Search Exception - Cornell Law / 4th Amendment

The courts acknowledge the right of the United States, as a Sovereign, to be able to protect itself and its citizens from danger entering this country - However:

Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida–Sanchez v.[p.1244]United States,92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent.93

On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is “modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant.94

Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.95

So no, Border Patrol does not have carte blanche when it comes to searches, even more so the farther inland they come.

100 Mile "Constitutional Free Zone" - Fallacy based on confusion on allowed actions of Federal Officers.
** The portion below has been edited by me to highlight the specifics. Follow the primary link for the entire entry**

Searches within the 100-mile extended border zone, and outside of the immediate border-stop location, must meet three criteria:
* - a person must have recently crossed a border;
* - An agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed;
* - And that “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal activity must exist

Some may not know that all ports of entry into the United States falls into this. In addition to border crossings, harbors as well as airports are covered. Outside of those specific areas, they are required to follow the same laws state / local law enforcement are bound to.

With this said their are conflicting rulings from 2 circuit appeals courts of warrantless searches of electronic devices on traffic stops etc. The Supreme court will get this at some point to define / refine it.

Here is the part I think some are having issues with -
Contrary to popular belief we cannot use a plain text reading of the Constitution. If we did women would not be allowed to vote and certain persons would not be considered a full person.

Why is this important to understand?

There is a clause that states anything not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved to the states. This argument is similar to the 2nd amendment argument.

The 4th amendment, like the 2nd, was written during a time where Computers / Electronics were non existent. If we don't allow for the advancement of civilization in our Constitution, it would bind everyone to essentially a death pack. Once could argue that since electronics are not specifically mentioned in the 4th, the 4th does not apply to those items.

Thankfully the founders put the judicial in place to specifically deal with these conundrums. Another example would be travel. The Constitution protects travel within a state in addition to crossing state borders. However, the constitution does not say anything about the "method" of travel. Conceivably one could argue that the government can tell citizens they have to walk everywhere, since the ways its written occurred during a time before cars, airplanes, ships (modern).

What is needed is for people to take a step back and research the issue at hand, from BOTH sides (it does not matter if you like their side or not, you always look at their cards as it helps develop your strategy and hand). If you can understand your opponents position and legal argument it makes defense to the governments argument stronger.

Again, not defending nor condoning the Governments stance. I am simply pointing out their argument and the supporting information for that position.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

- Sun Tzu

reply to post by HanzHenry


As a side note I would like to say thank you for the exchange. Its forced me to do some more research on this topic and I have learned a few things.

Secondly I get this topic is going to be heated. I want to state that my responses / position is not meant to piss you off nor is my intent to personally attack you. If anything has come across in that matter its not intended and my apologies.

Since there are a lot of issues on this one topic, we should try to stick to some type of focus so we don't derail the intent of the thread. Anything in particular on this topic you would like to concentrate on?

Xcathdra
Im gonna post some research information for those interested in this topic. I will say right now my aim is not to defend government actions. I am simply trying to present that side of the argument. The article I linked has some good information and provides links to the germane information for the issues raised.

The way it's written makes things sound ok but the problem is it rests on probable cause. Cops have been trained for a bit over a decade now in ways to manufacture probable cause. As it is now, literally anything can be used. There's certain things they can say which will not show up on a camera, that the court will uphold whether or not it's true. For example, perhaps they saw movement in the back of the car that looked suspicious, it's trusted to the officers judgment in that moment regardless of what the camera sees. Then they walk up to the car and say they smell drugs. Now they have cause to search the vehicle and even your electronics for drug paraphernalia or anything else illegal they happen to come across.

That's where our protections fail. If you're in a car you have virtually no rights.

reply to post by Xcathdra


we can spilt hairs and agree or not.

My point is that if every sworn officer were to step back and LOOK at what their actions contribute to, then no,

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said it best on this point. ANY officer that has arrested someone for possession, prostitution, etc, are acting just like a TYRANT and in following Tyranny have put themselves into the Tyrant corner.

I always thought the 'revenuers' who were at war during Prohibition were SCUM. plain and simple.
things like that are detestable and an obvious assault on freedom.

