jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (10 posts)

If you have nothing to hide then ....

  1. ptosis profile image76
    ptosisposted 6 months ago

    Court Reminds Police That Refusing A Search Isn't Inherently Suspicious Behavior

    " the Tenth Circuit Court pointed out that "nervousness" does not equal reasonable suspicion, although the totality of other elements (rented car in another's name, inconsistent travel plans) certainly did. - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150 … vior.shtml

    US-born citizen  NASA engineer Sidd Bikkannavar at Houston January 31 Order by CPD to unlock work phone from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Citizens must surrender laptops and phones if a border agent asks for them, but not passwords or social media information, CAIR-Florida spokseman Wilfredo A. Ruiz said. Border agents might give the device back and let the person go. Or they might hold onto it and seek a warrant to break it open. Or a wide range of responses in between" - http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citize … rder-trnd/

    CPD searches extend to digital devices but can not force you to unlock your device. If refuse  - you will be held up for hours and hours and denied reentry.

    "Mr. Elsharkawi, who lives in Anaheim with his wife and three children, said requesting legal assistance appeared to inflame his situation.

    “I opened the doors of hell when I asked for a lawyer,” he said. “They just started attacking me verbally. ‘Why do you need a lawyer? Are you a criminal? What are you hiding?’"
    - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/busi … .html?_r=0

    Privacy Impact Assessment  for the  Border Searches of Electronic Devices  August 25, 2009
    https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/pri … laptop.pdf

    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQICEu3fBFDy_b_xJ6qwKcCurdJVT_OBrZMJesd-p0GHkX20lK

    1. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I wish there were more people who understood their Constitutional rights, and were able to assert them in a non-aggressive, but firm, way. The 4th amendment is one of the clearest amendments there is:

      "[t]he 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."

      Law enforcement officers need to learn that none of these things is probable cause:

      Someone making eye contact with you
      Someone photographing/ filming you (unless this is a violation of a specific state law, which it shouldn't be anyway)
      Someone refusing to answer questions
      Not carrying a form of ID
      Not being white
      Someone knowing, and asserting, their Constitutional rights

      Law enforcement must respect the Constitution, and if they don't then they should receive disciplinary action.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "I wish there were more people who understood their Constitutional rights, and were able to assert them in a non-aggressive, but firm, way. "

        So do I, but there is a major problem when those rights sway with the current political climate.  The 4th amendment, for instance; what is "probable cause"?  What is "shall not be violated", considering that SWAT routinely breaks down doors without a warrant.  What is "effects" (Wikipedia says "property") considering that cars need a whole section of law just by themselves?

        It sounds really simple, but it isn't.

        1. ptosis profile image76
          ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          From what I understand, a mobile home has less rights as does a car than a regular home where they need a warrant.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            ??  mobile home or motor home?  The first is a trailer that is placed semi-permanently on a piece of ground or even permanently on a foundation and usually has the wheels removed, the second a motorized camper that is used to travel in and seldom stays in one place for very long.

            1. ptosis profile image76
              ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              BOTH, yup both. "Carney found the motor vehicle exception to apply to a motor home." - wiki

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                No, not both.  From the same article: "The court did however, make a distinction between readily mobile motor homes and parked mobile homes. A number of factors including, the home being elevated on blocks, whether the vehicle is licensed, and if it is connected to utilities determine if the motor vehicle exception applies."

                The mobile home being used as a home (parked, on blocks, unlicensed for travel and hooked to utilities) is different than a "motor home".

                But it is interesting that the IRS considers a motor home to be the same as a stick built home on a foundation for tax deduction purposes.  If it has cooking and bath (and any but the tiniest motor home has both) facilities it qualifies for a home mortgage interest deduction.

                1. ptosis profile image76
                  ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  Wow! that's GREAT! I'm gonna get a TAB! smilesmilesmile

        2. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Probable cause: reason to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed.

          Violation: searching, detaining or arresting without probable cause (see above)

          Effects: your property

          Seems pretty simple to me.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Which includes cars (and your person) - cars that appear to be a separate case under the law. 

            Perhaps a part of the problem (or most of it) is that it takes the opinion of a judge to determine what probably cause is.  After all, the person being searched is never given the full history and story - they may match perfectly a witness description, for instance.

 
working