January 6th public hearing live

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Xcathdra

according to what I read the offense need not take place in MI

Its got to be a state charge. It was the federal judge who seized his guns and according to the info I have seen any person charged in connection to the Jan 6th bull# have all had their weapons seized by the federal courts. Everything hs is charged with is Federal. The state has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Xcathdra

according to what I read the offense need not take place in MI

Its got to be a state charge. It was the federal judge who seized his guns and according to the info I have seen any person charged in connection to the Jan 6th bull# have all had their weapons seized by the federal courts. Everything hs is charged with is Federal. The state has nothing to do with it.

So why the heck is everyone upset with MI doing it if it's coming down from the Federal Level? I have to be missing something here. MI law, and I read it 6 times to be sure, doesn't care if the offense is in Timbuktu you have a charge that shows up in Mi then MI reacts, but

if this is a Federal Judge doing this there is no law currently on the books that allows for something regulated by the States under the 10th to be enforced Federally. If true that would classify as a Civil Rights violation.

a reply to: vkey08

From what little I could glean, the safety of pre-trial personnel visiting the house of the accused among other things is the statement of the judge.

"I do understand the concern," about self-defense, she said, but the court has to consider other factors, including the safety of pre-trial services officials who will need to visit Kelley's home, she said.

Detroit Free Press

I'm not familiar with law, etc, but thought I could provide this info and y'all can debate from there.

a reply to: vkey08

The state of MI has not done anything to the guy. It was a federal arrest warrant and he went in front of a federal judge. The federal judge took his guns.

A conviction at the federal level might be enough to revoke his CCW but I doubt it.

A federal judge has the authority to do it (as a condition of bail - which the guy got), even if we dont like it. The issue I have is the why. There was no reason to seize his guns. The only thing I can think of is people at the federal level are scared of an armed population. Dems are going above and beyond again to strip the 2nd amendment and with the politicization of the judicial branch...

As for the civil rights violation, if it is a term for bail its not a violation. Also, the Federal government and state government are separate sovereigns and he is in the federal system.

The people who are upset about it are probably ignorant on how are government works at the state and federal level. They just see in the news the guy was arrested and a judge took his guns. Not many people take the extra few minutes to see what agency arrested him and what court the guy appeared in front of.

Finally the charge he faces is federal and occurred in DC. The state of MI doesnt really have anything to do with what's going on. Because Federal law is uniform across the country, where as state courts are not, a crime committed on Federal property can be prosecuted anywhere in the US. States are normally restricted to their own state.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: vkey08

From what little I could glean, the safety of pre-trial personnel visiting the house of the accused among other things is the statement of the judge.

"I do understand the concern," about self-defense, she said, but the court has to consider other factors, including the safety of pre-trial services officials who will need to visit Kelley's home, she said.

Detroit Free Press

I'm not familiar with law, etc, but thought I could provide this info and y'all can debate from there.

Your on target. Like i was telling her it most likely was a condition for bail. Protection for pre trial services is also a valid reason.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A federal judge has the authority to do it (as a condition of bail

That's where I have an issue. Bail is not an admission of guilt; it is a promise to return for trial. The seizure of property without due process (which cannot have happened if there was bail involved) is prohibited in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A conviction is required to seize property. I know it is done, but it is also unconstitutional. That goes for all seizures, not just guns.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

X I have never seen it used as a bail condition on the federal level in my 30 years of working but there's always a first time. But yes as a condition of bail the judge could do that.

But, if you look at how MI law is written, it's so convoluted it's almost laughable. they can do stuff based upon arrests in other states if they find out about it.To my knowledge no other state has that condition written in the law.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure but requiring it for bail is legal and can be done. It is just like a person who is a victim of domestic violence. The victim can get an emergency order of protection against the suspect. In those cases its common, per the EOoP, to temporarily seized the persons fire arms.

In both cases the seizures are temporary. When they go to court the first time the judge looks at all the facts of the case and they go from their, which is due process. A bail request is usually made and the judge hears from the defense and prosecution. A decision is made by the judge and the terms for bail are set. Bail can be anything from released their own recognizance (RoR), to a money bail (cash / surety), passports can be seized to prevent a person from fleeing the country, surrendering all firearms all the way up to Capias. etc.

It depends on the crime and the totality of circumstances.

