Warrantless search - Rogers County

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Is there a particular reason for you to be rude? To be insistent on principle is not to be obtuse.

You're being insistent on a principle that lives only in your fantasy world. How many times do you need to hear the reasoned arguments on why some warrantless searches are valid? You're being obtuse...and it's becoming quite troll-ish. That's just calling it like it is.

 

[ef9turbo]

That is a reasoned reply, and exactly what I requested. Thanks!

I agree that a third brake light inoperative is probable cause to search the third brake light, for which no competent deputy needs a dog. How do we get from a third brake light to a dog?

K9 officers can run a dog on a vehicle whenever they want. It’s a free air sniff, plain and simple. If it concerns you that much, as I mentioned before, handlers must conduct reports on alerts. That should be readily available by request by your son or a lawyer.

Like I mentioned, I know that RCSO run pretty heavy together. Your son more than likely happened to be a stop where a K9 was close. I dunno what else to tell you. Just the luck of the draw.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

It's been explained to him over and over and over. And over.

 

[El Pablo]

You must understand what you are arguing here: that case law is superior to the Constitution itself. It is not.
The illustration is in Article V: what power has the Judiciary to amend the Constitution itself? (None.)
What power has the Judiciary in Article III or Article I to make or to erase or to alter law? (None.)
Both of the above are expressly reserved to the legislatures.

Now: to what oath must any officer of the state swear? To the Consitutions of the United States and of Oklahoma? Or to case law?

OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XV - OATH OF OFFICE
Officers required to take oath or affirmation - Form. All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I further swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _________ to the best of my ability."

Where do you see any reference to judicial decisions? The oath is to the respective consitutions directly. Such oath necessarily requires that all officers of the state understand that to which they swear, so that they accurately support, obey, and defend same.

I’m not arguing case law is superior to the constitution. It fills the gap. With your logic, their are no limits on free speech, freedom of the press, etc, which makes no sense.

Yes, you are being obtuse, obsessed, and obstinate. I suggest you waste your money and try to get all the way to the Supreme Court so you can get a ruling. Good luck as what would the remedy of this be? Also, you won’t have standing. I’ll ask again, does you son want you to continue pursuing this?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Marbury vs Madison (1803) is where sc gets the right. Congress chose to follow Marbury vs Madison.

 

[Rod Carter]

Had a similar problem with OHP coming home from a morning of duck hunting one day , over a seat belt violation, I turned around and he had entered the vehicle (toyota 4runner) , 2 shotguns behind the front seats on the floor hardly visible from hunting clothes, I ask him to get out of vehicle, he refused and said it was a gun and he had the authority to search for his safety,,,I told him to write the ticket and I'd prove he was a liar ...
The trooper riding with him realized who I was and this was not going to end well , got out and ask me to calm down, I told him your partner is a damn liar and I'm fixing to prove it ..I took them to the back and ask him to look in the back window, he said THERES A BIG DOG IN THERE... YOU SHOULD HATE TOLD ME....
I said that is why you should of ask.. when my back was turned you entered the vehicle without asking..

I filed complaint against that trooper but not the one that was driving as he never exited the cruiser until he realized this wasn't going to end well .

His Sargent came and interviewed me and my hunting buddy, he wasn't happy at all with his trooper , it ended up to director.

The Sargent basically said ,, these new guys aren't smart enough to realize when they are on the stand in court testifying in another case they lose credibility with the public and all he had to do is ask , all he did is alienate good people and it was a poor way to handle a stop.

Mr Carter I see you have never had a problem with law enforcement,

That said trooper still won't look me in the eye when we meet , he knows he screwed up..

I'm just glad my 90 lbs of chocolate lab did bite him in the face , he never woke up LOL

 

[Roadking Larry]

Rod,



Do you believe "Joe Citizen" would have had the same results in an identical situation without whatever clout and recognition you had?

 

[tweetr]

You're being insistent on a principle that lives only in your fantasy world. How many times do you need to hear the reasoned arguments on why some warrantless searches are valid? You're being obtuse...and it's becoming quite troll-ish. That's just calling it like it is.

I insist on a principle that lives in black and white in the Fourth Amendment. That still is no reason to be rude.

It is entertaining to see you so worked up over something that affects you not in the slightest. Why do you care what I believe? You don't know me. You don't know my son. You don't know the facts of this case because you were not there. Any dispute you wish to raise over the facts of the case is necessarily gratuitous. The only, the singular rational response, assuming you wish to respond at all, is something like:
"If the facts of the case are as you represent them, then my opinion is [X]."
And nothing else, for anything else is necessarily gratuitous and almost certainly emotionally driven.
And that's all I invited anyway! Given these facts as I described them, what is your opinion? Give your opinion, and whether I agree or disagree, I appreciate your input.

Where have I been anything but courteous in soliciting and responding to opinions? Why the rudely ad hominem on your part?

And that is the revealing part. There simply is no reason for you to care, emotionally care, whether I agree with you. Who cares? But if for some odd reason you take offense at failing to convince me of your opinion (and I really can't conceive why) then appealing gratuitously and emotionally ad hominem simply will have the opposite effect!

There is another approach, you know. If you don't like the way the conversation is going you can merely go on about your day and do something else. Nobody forces you to read a thread you don't like.

 

[tweetr]

K9 officers can run a dog on a vehicle whenever they want. It’s a free air sniff, plain and simple. If it concerns you that much, as I mentioned before, handlers must conduct reports on alerts. That should be readily available by request by your son or a lawyer.

Like I mentioned, I know that RCSO run pretty heavy together. Your son more than likely happened to be a stop where a K9 was close. I dunno what else to tell you. Just the luck of the draw.

Thanks again for your input.
No, the dog was not close. It took about ten minutes to get the dog there. From other research that seems excessive.
It is of course the "can run a dog on a vehicle anytime they want" that I find expressly violates the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. There is no way to justify "whenever they want" under the Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause. The probable cause must exist before the search. The search cannot be used to generate probable cause without inverting the very intent of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Bocephus123]

doing nothing wrong nothing to worry about ! comply is all they ask not much!

 

[tweetr]

I’m not arguing case law is superior to the constitution. It fills the gap. With your logic, their are no limits on free speech, freedom of the press, etc, which makes no sense.

Yes, you are being obtuse, obsessed, and obstinate. I suggest you waste your money and try to get all the way to the Supreme Court so you can get a ruling. Good luck as what would the remedy of this be? Also, you won’t have standing. I’ll ask again, does you son want you to continue pursuing this?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Marbury vs Madison (1803) is where sc gets the right. Congress chose to follow Marbury vs Madison.

Then necessarily when case law alters or inverts the language of the Constitution itself, it is the case law that must fail, not the Constitution. As in Dobbs reversing Roe and Casey. Whatever you may believe about the morality or even the legality of abortion, Roe and Casey were abominably poorly reasoned and must fall.

So also Carroll, which decided that if the PLACE is moveable, then the PERSON has no right to be secure. That obviously and demonstrably inverts the reason for having a Fourth Amendment in the first place. This is easily proven. Were there no moveable places to search when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Of course there were. Rowboats, ships, horse carts, oxcarts. For that matter the person himself is moveable, yet the person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, irrespective of the place. Carroll is speciously reasoned. And case law has no power to alter or erase statute law, let alone the Constitution itself.