We got two pages to go
And that, really, is all I am insisting: that the deputies of Rogers County uphold the oath they swore "to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States" in their interactions with the people they meet. That's all! It is interesting to see such a frenzy of opposition, in a Second-Amendment focused discussion group no less, over such a simple proposition!
Can we all at least agree that deputies of Rogers County, like all state officials in all states according to Article VI, paragraph 3, must support, obey, and defend the Consitution of the United States
Can we all at least agree that deputies of Rogers County, like all state officials in all states according to Article VI, paragraph 3, must support, obey, and defend the Consitution of the United States
So to keep it going you're just copy and pasting the same garbage?
Not at all. Legality of the search (before the 14th Amendment) would depend on state law and the state constitution. Most state constitutions incorporate their own bills of rights. In our case you are without argument. Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, is titled Bill of Rights. For your reference here is:
SECTION II-30
Unreasonable searches or seizures - Warrants, issuance of.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.
Does that look familiar?
(Why be rude about it?)
Nope. Inadvertent double.
(Why is that garbage? It's just the legal requirement to serve.)
Well, that is the substance of the matter, isn't it? Did they "support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma." As the US Constitution is first and both are substantially parallel, for simplicity consider just the US Constition.
Did the deputies in this instance:
1) Violate his right as a person to be secure in his person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure?
To answer that it is necessary to check off the requirements:
Did they:
2) Search persuant to a warrant? (No.)
3) Issued upon probable cause? (Partially. They established probable cause to search a third brake light, but not the rest of the car with a dog.)
4) Supported by oath or affirmation? (No.)
5) Particularly describing the place to be searched? (No.)
6) Particularly describing the persons or things to be seized? (No.)
In what way does that satisfy their required oath to "support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma?"
Last edited:
Take it to your attorney. You obviously are not going to get whatever it is you are looking for here. This is not a court of standing.
One more page
Oh, I don't think it is. I was looking only for what I stated: information. Some of you gave excellent information and references. Thanks!
Now it's just a discussion. Join if you like. Don't if you don't like.
Where was I rude? Oklahoma became a state 49 years after the 14th amendment was ratified.
Go waste your money trying to litigate this.
Last edited:
just a couple posts to go
Similar threads
