Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

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).

A person may not be presumed to have waived his rights, e.g. in signing an agreement not to sue before the fact, "click to continue," etc. A person does not indirectly waive his rights.

 

[tweetr]

It is interesting to see people argue against their own rights and liberties.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Keep it up y’all! For some reason I just keep reading and following along. I don’t think I’m learning but I’m enjoying a good argument. The only thing tying me to this thread is I live in Rogers county not far from Walton and I already had a less than favorable opinion of him before the thread began. So if y’all would please stop arguing fact, laws and opinions and do more bashing on Walton. Thanks!

 

[donner]

A person may not be presumed to have waived his rights, e.g. in signing an agreement not to sue before the fact, "click to continue," etc. A person does not indirectly waive his rights.

How is knowingly entering a restricted area an indirect action, though. Has there ever been anyone that 'accidentally' wandered up to a TSA checkpoint and was then forced through? Right up until you voluntarily go through you have the ability to leave the line. Again, it's not an indirect anything

And, regardless, it's also understood that restricted areas enjoy higher levels of what is 'reasonable' vs not with regards to security and searches. You're not being forced to give away any evidence against yourself when you voluntarily go through a security screening.

The ability to walk away from the security checkpoint, before submitting to the search, is the ability to refuse the search.

 

[Glocktogo]

A person may not be presumed to have waived his rights, e.g. in signing an agreement not to sue before the fact, "click to continue," etc. A person does not indirectly waive his rights.

So you're argument is that you DON'T have the right to allow a search?

It is interesting to see people argue against their own rights and liberties.

No we're not.

Regardless of your silly argument, you're still wrong.

 

[El Pablo]

I agree.
Which illustrates one of the problems with the dog's reaction as establishing probable cause. There are many reasons that might cause a dog to react in a particular way that do not necessarily indicate probable cause to believe a crime has occurred.

Further, how does the defendant cross examine the dog under oath?

Google translate…

 

[okcBob]

You know, calling a lawyer to review the situation will prob answer all your questions in 5 minutes instead of prolonged debating the law with other non-lawyers

 

[tweetr]

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?

In a word, yes. You have satisfied the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. I never answered your earlier question in the affirmative. You merely assumed my answer.

 

[Glocktogo]

In a word, yes. You have satisfied the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. I never answered your earlier question in the affirmative. You merely assumed my answer.

Specificity requirement only applies to a search warrant, not this scenario. You might want to refresh your BoR reading comprehension.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I assumed your answer because you didn't answer. That's obviously a reasonable search and seizure scenario.

OK... Let's take it a step further. Officer doesn't witness the robbery and assault but rounds the corner as the victim is getting up off the ground. Victim tells the officer what happened and gives a description of the suspect to the officer. The officer walks around the corner, spots a person he believes to be the suspect and detains, searches, seizes just like the original scenario.

Would you consider that to be a lawful search and seizure without a warrant?