Good topic, Karl. I wonder if you're familiar with "BusSafe," a program to put TSA agents on buses and randomly search passsengers:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/18/only-l....

Pst...Karl it's New York not surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if California starts doing this next and then Chicago.

This happened to me many moons ago when I lived in San Diego. I did not have a car (not a good place to live without one), had missed the last bus connection and was resigned to hoofing it home. I was carrying some things in a sack, it was around midnight or later, and a cop stopped, came over to me, and did the same routine - who are you, where do you live, what are you doing out, can I see your ID. He also asked if he could look into the sack I was carrying and I believe I asked if he had a warrant and told him that he could not look in the bag, so he just felt it to see what was in it. I was outraged, but just a kid, and I felt it was not worth pressing it with the guy. Not that this justifies things, but he may have thought I was a burglar or something.

"This is blatantly unconstitutional."

The article doesnt say whether or not that Chris Bilal gave the officer consent to search his bag.

I have been pulled over and questioned just like this. No, I didnt like the way I was questioned but none-the-less I was only questioned. Given that, did it occur to anyone that the officer "asked" rather than forced? Correct me if Im wrong, but Im thinking this is entirely constitutional if the officer asked to search.

Several years ago, I used to drive through East Palo Alto on my way to work and I can tell you first hand that EVERY corner was filled with crack dealers. When I came to a stop sign, they would ALL run to my car wanting me to buy their garbage...it was disgusting! These drug dealers know how to use the constitution to push their drugs. Now tell me how the police combat that constitutionally? It is a grim reality folks!

For clarity, Im not sticking up for anyone simply due to the fact that the way I was questioned made me feel uneasy but that would be subject to my own interpretation. I did comply with the officer to keep from escalating the situation but certainly didnt have to.

Respectfully!

Quote:

Now tell me how the police combat that constitutionally?

I see your point. If it cannot be done by the constitution, then do whatever you have to.

I'm going to have to go look at the constitution, but I'm pretty sure 'crack sales' are not mentioned.

And how many rocks did they force you to buy?

More of the same, and the article says there were more than 200,000 stop-and-frisks in 3 months.


http://online.wsj.com/article/AP98b6e8a2....

* Updated May 12, 2012, 11:04 p.m. ET

NYPD's stop-and-frisk stops still on the rise

Associated Press

NEW YORK — The latest numbers show the New York Police Department's skyrocketing street stops increased to more than 200,000 stops during the first three months of 2012.

The NYPD says officers stopped people on New York City's streets 203,500 times from January through March. That's up from 183,326 during the same quarter last year.

The policy allows an officer to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion, which is lower than that of probable cause needed to justify an arrest.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the practice has gotten guns off the streets and saved lives. The city's number of murders is expected to be a record low of less than 500 this year.

Critics say the police department is unfairly targeting minorities.
—Copyright 2012 Associated Press

I live in Maryland, and my research is over ten years old I guess, but I spent a fair amount of time in the law library looking at when the cops can accost you. (that's the word) The phrase that kept popping up is "reasonable articulable suspicion". And I'm pretty sure there is a case that say a hunch is not enough.

Tripseven,

The cops could have gone undercover and driven through the same neighborhood and busted dealers who approached them. They could have staked out the place and collected information and taken photographs and videos. They could have done old-fashioned investigations.

With the "good faith exceptions" to the exclusionary rule being expanded every case that SCOTUS decides, the 4th Amendment is becoming moot.

Quote:

16. There is no right without a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. There must always be an accessible forum in which a complainant has oyer and terminer for any petition.

http://constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.h....

Quote:

Comments...