A conviction is not required in order to seize something (initially the seizure is temporary), like a gun, from a suspect. The items seized, should the suspect be found not guilty, are then returned to the owner. If the person is found guilty, the seized items are dealt with at the sentencing hearing.

The defense can make a request to the judge to have items returned immediately (all, some or a single items). If the judge denies the request the defense can try to challenge it to a higher court (just the items seized). As a condition for bail, it does not violate the 4th amendment. Its like a traffic stop where impaired driver is stopped.

If the officer observes open containers, drugs, etc in plain sight, a warrant is not needed to seize the items (plain sight doctrine). The driver is arrested, at which point the driver and his car can be searched without a warrant (search incident to arrest doctrine).

Obviously not all cases are the same as facts are always differ. If a person has items seized he can take it up with the judge / higher judge.

It depends on totality of circumstances.

a reply to: vkey08

* - to clarify - I was not calling everyone (nor you specifically) who doesn't know, ignorant in the bad sense. Like I have said in other threads, people are not all that knowledgeable on civics / judicial, legislature or executive branches at the state nor Federal level. Even know the article says Federal officers arrested, federal arrest warrant, federal judge, all they see and hear is officers arrested, arrest warrant and judge.

Committing a crime in one state can affect the person in their home state, it just depends on the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. MI is not the only state that has laws where a citizen of said state commits a crime in another state, and the crime can affect the person in his home state.

The full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution requires states to accept legal proceeding from other states.

If a person in MI is stopped for drunk driving, and is a citizen of MI, his drivers license can be seized. If a person is stopped for drunk driving in MI, and the person is a citizen of another state, he/she can still be arrested, however police are not allowed to seize their drivers license (a drivers license is the property of the state).

If the person is found guilty of drunk driving in MI, his home state can use that conviction to yank his drivers license. A crime in one state can affect the person in his home state, however it depends on the crime and totality of circumstances.

Domestic violence, impaired driving (alcohol/drugs), any crime dealing with the loss of life, weapons crimes, etc.. All can affect the person in his/her home state.

There are exceptions obviously. For example every state has crimes that are a felony or misdemeanor. A few states have something that called a high court misdemeanor. It's a misdemeanor that has a punishment of up to 2 years in a country jail (MI uses high court misdemeanors.). In those cases the home state looks at the charge and checks to see if they have a comparable charge in order to take an item, like a drivers license, gun license, CCW.

If there is nothing comparable then the person faces no action by his home state. Ive stopped people for traffic crimes and they handed me a valid Florida drivers license (im in the midwest). Upon running the person his license from Florida comes back as valid, however it turns out that they used to live in my state, where they lost their license (use DWI as example). Even though the have a valid Florida license, my state views the person as illegally operating a motor vehicle because they cant legally drive in the state. The person is arrested and charge with driving while license suspended / revoked.

So what they did in my state, the state of Florida didn't accept for whatever reason, and issued the person a FL license.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It nay be considered "legal" to seize property, but the Fifth Amendment says otherwise. I repeat, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That means that until there is a trial before a judge/jury, no one may be deprived of private property.

If said property is used for evidence, that might be a legitimate exception. However, in the case we were discussing, the charge had nothing to do with him possessing a firearm.

In an Emergency Order of Protection, typically the accused is prevented from contact with the victim. Seizing weapons is therefore extraneous and likely useless to providing protection; I wonder if a person might possibly have more than one firearm? If forbidding contact with the victim via court order is not sufficient to protect the victim, the accused needs to be held without bond.

A passport is not something that is owned as private property. A passport is a license to travel Internationally, issued by the government, and thus can be seized by the government that issued/approved it.

I understand the thinking behind the practice: leaving the accused in possession of their firearms could be dangerous if they were to decide to "go postal." If someone were accused of a firearm violence charge, it might even make sense. However, this particular case does not, any more than just having a load of cash means someone is dealing drugs (that's another one that happens regularly). Temporary or not, the person is being deprived of their property for a time without having had any chance to defend themselves. Due process is required on order to seize private property, not the proise of due process in the future.

You are correct in how the legalities are applied. You are not correct in that those "legalities" are, in fact, illegal per the US Constitution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Granting bail is part of the due process clause.

The law affords the judge or magistrate four options, which it places in descending order of
preference.

