Warrantless search - Rogers County

[donner]

That is a valid criticism of TSA procedures (with which I am naturally familiar.) If you are arguing that TSA procedures are right, then necessarily you are arguing that the Fourth Amendment is wrong. Is the TSA, an agency of the federal government, bound by the Fourth Amendment?

It is bound by the fourth amendment, however you have no inherent right to board a plane. If you want to get on a plane you are voluntarily waiving your right to refuse search. You don't want to give up your right to refuse a search? Don't try to fly.

It's also why the courts have historically taken a different view of how automobiles are treated in terms of privacy vs a person's home IIRC.

 

[OneMoreEvan]

“Average cop these days”?, do you really believe that statement, your average cop would shoot you if you denied the Leo to search?
Sounds a tad bit dramatic.
Tim

Can you prove that they wouldn't? What happens if you resist? At best, you catch an @$$ whooping, at worst, they canoe your head. All police interactions are predicated on "Either you do what I (The police officer) say or something bad will be done to you."

 

[Chuckie]

Well, actually you are misstating both those rights. We must accurately state them before we can evaluate absoluteness.

Yes, I am referring in this context to our Consitutional rights.
The Second Amendment right, stated in its essence, is to keep and bear arms. The protection given is "shall not be violated." The weapons you posit are not limited in the Second Amendment, which only specifies "arms." It does not in any way limit "arms." It does in the nominative absolute clause give more information that the "arms" in view are in fact military ("militia") arms. In that sense the nature of the "arms" is not limited as you posit.

The First Amendment right, stated in its essence, is "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The right is freedom of speech, while the protection is "Congress shall make no law." The prohibition against making law is in fact absolute with respect to abridging the freedom of speech. "No law" leaves no room for exception, Holmes' absurd reasoning in Schenk notwithstanding.

Which brings us to the subject of this thread, the Fourth Amendment.
Stated in its essence the right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be secure. The protection is "shall not be violated." For further understanding just fill in the blanks.
Whose right to be secure? "Of the people". That's easy enough. You are a person, I am a person, we are "the people."
To be secure against what? "Unreasonable search and seizure."
To be secure against unreasonable search of what? "In their persons, houses, papers, and effects." That's fairly well defined.
What defines the reasonability of a search? All following the comma after "shall not be violated."

"Shall not be violated" similarly leaves no wiggle room for exceptions in which one's right to be secure may be violated. Crucially, those exceptions must be satisfied in the Fourth Amendment itself to establish reasonablility of the search.

- You certainly have the right to believe that under the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution you are allowed to possess any "arms" (meaning weapon) because possession of arms "shall not be infringed", however, I would challenge that belief simply by saying that the Federal government (warden of the Constitution) would take action to ensure that you did not possess (for example) WMD's under ANY condition.
- Furthermore I submit that the term "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment when referring to a search is, at best, subjective and therefore cannot be explicitly defined. What is 'unreasonable' to you may be reasonable to me.
- Thank you Tweetr for the interactions, fore it surely has been both pleasurable and interesting. Hope the rest of your week goes well, my friend.

 

[OneMoreEvan]

Unrelated, this thread will be a certified hood classic, I guarantee it It's absolutely wild and I love it.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Can you prove that they wouldn't? What happens if you resist? At best, you catch an @$$ whooping, at worst, they canoe your head. All police interactions are predicated on "Either you do what I (The police officer) say or something bad will be done to you."

LOL... Can you prove they will? Of course, you can't.

And there is no way at all you can substantiate the rest of what you said re: do what I say or else. At the most basic level it's easy enough to illustrate the absurdity of that by just pointing out not "all" police interactions with the public require an officer to ask that anything be done.

Furthermore, resisting manifests itself in varying degrees. One person may resist passively...like sitting or laying motionless while the officer tries to handcuff them or move them. It's highly unlikely that person is going to get an "@$$ whooping". It's highly likely the officer(s) would just move them or manipulate them enough to get the cuffs on.

I didn't think it would be possible for you to say something even more ridiculous than your first post. But I see you've doubled down on the hyperbole.

 

[tweetr]

It is bound by the fourth amendment, however you have no inherent right to board a plane. If you want to get on a plane you are voluntarily waiving your right to refuse search. You don't want to give up your right to refuse a search? Don't try to fly.

It's also why the courts have historically taken a different view of how automobiles are treated in terms of privacy vs a person's home IIRC.

The right to board an airplane is not in question. The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is. The Fourth Amendment admits of no blanket warrant, e.g. all persons who pass this point may be searched in their persons, papers, and effects.

 

[Glocktogo]

That is a valid criticism of TSA procedures (with which I am naturally familiar.) If you are arguing that TSA procedures are right, then necessarily you are arguing that the Fourth Amendment is wrong. Is the TSA, an agency of the federal government, bound by the Fourth Amendment?

No it isn't.

 

[tweetr]

I submit that the term "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment when referring to a search is, at best, subjective and therefore cannot be explicitly defined. What is 'unreasonable' to you may be reasonable to me.

Yes! That is pertinent to the question. What defines "unreasonable"? Your objection on grounds of subjectivity might be valid if there were a period after "shall not be violated."
But there is a comma after violated, and the conjunction "and." Therefore all that follows the comma defines reasonability. The very purpose of a warrant to search or seize is to establish legal "reasonability" for the search or seizure.

 

[tweetr]

No it isn't.

Not bound? Explain.

 

[Glocktogo]

Not bound? Explain.

It has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment, because it's an administrative search for non-criminal law applications. You have a right to not enter or you have a right to be searched, which is plainly posted. What part of that don't you understand?