Even seatbelts.. having a law .. ffs. there is NO freedom if someone can't choose to wear one or not. Personal choice.

You see, the problem is the psyche of someone that would do these things.. Whether the orders/law are there or not, personal choices. Choose NOT to engage in anything that would attack our Freedom. My freedom and choices are no more valuable than someone else's.

Somebody wants to grow a plant, cook meth, sell their body, etc. that is THEIR FREEDOM to do so.
Until a crackhead robs someone else, why arrest them?

I would and NEVER did arrest someone for possession. I looked the other way, EVERY TIME.

Unless the drug dealer is selling to children, don't arrest them. personal choices and freedom.

Many of the things now illegal were NOT illegal a couple hundred years ago,.

enforcing TAX LIENS/SEIZURES as a PRIME example.

Big Picture thinking at a PERSONAL level. do NOT do ANYTHING against the spirit of the Constitution. -->ever, for ANY price.
I can say I NEVER DID. too bad 99% of LEO can't admit they have not. this is the problem.

check out this series for the TRUE history of the badge.

Aazadan
The way it's written makes things sound ok but the problem is it rests on probable cause. Cops have been trained for a bit over a decade now in ways to manufacture probable cause. As it is now, literally anything can be used.

If you could, can you clarify these comments. The reason I ask is there are 2 levels that law enforcement uses.

The first level is - Reasonable Suspicion

A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

The second level is Probable Cause.

An example of a stop / contact based on reasonable suspicion.
INCONSISTENT SPEED
A police Officer observes a vehicle travelling 20 miles an hour under the posted speed limit on a Highway. The vehicles speed then speeds up to 5 over the speed limit, then drops back down, continuing to fluctuate.

LANE WEAVING / LINE CROSSING
The officer observes the vehicle weaving back and forth between the shoulder and the centerline. Every so often the vehicle crosses those lines by several tire lengths.

MAKING TURNS
The vehicle exits the highway and proceeds to make a right hand turn. During the turn the vehicle crosses into a secondary / opposing lane of travel before coming back to the correct lane of travel.

Based on all 3 of those observations, when taken individually, one could assume car problems.. maybe they are lost... Maybe some medical condition. You stop the vehicle based on reasonable suspicion (something just is not right). On contact you smell the intoxicating odor, blood shot eyes, slurred voice, inability to multi task, answer questions inappropriately, hands the officer his credit card instead of a drivers license. There is still a possibility of a medical problem - Ketoacidosis.

Based on the above you ask the driver to exit and you put him through NHTSA Field Sobriety Tests, which he fails (3 tests). The driver is arrested for driving while intoxicated, and taken to the jail to be processed and read implied consent. He agrees to the breath test, which comes back at 1.6 (double the drink/drive limit).

The basis for the stop was based on reasonable suspicion that something is not right. Taking everything into consideration, you are justified in pulling the vehicle over and making contact. From the point of contact the officer will either confirm his observations, leading to probable cause for driving while intoxicated resulting in arrest.

If the officer finds the driver is not intoxicated, there is no reason to continue to detain the driver (in general and not taking into account medical issues). Regardless of the outcome of the stop, I am required by law to complete a racial profiling form and submit it, detailing date / time / location of stop, my information, reason for stop, what occurred during stop (search / contraband located) in addition to logging the result of the stop (warning / citation / arrest / other).

The reason I gave the above is to demonstrate reasonable suspicion and its function as an investigative device, leading to either probable cause a crime was committed or leading to no violation and a release.

There is a huge difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Its like the huge difference between a frisk and a search.

The final phrase is totality of circumstances - IE what would a reasonable person think was occurring.


As for the ability to manufacture something - I will cede the point it can occur, however if its being applied in a blanket manner than I reject the premise. The mentality to place everyone into a single group and claim they all do wrong is part of the overall trust / communication problems.

The PA has final say on charges. If wrongdoing during investigation and arrest is made, an investigation will occur and we go from there. Its on a case by case basis, just as the ability of border patrol to search certain items without a warrant. Those actions are reviewed on a case by case basis when a complaint / accusation is made.

Aazadan
There's certain things they can say which will not show up on a camera, that the court will uphold whether or not it's true.

