Warrantless search - Rogers County

[OneMoreEvan]

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.

"Resisting passively" is an oxymoron, either you're resisting or you aren't "Manipulate them to get the cuffs on" That's still putting hands on them, so the point still stands. If I put my hands on someone to "Manipulate" them to do something, then it's still assault. I can't say "No sir, I manipulated that officer's hands off of me" it would be "You assaulted an officer". Now say that person that's "Passively resisting" is a large strong male and the arresting officer is a tiny female. Could she "Manipulate" that man into getting into cuffs if he's "passively resisting"? Probably not, she would at best pepper spray him and at worst put a bullet in him.

 

[tweetr]

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?

The part that satisfies the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment contains no such exceptions as boarding a plane or passing a particular point. The right of the people to be secure shall not be violated.

 

[Glocktogo]

The part that satisfies the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment contains no such exceptions as boarding a plane or passing a particular point. The right of the people to be secure shall not be violated.

Your rights are not being violated. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[tweetr]

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.

This point can be illustrated by the State v. Roberson decision as cited earlier:

 

[donner]

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.

But that is the point i made, if you want past the point you agree to waive your right to the TSA searching you. It ceases to be 'unreasonable' since you voluntarily agree to it. They have no obligation (even as the government) to let you go past a point. If you want past then they can set the terms. That isn't an infringement of your rights because you have no right to be in that area in the first place.

Your reading of the Constitution is very (too?) literal and i can't recall too many instances where any court has refused to acknowledge the limitations of an amendment to apply to all situations (though i admit it's been a while since i took my con law classes). Slander and Liable laws comes to mind. They are meant to give a person recourse against harmful speech (albeit non criminal), but also are weighed against the 'truth'.

By your logic earlier, the first amendment would allow for the leaking of classified materials (like troop movement, launch codes and anything else). It'd put laws that protect state secrets in direct violation, regardless of the potential for harm. Same for threats, etc. Courts have routinely used strict scrutiny tests to distinguish between political speech and threats and other forms of speech that can be linked to the possibility of direct harm.

Your stance reminds me of a video i came across recently regarding a guy who thought the agricultural inspections in California were a violation of his 4th amendment right. I'm also certain this video will trigger you, though, so be warned.

 

[tweetr]

But that is the point i made, if you want past the point you agree to waive your right to the TSA searching you. It ceases to be 'unreasonable' since you voluntarily agree to it. They have no obligation (even as the government) to let you go past a point. If you want past then they can set the terms. That isn't an infringement of your rights because you have no right to be in that area in the first place.

Your reading of the Constitution is very (too?) literal and i can't recall too many instances where any court has refused to acknowledge the limitations of an amendment to apply to all situations (though i admit it's been a while since i took my con law classes). Slander and Liable laws comes to mind. They are meant to give a person recourse against harmful speech (albeit non criminal), but also are weighed against the 'truth'.

By your logic earlier, the first amendment would allow for the leaking of classified materials (like troop movement, launch codes and anything else). It'd put laws that protect state secrets in direct violation, regardless of the potential for harm. Same for threats, etc. Courts have routinely used strict scrutiny tests to distinguish between political speech and threats and other forms of speech that can be linked to the possibility of direct harm.

Your stance reminds me of a video i came across recently regarding a guy who thought the agricultural inspections in California were a violation of his 4th amendment right. I'm also certain this video will trigger you, though, so be warned.

No, that is not true. Passing a point does not agree to a search of one's person and cannot be construed so under the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. To construct such an exception would require amending the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, meanwhile, makes no lesser distinction for "administrative" searches. The right attaches to the person, regardless of where he goes.

 

[Glocktogo]

No, that is not true. Passing a point does not agree to a search of one's person and cannot be construed so under the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. To construct such an exception would require amending the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, meanwhile, makes no lesser distinction for "administrative" searches. The right attaches to the person, regardless of where he goes.

You're completely wrong here.

 

[donner]

No, that is not true. Passing a point does not agree to a search of one's person and cannot be construed so under the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. To construct such an exception would require amending the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, meanwhile, makes no lesser distinction for "administrative" searches. The right attaches to the person, regardless of where he goes.

A person most certainly can waive their own right, which is what a person does (in part) when entering a restricted area that they otherwise have no right to be. As you said, it's not the area that forces a person to waive their right, it's the person's choice to enter the area that does (in regards to the TSA, anyway).

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

"Resisting passively" is an oxymoron, either you're resisting or you aren't "Manipulate them to get the cuffs on" That's still putting hands on them, so the point still stands. If I put my hands on someone to "Manipulate" them to do something, then it's still assault. I can't say "No sir, I manipulated that officer's hands off of me" it would be "You assaulted an officer". Now say that person that's "Passively resisting" is a large strong male and the arresting officer is a tiny female. Could she "Manipulate" that man into getting into cuffs if he's "passively resisting"? Probably not, she would at best pepper spray him and at worst put a bullet in him.

You apparently don't understand some of the terms you're using (in a law enforcement context). Resisting comes in various degrees. Some states have resisting laws that state with or without violence. And simply touching someone doesn't rise to the level of assault (or battery...depending on the law) without some threat of force or violence.

And shooting someone for passively resisting? I think you're just making that s**t up.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

No, that is not true. Passing a point does not agree to a search of one's person and cannot be construed so under the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. To construct such an exception would require amending the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, meanwhile, makes no lesser distinction for "administrative" searches. The right attaches to the person, regardless of where he goes.

Here's a scenario:

An officer observes an obvious armed robbery occurring by means of a gun. Suspect points gun at victim, pistol whips victim, takes victims wallet, and conceals the handgun on his person while walking away.

Officer immediately approaches the suspect, detains him, and handcuffs him. Officer tells suspect he's under arrest. Officer then conducts a search of the suspect and finds the gun he saw the suspect using.

There you have a seizure of the person and the gun as evidence. And you have the search. No warrant was issued.

Do you consider that to be a lawful search and seizure?