* - First, he may release the accused on personal recognizance or under an unsecured
appearance bond, subject only to the condition that the accused commit no subsequent federal,
state, or local crime and that he submit a sample for DNA analysis.

* - Second, he may release the accused subject to certain additional conditions.

* - Third, he may order the accused detained for bail revocation, parole revocation, probation revocation, or deportation proceedings.

* - Fourth, he may order the accused detained prior to trial.

A Federal judge can set bail conditions, which his judge did. All 800 people charged got the same conditions. His lawyer objected to the gun seizure and lost. His lawyer can appeal the bail condition but I dont think he would win it. If he did win the challenge the judge could revoke bail and hold him in pre-trial confinement.

The legalities in question are legal under the constitution.


As for the Domestic violence issue I have seen judges seize guns. Of the Domestic I worked, several who had guns had them seized me. Like I said totality of circumstances.

ETA - 18 USC 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial

Conditional Release

If the judge or magistrate concludes that personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond is insufficient to overcome the risk of flight or to community or individual safety, he may condition the individuals’ release on a refrain from criminal activity, collection of a DNA sample, and the least restrictive combination of conditions. Under the appropriate circumstances, the “community” whose safety is the focus of the judge or magistrate’s inquiry need not be limited geographically to either the district or even the United States. The 14 statutory conditions are

* - third-party supervision
* - seeking or maintaining employment
* - meeting education requirements
* - observing residency, travel, or associational restrictions
* - avoiding contact with victims or witnesses
* - maintaining regular reporting requirements
* - obeying a curfew
* - adhering to firearms limitations
* - avoiding alcohol or controlled-substance abuse
* - undergoing medical treatment
* - entering into a personally secured appearance agreement
* - executing a bail bond
* - submitting to afterhours incarceration
* - complying with any other court-imposed condition.

Section 3142 requires the judge or magistrate to impose electronic monitoring and several of these conditions (noted with an asterisk above) when the accused is ineligible for release on personal recognizance or an unsecured bond and is charged with one of several sex-related offenses against children. Several defendants have successfully challenged this mandatory requirement on Due Process Clause or Excessive Bail Clause grounds

As I said his lawyer can challenge the judges ruling but I dont think he would win since the bail condition doesnt violate Due Process or Excessive Bail.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not granting bail is equivalent to denying one's liberty without due process. That is only allowed in exceptional circumstances, again, as per the US Constitution. Bail is not a part of "due process"... due process is the process of being able to defend oneself in a court of law, based on evidence one may wish to present, in front of a jury of one's peers. Until that process occurs, the accused has not received due process and their life, liberty, or property cannot be taken away.

Also, there have been cases of property conveniently "lost" or "misplaced" after being seized... and in some cases, sold before a trial is held on the charges. So much for the removal of property in those cases being "temporary."

This is a dangerous slope and one that we are already sliding down. Possession of property alone is considered evidence of a crime, often entirely circumstantial to the property involved, which then permits the government to seize the property. That in effect makes illegal whatever private property those in power wish to criminalize without actually criminalizing it. And that is an abuse of power.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

First -
Due process is a legal obligation that states and the Federal government must follow. It is found in the 5th amendment as well as the 14th amendment (Due process clause). Dur process includes legal obligations that extend beyond the courtroom.

Second -
Due process also includes bail, along with several other parts of the Constitution. Since we use innocent until proven guilty, a person, and depending on the crime, is required bail. Pre-trial detention is valid, but looked down on as a last option because they are essentially locking up an innocent person. A witness with material facts who avoids service / refuse to comply with a subpoena can also be arrested and incarcerated pending trial with a material witness warrant. Our legal system errors on the side of caution when it comes to the prosecution of people. Our legal system would rather see a guilty person go free instead of seeing an innocent person being sent to jail.

Hence the reason bail is a part of due process.

As far as items going missing, respectfully, has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If police or the Prosecutor loses a persons items that were seized, its between the person and the police/prosecution and court. We can't introduce what if complaints and assume that its going to occur in this, or any other case.

Items seized are suppose to go towards supporting the crime a person is charged with. Again though Federal judges under 18 USC 3142 are allowed to set bail conditions, an a weapon restriction is listed as one of the 14 restriction a judge can use when setting bail requirements.