The veracity of evidence comes down to credibility and what the court does with that is on them. Its up to the court (judge / jury) to weigh truthfulness of evidence / testimony. I can tell you that once an officer is tagged with perjury or trying to get one in under the radar its rare a prosecuting attorney will file any more actions from that officer.

The role of law enforcement is investigatory. Our goal is as much to rule out suspects than it is to find a suspect. If something is said on scene, it can be raised in court. The officer can be directly asked if they said something. From there its up to the court / jury to determine the weight it will have.

Aazadan
For example, perhaps they saw movement in the back of the car that looked suspicious, it's trusted to the officers judgment in that moment regardless of what the camera sees. Then they walk up to the car and say they smell drugs. Now they have cause to search the vehicle and even your electronics for drug paraphernalia or anything else illegal they happen to come across.

The action you are talking about is called "Furtive" movement. Its movement that is not normal during a given situation. For a traffic stop a reasonable person would think that a persons drivers license / insurance are somewhere in the front part of the vehicle. Movement by the driver / passenger into areas where those items are not normally found are in fact suspicious and could present a possible threat.

With that said, that's where contact comes in. Was the person looking for his / her wallet? insurance? Or was the person reaching for a weapon? Maybe they were trying to hide drugs / alcohol?

You need to ask yourself - For any given situation, are the actions / movements of the person involved in line with what a reasonable person would expect?

The answer to that question would result in articulation of why the officer did this or that.

"Smelling drugs" and acting on that smell varies from state to state. In those states that allow it the officer must be able to take the stand and articulate / describe / explain their familiarity with the drug and how that experience allowed them to detect said drug.

Aazadan
That's where our protections fail. If you're in a car you have virtually no rights.

Your protection reside in the constitution - Federal and State.
It resides in the Judicial system.
It resides in the part that allows a citizen to require a redress of grievances.

To bring it back around everything above applies to all law enforcement. Border patrol has some exceptions based on law that only apply to them.

The people must educate themselves on their government. If people don't know how their government works, at all levels, then one can assume any problems that need to be fixed will be delayed until courts get ahold of it.

An action to reform government does not have to wait until something is broke.

HanzHenry
we can spilt hairs and agree or not.

My point is that if every sworn officer were to step back and LOOK at what their actions contribute to, then no,

Fair enough.. however you are placing the burden on law enforcement. It belongs to the citizens.

HanzHenry
Thomas Jefferson said it best on this point. ANY officer that has arrested someone for possession, prostitution, etc, are acting just like a TYRANT and in following Tyranny have put themselves into the Tyrant corner.

When it comes to a "victimless crime" I would refer you to the legislature and the Judiciary. Law Enforcement has nothing to do with drafting a law. We have nothing to do with charges and We have nothing to do with determining guilt and we have nothing to do with fines / restitution or payment.

Secondly, those very items can be changed by the people, as we have seen in Las vegas (legalized prostitution) and in Colorado and several other western states (Marijuana). The people in those areas successfully made the changes you are wanting the police to do.

HanzHenry
I always thought the 'revenuers' who were at war during Prohibition were SCUM. plain and simple.
things like that are detestable and an obvious assault on freedom.

Then how about getting involved to make the changes you think should occur. Stereotyping / name calling does not fix the perceived problem. Putting everyone into the same category in the manner you are doing are actions you are complaining about from the government.

Respectfully, stop stereotyping / making blanket accusations.

HanzHenry
Even seatbelts.. having a law .. ffs. there is NO freedom if someone can't choose to wear one or not. Personal choice.

Verse public safety. What happens when you hit something and go through the windshield, hitting a bystander and killing them? Secondly not all states have primary enforcement laws for seatbelts, meaning there must be another violation.

Your "rights" end the moment they interfere with another's "rights".

HanzHenry
You see, the problem is the psyche of someone that would do these things.. Whether the orders/law are there or not, personal choices. Choose NOT to engage in anything that would attack our Freedom. My freedom and choices are no more valuable than someone else's.

If we lived in a country of 1 I would agree. Since we don't we will never have everyone happy all the time.

You want the personal freedom to not wear a seatbelt.
I want the freedom to kill anyone I wish without reprisal.