14. In 3 days, the Mapp decision (applying the exclusionary rule to the states) celebrates its 50th anniversary.

Unfortunately, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment are becoming a right without a remedy:

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 108-09 (1945) (a right without a remedy is no right at all); Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 71 U.S. 535, 554 (1866) (“A right without a remedy is as if it were not.”); Peck v. Jenness, 48 U.S. 612, 623 (1849) ("A legal right without a remedy would be an anomaly in the law."); Kendall v. U.S., 37 U.S. 524, 624 (1838) (it would be a monstrous absurdity in a well-organized government to have a right without a remedy for its denial or violation); Hawkins v. Barney’s Lessee, 30 U.S. 457, 464-65 (1831) (there can be no legal right without a remedy to secure it); U.S. v. DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128, 1148 (10th Cir. 2001) (creating a right without a remedy is something strongly disfavored in American jurisprudence); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) ("We are a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."); Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 66-67 (1992) (citing numerous authorities).

There are more exceptions to the exclusionary rule than there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and the exceptions are swallowing the rule whole.

In its latest 4A decision, the Court notes that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. But there once was a time when there was an additional rationale – to protect judicial integrity:

The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law.

The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914).

Today, even sloppy police work is no basis for exclusion. Herring (2009) (the “Barney Fife” exception to the exclusionary rule).

So Weeks was wrong, the 4A has nothing to do with the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and it's a civil matter.

Civil lawsuits are no deterrent and are a poor, if not fictional substitute for the exclusionary rule. Qualified immunity and the “clearly established” doctrine are the government’s silver bullet defense. Just last month in Camreta, Justices criticized the practice among lower courts (and authorized by the Supreme Court in Pearson) of ruling on the constitutional question in a qualified immunity case. During oral arguments in front of the First Circuit recently, one of the judges observed what an absurd situation this creates:

You're asking us to really avoid that [constitutional] question and in order to do that you invoke all of these cases that have said, as you have characterized it repeatedly, “it's not clearly established, it's not clearly established, it's not clearly established." But it will never be clearly established if a court does not address that issue directly and rule on it.

And what was the government’s response? “Bringing a lawsuit against officers in their individual capacity who are protected by qualified immunity is not the way to do it.”

So there it is. It’s like a Zen riddle.

The exclusionary rule is out and you can’t win a civil lawsuit because of immunity; you can’t get past immunity because the law wasn’t clearly established, but courts are discouraged from ruling on the constitutional question so the law can be clearly established, which ensures the police can keep on claiming uncertainty and relying on immunity.

If you’re a convicted felon complaining of a 4A violation, you also have to get past the Heck hurdle. Any claim that effectively challenges the legality of the conviction is barred, so you have to tailor it to be a pure damages claim which makes it all the more worthless. Seriously – what jury is going to find that plaintiff to be worth any significant judgment at all? See, e.g., Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff won his 4A claim - there was a 4A violation - and was awarded $1.00 in damages and his attorney got $1.50 in attorney fees for arguing a case all the way up through an en banc panel of a federal appeals court).

If you're in prison, you're also limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. But don’t wait to file your claim until you're released or while you await the outcome of the Fourth Amendment issue, because then they’ll get you coming and going. In Wallace the Court said the claim accrues at the time of the violation.

And even if you’re lucky enough to win a sizeable award, officers don’t pay to defend and they don’t pay even the miniscule judgments. So what does any officer care about that?

In dollars and cents, the Fourth Amendment is worth even less than the First Amendment. There is no effective deterrent and the Fourth Amendment is becoming more of an aspirational affirmation than a constitutional guarantee.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/16/court-expan....

Raftermanfmj

My comment "Now tell me how the police combat that constitutionally?" wasnt a statement, it was a question. If your implying that I think officers should disregard the constitution then you clearly didnt see my point. My point is these criminals use the constitution to get around the constitution while officers dont have this luxury.
As I said, it was my route to work. I wasnt there to purchase nor was I "forced" to purchase drugs...but thanks for the sarcasm and the lack of offering a solution to the nightmare these officers face DAILY my friend.


