Warrantless search - Rogers County

[Roadking Larry]

They should ask before any search,
A little common sense goes a long ways , decoys. Hunting clothes, camo shotgun ,

We sure weren't a couple of back robbers

Didn't really answer my question though.

 

[TedKennedy]

Didn't really answer my question though.

You already know the answer.

 

[Snattlerake]

I want to have him do one thing. When he does take this to a lawyer, have him point out this thread.
It might make the lawyer skittish enough to usher him out the door.

 

[Glocktogo]

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?"

I can answer your question.

No.

 

[tweetr]

This current news item is interesting in its parallels:
Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, took up the case of these students on the grounds that the Smithsonian violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to remove hats with a pro-life message (picture of the hats in the article), claiming that the museum is a "neutral zone." (The fundamental parallel is that this argument suggests that a "neutral zone," whatever that is, is an exception to the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law.")

The Smithsonian has already responded, "We provided immediate training to prevent a reoccurrence of this kind of incident and have determined steps to ensure this does not happen again." The second parallel is: that is all we are asking of Rogers County.

Smithsonian provides 'immediate training' after kicking out Catholic school group

 

[Glocktogo]

This current news item is interesting in its parallels:
Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, took up the case of these students on the grounds that the Smithsonian violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to remove hats with a pro-life message (picture of the hats in the article), claiming that the museum is a "neutral zone." (The fundamental parallel is that this argument suggests that a "neutral zone," whatever that is, is an exception to the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law.")

The Smithsonian has already responded, "We provided immediate training to prevent a reoccurrence of this kind of incident and have determined steps to ensure this does not happen again." The second parallel is: that is all we are asking of Rogers County.

Smithsonian provides 'immediate training' after kicking out Catholic school group

There are no parallels here. You should really put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard.

 

[JEVapa]

He's tryna get 75 pages outta this

 

[Chuckie]

Meanwhile his kid keeps pleading, 'Just drop it Dad!'

 

[ef9turbo]

 

[El Pablo]

You weren’t there. How would you know?