Texas State Troopers and illegal cavity searches

Is it illegal to run at the sight of a police officer?

I can see myself on my nightly jog being chased down by a Cary police officer who them interrogates me for why I don't have any ID on me.

"Um. Because I'm running. Duh."

"You sassin' me, boy?"

"Um. Yeah."

hillarity ensues.

Paleocon wrote:

Is it illegal to run at the sight of a police officer?

No, but it can be the grounds for probable cause to detain you briefly.

Paleocon wrote:

Is it illegal to run at the sight of a police officer?

No, but it's legal for them to shoot you in the neck if you do!

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Is it illegal to run at the sight of a police officer?

No, but it's legal for them to shoot you in the neck if you do!

Only if they paid for sex and you are in Texas, cause that be stealin.

Caught a clip on FOX news about the Stop and Frisk ruling. The female reporter that was being interviewed made the comment, " 'Stop and Frisk' laws aren't unconstitutional because you aren't really being searched, your just being pat down."

IMAGE(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130417063927/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/f/f4/Picard-facepalm.jpg)

That is precisely what Terry v. Ohio stated with respect to brief pat-downs. Fox News anchor has a firmer grasp of legal precedent than C-net. Where is your god now?

KingGorilla wrote:

That is precisely what Terry v. Ohio stated with respect to brief pat-downs. Fox News anchor has a firmer grasp of legal precedent than C-net. Where is your god now?

That might be true, but I still find the comment about a pat down not being a search "facepalm" worthy.

KingGorilla wrote:

That is precisely what Terry v. Ohio stated with respect to brief pat-downs. Fox News anchor has a firmer grasp of legal precedent than C-net. Where is your god now?

Sure, but even Terry stops were limited by a requirement that "the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."

In fact, the court said the stop-and-frisk does violate the 4th amendment, but does so to a lesser degree; as such the standard for its application should be a lesser degree than "probable cause", but still "reasonable grounds" to believe someone is armed.

The most important part, to me, from Terry is Warren's dictum that it is problematic for the courts to discourage violations of civil rights and civil liberties relying only on torts and exclusion of evidence in criminal trials. And he specifically gets to ongoing harassment of African Americans by police. Where the only remedy is exclusion or a trivial tort, harassment will continue. The Constitution is great are suppressing or mitigating abuses when matters reach a court of law-but not so much at preventative medicine. Warren more or less predicted New York's policy decades before it was made official.

He did, which is both amazing and sad.

So now there are degrees of violating the Constitution? It is binary, either it is constitutional or it is not.

Wouldn't DUI checkpoints also be an example of that?

There is, for better or for worse, a degree of no harm/no foul. Also of changing attitudes.

Here is an example. Were Jim Crow Laws always unconstitutional or were the unconstitutional when they were ruled to be so in the 1950's? Then, were the supreme courts who upheld Jim Crow laws as constitutional wrong? And what do you do about that at that time; and what does that mean for the people caught in the interval? The text of the constitution regarding the rights of freed slaves never changed in that time.

Nevin73 wrote:

Wouldn't DUI checkpoints also be an example of that?

Not according to our Supreme Court. Their opinion, confirmed a few times now are that random DUI checkpoints are not unreasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_...

However, unlike the NSA, police and the CDC can show that sobriety checkpoints actually work. States have seen anywhere from a 20-30 percent decrease in drunk driving fatalities after implementation.

KingGorilla wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Wouldn't DUI checkpoints also be an example of that?

Not according to our Supreme Court. Their opinion, confirmed a few times now are that random DUI checkpoints are not unreasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_...

My understanding (which is probably flawed) was that while they were a minor violation of the 4th Amendment, the benefit to the community far outweighed the violation of the individual's rights. I should probably read the link you provided.

Wow, nothing law-related can be simple, can it?

The rationale has been from a literal interpretation of the 4th Amendment protection against "Unreasonable" searches-that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints are "Reasonable" and thus do not trigger the 4th Amendment.

There are many factors to the 4th Amendment, of the 5th, or the 14th, etc.

Conflating the damn problem is that so many of the Bill of Rights encompasses varied and unrelated things. Why does the 2nd amendment conflate the federal congress' role over the regulation and possession of guns with the individual state's right to maintain a military force?

Some old white dude who went to William and Mary College wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Step 1. Is this a person, a home, written documents, or a container?-your car incidently is closely related to your home.
Step 2. Has there been a search of one of these items?-stopping you to look in to the car to see if you appear intoxicated is indeed a search.
Step 3. Has there been a deprivation of freedom of the person or owner of the property/chatel to freely exercise their rights by an agent of the government? You are slowed, even stopped. this is a Seizure.
Step 4. Were these actions unreasonable in light of surrounding circumstances and facts?

All 4 need to be tripped to violate this 4th amendment clause.

And then warrants, just to f*ck things up.

How about we propose an amendment to get the Constitution written in 21st Century English? It would make me a lot happier, and less mad at Scalia when he uses Webster's to define terms written in 1786.

KingGorilla wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Wow, nothing law-related can be simple, can it?

That was the simple explanation. Do you want the long one that goes on for 60 pages and I am pretty sure has a footnote about buggery in it?

LOL, while I'm sure any footnote about buggery is quite interesting, I'm finding in my dottage that I have trouble focusing on posts with more than three paragraphs in them, let alone 60 pages.

Nevin73 wrote:

Wow, nothing law-related can be simple, can it?

That was the simple explanation. Do you want the long one that goes on for 60 pages and I am pretty sure has a footnote about buggery in it?

What bugs me are cases like the Supreme Court ruling that use of thermal imaging cameras and binoculars violated the 4th amendment. Essentially rewriting the 4th Amendment to state "Unreasonable searches and/or seizures." And then the majority makes me agree with Scalia and Thomas, and food just lacks it's flavor, spirits their zest, and I trade in my wash cloth for a brillo pad.

I'm imagining reading that and being like "c'mon, when does it get to the juicy part?"

OG_slinger wrote:

While the female DPS trooper who conducted the cavity search on Angel and Ashley Dobbs was initially fired, she was just rehired because the grand jury chose not to indict her in the lawsuit the Dobbs filed.

The Director of the DPS claimed that the female trooper should be rehired because she was inexperienced and had been directed to conduct the search by a more experienced officer.

I would think that you wouldn't want to rehire someone as a law enforcement officer if they've shown incredibly poor judgement and have what are exceptionally dubious ideas of what kinds of things are legal and constitutional.

How in the world are these two officers not facing criminal rape charges?

The short answer Chameleon is that in my experience, corroborated by many colleagues, you will not find many more corrupt and morally bankrupt systems than small town cops and small town courts. And until those corrupt officials start say working directly with criminal elements, you will not get larger state and federal intervention. These cops and their ilk are not harassing the people who pay their checks, or elect the sheriffs.

KingGorilla wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Wow, nothing law-related can be simple, can it?

That was the simple explanation. Do you want the long one that goes on for 60 pages and I am pretty sure has a footnote about buggery in it?

I'll just take the footnote, out of context, for comedy value, thanks.