Azusgm

Undercover ops continue daily to no avail. Sure some get busted but there are 100s more to fill that spot unlike police officers...it is a revolving cycle that continues this very day and has been going on since the 80's when crack-cocaine took America by storm. The street corner dealer that gets busted typically have a small amount of drugs in possession and does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem. Unless one has actually seen these dealers in action, it is hard for one to get there head wrapped around the magnitude of the problem these officers face.

It is easy to scream at the officers for being on the wrong side of the constitution but we never cheer for the officers that obey it...that said, my hats off to those officers that comply!

Jstanley that's quite a link you referenced.

I particularly liked this tidbit:

Quote:

Rights may not be disabled or unduly burdened by legislative or executive process. "Due" process is judicial only, involving the granting of a petition to disable a right of the defendant, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff or prosecutor, and with the defendant having at least those minimum protections that prevailed during the Founding. with similar disablements having similar standards of proof and protection.

no infringement, eh?

Don't feed the (tripseven) trolls...

@ Trip

There is no place in the Constitution for controlling what the citizenry chooses to ingest. Your point is moot.


@Jstanley01

There is indeed a remedy, albeit an extreme one.

Truthseeker

How is anything I said trolling?

In Orange county, they stop, frisk and then murder you.



http://www.change.org/petitions/justice-....

Karl, would be willing to do a ticker on the Kelly Thomas case?

@Fishhead

That is exactly my point...there is no solution :)

Rentier wrote..

Pst...Karl it's New York not surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if California starts doing this next and then Chicago.

Rent, it is all over the US and in a lot of cases, the smaller the city, the worse. Only part of the problem is illegal search and seizure. The main problem is "Illegal" in the first place.

In the case Karl quoted, there wasn't any reason to stop this person. I don't think there is any good reason for most cop interventions in our lives. The DWI laws are bull**** and cops pull you over at night for next to anything to not enforce the law, but to broaden their net of catching people. I have been pulled over for more nonsense than you can count, namely the reason being the cop has orders to catch someone and likely if he don't, headquarters is going to want to know why. You don't have to be driving badly, just don't use your turn signal on an empty street. I was followed for over 2 miles before being pulled over for a bad tail light and wasn't allowed to look. I tried my best to fix it the next day, but for all practical purposes, it appeared to be working fine. He just made up the charge.

The biggest violation of this stuff is the income tax and as far as that goes, the new Obama care law. We don't sign any agreement with the government to show them our books. They have businesses that are taxed, like liquor, where if you want to get in the business, you enter into an agreement with the government. I believe this section of law was just as important, if not more so than the ordinary criminal stuff. Forcing us under color of law to reveal our information is quite overlooked.

DHS VIPR teams are slithering into train and bus terminals for that very purpose.

I have been boycotting air travel ever since I had my luggage ripped apart for an hour and chemically swabbed at LAX late on Christmas Day, 2009. Janet Napolitano's attitude was basically, "if you don't like the groping and radiating, don't fly!"

Thanks to DHS their VIPR teams are slithering into train and bus stations. If I get stopped, guess I will have to politely refuse their requests to search and see what kind of hell that brings on me.

well if you don't know your own rights, who's fault is that? You can tell an officer to go pound sand, and you can also call 911 and ask for another officer or supervisor to stop by because you suspect the guy in front of you is a fake police officer.

@Mdporter

"well if you don't know your own rights, who's fault is that?"

Exactly! It is up to each of us as individuals to know our own rights, plain and simple. If someone gives law enforcement consent to search, the officer is on the right side of the constitution!

In our village, people are routinely pulled over, not necessarily to enforce the law, but 'gotcha', and it generates thousands of extra dollars every month in income.

@ trip

I didn't say there was no solution.

Quote:

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Indeed. But they don't care as evidenced by the second set of books.

As Low says, "keep voting".

I don't believe it is up to the individual to know their rights, though it helps. The police shouldn't have a policy tha violates a persons rights other than maybe a life or death situation. This is a limitation on the state, not the individual.