In for a penny in for a pound - Where does one draw the line? this brings us back to protecting society as a whole and not the individual.

HanzHenry
Somebody wants to grow a plant, cook meth, sell their body, etc. that is THEIR FREEDOM to do so.
Until a crackhead robs someone else, why arrest them?

Does the person have children in the residence? Do the parents actions place anyone in the residence in danger? Are they properly disposing of the material they used to make the meth? There is no law that allows a person to be arrested for being under the influence of a drug (unless the result endangers the welfare of someone else - IR DWI / DUI). Absent public danger I have no ability to make an arrest.

HanzHenry
I would and NEVER did arrest someone for possession. I looked the other way, EVERY TIME.

Officer Discretion - which is actually spelled out in my states laws.

HanzHenry
Unless the drug dealer is selling to children, don't arrest them. personal choices and freedom.

What if a person is shot and killed by a person that just bought the drugs and took them? If a business / bar continually sells alcohol to a patron who is visibly intoxicated, and then allows that person to drive, where does responsibility fall?

The person who sold the alcohol and failed to act?
The person who got drunk and decided to drive?

Its a given fact that drugs can alter a persons perception / mental status. Are they responsible for their actions while under the influence?

HanzHenry
Many of the things now illegal were NOT illegal a couple hundred years ago,.

enforcing TAX LIENS/SEIZURES as a PRIME example.

The Crown would disagree with you here.

HanzHenry
Big Picture thinking at a PERSONAL level. do NOT do ANYTHING against the spirit of the Constitution. -->ever, for ANY price.

So we are going to use one persons views and apply them to all? What about the people who don't see eye to eye with you. Is it acceptable for them to force their desires / wishes on you?

Society as a whole and not the individual.

HanzHenry
I can say I NEVER DID. too bad 99% of LEO can't admit they have not. this is the problem.

So is constantly lumping everyone into the evil category simply because they don't see the world through your eyes.

If I may ask why did you get out of law enforcement? If they are the vanguard, as you want them to be, then why leave the very entity you feel should act against the government?

HanzHenry
check out this series for the TRUE history of the badge.

The badge is a continuation of the shield knights used way back in the day (hence the reason its on the left side). It represented chivalry, compassion, honor, leadership, fairness etc...

While I understand your argument, I think you are trying to make things to black and white. Without the grey, society will cease to function.

Coming back around, everything we are discussing is applied to federal officers as well. As I noted, they have restrictions and they aren't implementing constitution free zones.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Looks like they've got the patriots fenced in. No escape to Canada, Mexico or International waters without your papers in order.
Time to realize the constitution has been on death row since 1913 when the bankers took ownership of America. It's been an insidious psy op ever since.
The only real speed bump the oligarchy 2.0 had was JFK. So they killed him and told us what to think about it. Wow those magic media box's sure did their job.

I fear in 10 years the constitution zone will be a circle of wagons somewhere in the vicinity of Witchita

Xcathdra
If you could, can you clarify these comments. The reason I ask is there are 2 levels that law enforcement uses.

Basically, the idea of probable cause is great in theory, in recent times though it has been looked at not as a limitation on power but as a puzzle to work around. I work at a community college, one of their most popular programs is a degree in law enforcement. Rather often I sit in the hall outside of their classes and listen to what is taught. A pretty big portion of it revolves around how to find things to be suspicious of to work around those pesky rights that criminals are using to protect themselves and endanger officers. More than once I've heard some variation of respecting a criminals right to not be searched is the best way to give that suspect a chance to reach for a weapon and shoot you. If you don't want to be murdered by some degenerate, find an excuse to get them out of their car away from a potential weapon, and into the back of your squad car.

I myself have been pulled over and then given a field sobriety test because the officer smelled alcohol in my car. I know this was false because I've had less than 5 alcoholic drinks in my life (I simply don't like the taste, so I don't drink), none in the past several years, and never in or around my car. His suspicion was most likely that I was driving near a bar, and he likely thought I just pulled out of the parking lot. I blew a 0.0. In the end he gave me a ticket for reckless driving, which he never cited an action for, and I had no defense in court since I couldn't prove I wasn't. Unfortunately, an officers word is worth more than mine in court so there was no defense.