His lawyer would need to challenge it up the line, then to appeals court then SCOTUS. Since the law has been around forever and no one has been able to overturn it via the courts, it seems to be a moot point. He will get his guns back at the end. Several people have successfully challenged parts of the law and won however those incidents did not involve a seized gun.

In this case its a condition for bail, to ensure the person shows up to his court dates and takes care of the accusations, in addition to protecting pre trial services, which will include visits to the guys house. - completely legal and constitutional.

In a court room it does not matter what you or I "think". It only matters what can be "proven".

a reply to: Xcathdra

Due process is a legal obligation that states and the Federal government must follow. It is found in the 5th amendment as well as the 14th amendment (Due process clause). Dur process includes legal obligations that extend beyond the courtroom.

The Fifth Amendment references due process and states what the government may or may not do concerning due process. It is not a definition. In the most general terms, "due process" is simply that process which is due a person accused of a crime. That includes the right to mount and present a defense, restrictions on what evidence the prosecution may use and how it can be obtained, and the right to be heard in front of a jury of one's peers. It can also mean that under extreme conditions, a person can still be denied bail, and that property which is evidence of the crime can be held until the case is adjudicated. But that only applies to extreme circumstances (like where a reasonable person would expect the accused to commit more heinous crimes) or to evidence used to try and convict the accused. It does not apply to whatever one happens to have in their possession at the time.

The Fifth Amendment specifies, exactly, that a person may not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process. Not the promise of future due process... due process.

Our legal system errors on the side of caution when it comes to the prosecution of people. Our legal system would rather see a guilty person go free instead of seeing an innocent person being sent to jail.

And that is how it should be. To do otherwise would allow powerful people to force all manner of restrictions on freedom on anyone who opposed their agenda. King George actually did this prior to the Revolutionary War; hence the strict language in the US Constitution.

But it also means that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That means that if personal property is seized before due process is complete, it is being seized from an innocent person.

As far as items going missing, respectfully, has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Would such a case not be denial of property?

Again though Federal judges under 18 USC 3142 are allowed to set bail conditions, an a weapon restriction is listed as one of the 14 restriction a judge can use when setting bail requirements.

18 USC §3142 is a legal statute, aka a law. Laws are subject to constitutionality. It is not unusual for a law to be passed and then struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Since the law has been around forever and no one has been able to overturn it via the courts, it seems to be a moot point.

That is the exact same argument that was used to support black slavery, to oppose women's suffrage, to oppose interracial marriage, and for a host of other things we now realize were wrong at their core. Just because something has been around a while, it does not follow that it is correct.

In this case its a condition for bail, to ensure the person shows up to his court dates and takes care of the accusations

That is why bail usually involves a bond unless the court believes the accused will show up of their own volition. In this case, the accused is a GOP candidate for a major political office... I personally cannot think of anyone more apt to show up and handle the accusations. Still, setting a bond would have been far less problematic than seizing his property on the promise that it will be returned later.

Bonds are not typically money paid to the court... they are interest in collateral. For instance, I can bail out anyone in Alabama because I own property... I simply sign over my land as collateral. I still have full use and ownership of it, unless the person I signed for does not appear in court. That is a default judgement against them, which satisfies due process, and allows for the property to be taken from me.

A bond satisfied by a bondsman is an agreed amount that the bondsman agrees to pay should the accused not appear. The accused pays 10% or so as a fee for the bondsman to guarantee the bond amount. No money is taken by the court, unless the accused skips bail, in which case the bondsman can either pay the bail, or hire a bounty hunter to track down and retrieve the accused. It is not seizure of property before the trial, like happened in this case.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Fifth Amendment references due process and states what the government may or may not do concerning due process. It is not a definition. In the most general terms, "due process" is simply that process which is due a person accused of a crime. That includes the right to mount and present a defense, restrictions on what evidence the prosecution may use and how it can be obtained, and the right to be heard in front of a jury of one's peers. It can also mean that under extreme conditions, a person can still be denied bail, and that property which is evidence of the crime can be held until the case is adjudicated. But that only applies to extreme circumstances (like where a reasonable person would expect the accused to commit more heinous crimes) or to evidence used to try and convict the accused. It does not apply to whatever one happens to have in their possession at the time.

