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 THE_PROFESSIONAL
xcathdra, I am unsworn. Can I touch your privates just to inspect them? I want to make sure that everyone is safe. you read to be inspected by me? I will do it without gloves if you feel better.
Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
You're fighting with one of your own.
Retired. 25 years.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Consent Searches.—Fourth Amendment rights, like other constitutional rights, may be waived, and one may consent to search of his person or premises by officers who have not complied with the Amendment.79 The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent80 and awareness of the right of choice.
81 Reviewing courts must determine on the basis of the totality of the circumstances whether consent has been freely given or has been coerced. Actual knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not essential to the issue of voluntariness, and therefore police are not required to acquaint a person with his rights, as through a Fourth Amendment version of Miranda warnings.
82 But consent will not be regarded as voluntary when the officer asserts his official status and claim of right and the occupant yields to these factors rather than makes his own determination to admit officers.83 When consent is obtained through the deception of an undercover officer or an informer gaining admission without, of course, advising a suspect who he is, the Court has held that the suspect has simply assumed the risk that an invitee would betray him, and evidence obtained through the deception is admissible.84
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. .
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - An Albuquerque jury has acquitted a Seattle man who refused to show his identification to Transportation Security Administration officers at a New Mexico airport.
Mocek was facing several charges, including failure to obey an officer and concealing his identity. He was found not guilty of all charges on Friday.
Originally posted by SirClem
TSA is not law enforcement?
If I recall, the TSA threatened to shut down all air traffic in Texas a few weeks back. What kind of authority can do that?
The TSA is criminal by any standards of human decency and natural law.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Who are not comissioned officers.
Secondly you voluntarily agree to the screening process by going through it.
The different I am pointing out, that you missed in the academy, is you are free to leave the airport and take another form of travel if you dont want to submit to the security screening.
You are not being forced to go through the process,
which means you aren't seized,
which means there is no 4th amendment implications.
A 4th amendment violation would occur if you are forced into a car at your house, forcibly brought to the airport, forcibly placed into a screening line and forcibly searched.
Big difference...
I would suggest you go brush up on your Con law.. You seem to be out of practice.
reported what? Me saying you dont know what your talking about based on your responses? Thats not a personal attack, that would be the truth.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Yes! My day is complete! Another cop thread, another reference to Terry Stops! When in doubt, spout about Terry Stops!
Originally posted by 2012srb
I have to charge my phone.
All I have to say is that I view this as a Fourth Amendment issue. I don't really give a damn how the courts have interpteted it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits.
Touching my breasts and crotch without my consent is wrong. Anyone who argues otherwise is mentally ill.edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye
So once again instead of an itelligent rebuttal you once again resort to name calling and making blanket statements you ant support.
When you decide to take part in the debate and actually offer up something relevant, let us know. Absent that whine by yourself.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
You don't know your rights, let alone how the law or your rights work.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Yes! My day is complete! Another cop thread, another reference to Terry Stops! When in doubt, spout about Terry Stops!
Ah yes.. another comment that adds nothing to thie thread... Another complaint yet abolustely nothing behind it to make changes.
Lets all go outside and yell at the sky because its raining shall we?
.......after you
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by 2012srb
I have to charge my phone.
All I have to say is that I view this as a Fourth Amendment issue. I don't really give a damn how the courts have interpteted it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits.
Touching my breasts and crotch without my consent is wrong. Anyone who argues otherwise is mentally ill.edit on 7/4/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)
And when you go through security you are giving consent to the search?
If you dont like it, do something to change it instead of complaining.