The veracity of evidence comes down to credibility and what the court does with that is on them. Its up to the court (judge / jury) to weigh truthfulness of evidence / testimony. I can tell you that once an officer is tagged with perjury or trying to get one in under the radar its rare a prosecuting attorney will file any more actions from that officer.

Even if that is the case, which I seriously doubt you're operating from a standpoint of officers being credible by default while the defendant isn't. The officers word is proof, that's not so for the person fighting the charge. That person has to produce evidence, and often times evidence doesn't outweigh the cops word. That makes it pretty difficult to prove the officer isn't credible.

The action you are talking about is called "Furtive" movement. Its movement that is not normal during a given situation. For a traffic stop a reasonable person would think that a persons drivers license / insurance are somewhere in the front part of the vehicle. Movement by the driver / passenger into areas where those items are not normally found are in fact suspicious and could present a possible threat.

In my first encounter with police in my town they pulled me over (a taillight was out) and picked up on me being nervous (this was long before I was outright terrified of cops, I was just nervous because it was the first time I had ever been pulled over). They used that as a pretext and thought I was smuggling drugs. Over the next couple hours they brought several drug dogs over (which didn't hit on anything as far as I can tell), and utterly destroyed the inside of my car looking for them. Eventually they found nothing and I was free to go. The passenger seat in that car was never usable again, and the rear seats weren't much better off. It was a completely justified course of action to take against someone I'm sure.

A friend of mine in Texas had something similar happen to him, except he was actually doing something bad. He had some pot hidden under the seat of his car because he had just bought it during his lunch break and was driving back to work. A cop pulled him over. He reached to his jacket in the back seat of of his car to get his wallet and the cop thought that was suspicious so took him out of the car and searched it, when he found something. My friend got a few months in jail for that.

The lesson I learned was any action you take, even an action that's completely complying with the officers request is suspicious and gives them the right to search you and your property, which ultimately means that we no longer have protections in this country against search and seizure.

I contrast that with my high school experiences which happened in the late 90's before the 9/11 "reforms" to everything. We had a couple drug dealers in school and everyone knew who they were. A couple times a year the police would come by and search for drugs while the dogs would hit on the dealers cars in the parking lot and the officers could search them by looking into the windows but that was all unless there was something in plain sight. The cops weren't allowed to search the kids themselves, their bags, or even their lockers. It's a totally different world now.

Your protection reside in the constitution - Federal and State.
It resides in the Judicial system.
It resides in the part that allows a citizen to require a redress of grievances.

In a car you have no protections at the moment, it's 100% up to the officers judgment. They can say you were driving recklessly with no other proof and you were, they can take you to the back of their car and rape you and you cannot defend yourself without accumulating expensive to defend against criminal charges and jail time as a recent case proves. If you're in a car, the constitution does not exist. Period. You may be able to argue wrongdoing after the fact and in court but that is all.

Aazadan
Basically, the idea of probable .... find an excuse to get them out of their car away from a potential weapon, and into the back of your squad car.

Interesting perspective.. Law Enforcement does have the ability to remove a person from a vehicle they stopped. One issue that is often ignored by civilians is when we stop someone, we are responsible for their, along with any passengers, safety. A traffic stop is a temporary seizure under the 4th amendment. Actions of people we stop are curtailed, including actions of passengers. However its not as easy to just make something up to meet Probable Cause. PC is scrutinized by not only the Prosecution, but the Defense during Discovery.

Aazadan
I myself have been pulled over and then given a field sobriety test because the officer smelled alcohol in my car. I know this was false ....... Unfortunately, an officers word is worth more than mine in court so there was no defense.

Any chance you could provide some more info? What was the reason given for pulling you over? There are other factors we look at other than smell. As for the citation, next time look the statute up and see what the elements are to be in violation. Then challenge it from there. Some agencies require officers write basic reports for certain traffic violations (food for thought in the future). Burden of proof is on the government, not the defendant.

The same with Border Patrol....

Aazadan
Even if that is the case, which I....not so for the person fighting the charge. That person has to produce evidence, and often times evidence doesn't outweigh the cops word. That makes it pretty difficult to prove the officer isn't credible.