Actually it is defined as the legal obligation the statue / federal government has to ensure a person has access to everything they need when dealing with the legal system.

originally posted by: TheRedneckThe Fifth Amendment specifies, exactly, that a person may not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process. Not the promise of future due process... due process.

Correct and its repeated in the 14th amendment. Due process is the legal obligation that state / federal government has to ensure a person has access to everything they need when dealing with the legal system.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But it also means that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That means that if personal property is seized before due process is complete, it is being seized from an innocent person.

Hence the exceptions the the 4th amendment - consent, plain view doctrine,border searc open fields doctrine, search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, wing span search doctrine, leaping/lunging range access inside an automobile, fresh pursuit doctrine dealing with homes / businesses, terry frisk and limited searches of cars w/out a warrant as an officer safety, an inventory search of a vehicle after an arrest of the person, as well as suspicion-less searches of only the following - airports, Schools, railroad workers, dui check points, probation and parole search clause, administrative searches only for the following - to protect public health and safety. All of the above incidents can occur and result in the location of incriminating evidence all without a search warrant. SCOTUS, when these rulings occurred, were based on a situation the founding fathers could not have conceived of at the time. The constitutional issues are researched, among other factors, for justices to arrive at a decision. These exceptions can be refined / restricted, depending on the situation where the case made its way back to scotus.

It is up to the defense lawyer to challenge the legality of officers actions, searches, sized evidence etc.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Would such a case not be denial of property?

Which depends on what the items were and why they were sized. It could result in criminal or civil charges being filed against the department. However it depends on the item and the reason for the seizure.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
18 USC §3142 is a legal statute, aka a law. Laws are subject to constitutionality. It is not unusual for a law to be passed and then struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Correct and until that happens its the guiding principle for judges.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is the exact same argument that was used to support black slavery, to oppose women's suffrage, to oppose interracial marriage, and for a host of other things we now realize were wrong at their core. Just because something has been around a while, it does not follow that it is correct.

Again correct but until a case is brought that changes said law, its the guiding principles for judges.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is why bail usually involves a bond unless the court believes the accused will show up of their own volition. In this case, the accused is a GOP candidate for a major political office... I personally cannot think of anyone more apt to show up and handle the accusations. Still, setting a bond would have been far less problematic than seizing his property on the promise that it will be returned later.

Because everyone arrested and charged over the Jan 6th sham essentially got the same bail requirements when it came to firearms.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Bonds are not typically money paid to the court... they are interest in collateral. For instance, I can bail out anyone in Alabama because I own property... I simply sign over my land as collateral. I still have full use and ownership of it, unless the person I signed for does not appear in court. That is a default judgement against them, which satisfies due process, and allows for the property to be taken from me.

and it all depends on the bail criteria set by the court. The court can decide capias (no bond), cash only bond, a mix of the surety/cash but everything else you said is correct.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
A bond satisfied by a bondsman is an agreed amount that the bondsman agrees to pay should the accused not appear. The accused pays 10% or so as a fee for the bondsman to guarantee the bond amount. No money is taken by the court, unless the accused skips bail, in which case the bondsman can either pay the bail, or hire a bounty hunter to track down and retrieve the accused. It is not seizure of property before the trial, like happened in this case.

TheRedneck

again correct.

The law and constitution are not always black and white. There will be times when an incident occurs that no one thought of and the courts go from there. Take abortion. For the last 40-50 years abortion was legal. If scotus rules the way I think they are going to rule, Roe vs Wade becomes invalidated and the issue is returned to the states to decide. In 1833 (Barron vs City of Baltimore) Scotus ruled that the US constitution did not apply to the citizens of the states. In 1868, with the adoption of the 14th amendment, the US Constitution was applied to all states and all states citizens and only because Scotus was placed into a situation that the founding fathers didnt anticipate - A constitutional Amendment to the Federal Constitution that only applied to some states. Since all states are equal under the Constitution, Scotus opted to apply it to all states.

For the last 10 years Scotus has been updating laws through rulings, mainly dealing with computers (something the founding fathers never conceived of). Those rulings affected the 4th amendment and 5th amendment. The 4th amendment only mentions personal papers and personal property. Rulings had to take Computers into account in order for the various amendment to be applied to that. Same with cell phones, passwords / biometric locks and can a person bne forced to unlock their cellphone or does that violate the 5th amendment?

see below

The 5th amendment says a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. By demanding the person supply a password or a thumb print / eye scan, does that violate the 5th amendment. Again over the last 10-20 years cellphones and the issues in question have seen rulings, refinements to those rulings to some rulings being throw out entirely.

For a while, states like MI, when a traffic stop is conducted, the officer would request the persons cell phone. Back in their cruiser the officer is able to hook the phone up to a machine that dumps all the info on the cell phone so police could review it. In 2014 the Supreme Court got involved an ruled police need a warrant to search a persons cell phone.

I mostly agree with what you have been saying however I was involved with all of this in 2 different states as a police officer. There wasnt a month that went by that we were getting legal updates where we are told you can do this, or you cant do this from city, county, appeals and Supreme Court rulings at the state level while also getting updates from Federal district court cases, appeals court rulings and scotus rulings.

I have noticed, for the most part, the the US Supreme Court, when they rule on something law enforcement related, they always make it a standard ruling. Vary rarely will they issue a narrow ruling (only affects the case in question or only affects some states but not all).

The one I remember dealt with Drunk drivers and the ability of officers, according to state law, to obtain a blood draw. Some states had laws where if a person refused to comply with the drunk driving requirements (providing a breath, urine or blood sample), it was a criminal offense instead of an administrative offense.

An incident occurred in Wyoming iirc where a person was told to provide a blood sample and he refused, resulting in criminal charges being filed (on top of the DWI charge). The guy challenged it and it went to Scotus. Scotus initially ruled that only applied to states where a refusal was a criminal offense. A second case shortly after forced Scotus to issue a ruling that scrapped the first ruling, and applied the new ruling to all states, with the addition that a blood draw is not a method that complied with the reasonable standards. It was because poking someone with a needle to draw blood is in fact invasive. You could still do a blood draw, but only with a warrant.

Like I said I mostly agree with your views but having experienced the system first hand it is not as black and white as some people think.

To bring it back on Topic, Bannons law suit will most likely cause issues for Democrats, and even more so if Bannon wins. The depositions alone might be enough to end the hearing because it is not legislative in nature, but political.


Also, my apologies to everyone for the massive wall of text.
Also apologies for the weird spelling mistake in the post above. I ran out of room for characters.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There have always been differences of opinion between state/local governments and the Supreme Court. It's inevitable; the very purpose of government is to govern, and the most effective government is 100% authoritarian. That's why we have the court system: to hold government in check. It is also why the courts (at least at the Federal level) are as apolitical as possible (tenure for life with good behavior, no popular elections, etc).

That is also why I tend to view all laws in terms of how they affect the Constitution. That one document serves as a grounding for the country. Without it, the government can pretty much do anything they want (which is what this thread has been about: the legality of Congress' actions).

I know law enforcement walks a fine line here. On one hand, their immediate superiors will almost always push for more power over the average citizen. It simply makes it easier, faster, and yes, safer for the officers. The safest method for any officer making a traffic stop would be to tase the occupants of the car, hogtie them while tased, frisk them all down and remove anything that could possibly be used as a weapon. But that's excessive. It is also a bad idea for an officer to have no methods of protecting themselves. Somewhere there has to exist a balance between the officers' need to protect themselves and the citizens' need to not be subjected to cruel treatment.

That balance lies in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Any deviation is sub-optimal.

I have stated before that according to the Second Amendment, I should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb sitting atop an ICBM in my back yard. However, reason tells me that such would be a very, very bad idea. That's why we have the ability to amend the Constitution... as technology advances, it brings with it new situations that may be outside a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, yet well within the letter of the Constitution. Your point about cell phones being able to be downloaded to determine if the driver was indeed texting or not is a good example. Is that an example of self-incrimination? Maybe, maybe not... but I would consider it reasonable to check a phone on scene if texting while driving were suspected. Just like I would consider a prohibition on nuclear bombs by citizens as reasonable.

The thing is, these reasonable situations are better served by amending the Constitution than by breaking it.

I consider any seizure of private property before conviction, with the exception of material evidence, to be an illegal act. It does not matter that it happens; illegal acts happen all the time. This thread documents one. However, it behooves each of us to oppose illegal acts. If they are reasonable but illegal, take the necessary steps to legalize them.

Anything else is tyranny.

TheRedneck