Generally speaking a Police Officer is considered an expert witness in general Police operations in court (varies state to state but the premise is the same). With that being said a good defense attorney will find the holes in the argument / testimony and go from there - that is there job after all.

Defense Attorneys have interesting methods when it comes to creating doubt about an officer. they will call municipal officers Deputies and Deputies officers. The like to get a rise, causing the officer to get irritated, which in turn does its damage with the judge / jury. Ive seen officers give testimony referring to distance in feet - I saw the vehicle about 300 feet in front of me. Ive seen defense attorneys repeat the info back , but they will change feet to yards, which makes a huge difference. Some officers will miss the subtle change, then get called out on it. That in turns casts doubt on what else the officer dealt with. After all if he cant keep track of the difference between feet and yards, what else is goofed up?

Aazadan
In my first encounter with police in my town they pulled me over (a taillight was out) and picked up on me being nervous (this was long before I was outright terrified of cops, I was just nervous because it was the first time I had ever been pulled over). They used that as a pretext and thought I was smuggling drugs. Over the next couple hours they brought several drug dogs over (which didn't hit on anything as far as I can tell), and utterly destroyed the inside of my car looking for them. Eventually they found nothing and I was free to go. The passenger seat in that car was never usable again, and the rear seats weren't much better off. It was a completely justified course of action to take against someone I'm sure.

Again I would need more info. Based on your description they possibly violated your civil rights, not to mention US Supreme Court rulings on the reasonableness of time for a standard traffic stop. The general rule of thumb is 20 minutes. The longer the officer holds a person the more he is required to articulate the reason why.

Secondly a broken tail light is not P/C to search a car (unless something else is going on). Generally speaking equipment violations coming from the back end of a car are frowned upon simply because most laws require the driver to actually know the equipment is non functional from the start. absent that most don't go forward with those citations.

A drug dog is restricted to the exterior of a vehicle unless an exception to the 4th amendment has been established (Contraband in Plain sight / Search incident to arrest / Scent hit by dog on outside /etc etc etc). Absent you giving consent to search, what you are describing is not fitting in with law (imo).

Border Patrol will have an exception due to their specific duties.

AazadanA friend of mine in Texas had something similar happen to him, except he was actually doing something bad. He had some pot hidden under the seat of his car because he had just bought it during his lunch break and was driving back to work. A cop pulled him over. He reached to his jacket in the back seat of of his car to get his wallet and the cop thought that was suspicious so took him out of the car and searched it, when he found something. My friend got a few months in jail for that.

Valid based on furtive movements... Reason for the stop would be good to know?

Aazadan
The lesson I learned was .... and your property, which ultimately means that we no longer have protections in this country against search and seizure.

Respectfully I disagree on this one. Its not that simple, especially when the case gets to the beginning of the court stages, namely discovery.

People need to understand that the cop is not the person you argue with. The court is the setting for that and for good reason.

Aazadan
I contrast that ...... the windows but that was all unless there was something in plain sight. The cops weren't allowed to search the kids themselves, their bags, or even their lockers. It's a totally different world now.

Actually they could have.. That legal term is called In Loco Parentis (In place of Parents).

Aazadan
In a car you have no protections at the moment, it's 100% up to the officers judgment.

Actually its not.. The most recent Supreme Court Ruling dealing with vehicle searches is Arizona vs. Gant. SCOTUS has ruled several times now that your vehicle is just slightly less protected than your residence when it comes to the 4th amendment.

Aazadan
They can say you were driving recklessly .... If you're in a car, the constitution does not exist. Period. You may be able to argue wrongdoing after the fact and in court but that is all.

edit on 3-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

I again, respectfully, disagree.

What I see are actions being taken because the person does not know how the law / their rights work / apply.

Example -
Is it possible for a person to be arrested, charged, tried and convicted of murder, receiving the death penalty, without ever being read his Miranda rights?

To try and pull it back to Border Patrol I see the same arguments being made, with the same problem. People aren't understanding how the laws work / apply and come to a wrong conclusion. People dismiss important info because they just don't like the info, thinking it somehow nullifies / makes the law illegal.

I encourage people to educate themselves on government and to participate in government.