Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Charon on September 05, 2007, 01:17:30 PM
-
Here is an incident that happened recently in California. In this case, apparently this person's rights ended where someone's feelings began. One for the "If you have nothing to hide..." set.
I was detained at school today on suspicion of carying a concealed weapon.
Today has been an odd day for me, I was sitting in my physics class at Santa Monica College trying to remember calculus from five years ago when a very polite officer came into the class and asked me if my name was (insert my name here) and if I could please come outside with him.
I hurried after him immediately worrying that something had happened to my wife or my grand parents, or father or close friends who may have me as an emergency contact.
Outside there were about five uniformed officers arranged in a semi circle with their hands close to their weapons, which I thought was odd for an emergency notification.
The officer who had come in for me introduced himself and explained to me that someone had observed me on an internet chat board (here at calguns) while I was sitting in a school computer lab, and apparently I was posting messages on how to bypass laws and illegally obtain firearms and hide them and I was making some kind of threat against the student body, and apparently somehow this translated to me being a threat to the school and under suspicion of carrying a gun.
I explained that I hadn’t posted any such thing, and while I might have explained to someone what they need to legally purchase a pistol in CA I have never advocated breaking the law in any way shape or form. (I actually posted about the utility bill requirement a while ago, but under a little bit of stress I couldn’t recall if it was the day before or a few days prior, it just seemed like the only post that could even remotely be misconstrued)
They then searched my person with my consent (I didn’t want the officers to feel ill at ease while I was standing there, and as I understand it an officer safety search is completely constitutional and I don’t have a problem with them feeling more comfortable around me)
They explained that after the VT and columbine things people were at a higher state of paranoia and they were obligated to follow up on any credible report, and explained to me that they needed to search my backpack to make sure that I didn’t have any weapons in it.
I replied that I did not consent to a search and did so on the grounds of privacy and a strong belief in the fourth amendment, I offered to show them all the internet posts that I had made so that they could judge for themselves whether or not this was a credible report.
They explained to me that based on my statements and the report they had from the female individual they had plenty of probable cause for searching my bag, but my consent would considerably speed up the process.
I declined further and they had the sergeant and chief of police (I believe) who were nice individuals and very courteous and professional come and talk with me while they called in for a telephonic warrant. It took them a considerable amount of time (20-30 min) and I began to inquire how long I had to stand out there and at what point it became unlawful detainment. They stated that since I was a suspect under investigation being detained that I could not go back into the classroom, nor could I take my things and leave campus.
I then called my wife and asked her to call T.M. and have them give me a call (I didn’t have the phone number on me for some reason… It might have been in my wallet but my wallet was being held onto by one of the officers.
Speaking of my wallet, the officers took a special interest in it, I have an old police wallet that has space for a badge, I don’t carry a badge, I’ve never carried a badge, I’m not a policeman wannabe or mall ninja, I just appreciate high quality leatherwork and when my old JC penny wallet wore out, I purchased a badge wallet that was on sale at the local shooting range/police supply outlet. It is a nice lattago leather that is well stitched and has held up so well for the last seven years that I don’t think I’ll ever need another one.
I don’t really understand why it was of such interest to them, but it was, and I guess they have to deal with a lot of wannabe cops impersonating an officer.
They obtained a warrant, searched my bag, determined that unless I was planning on throwing my physics notes at someone (which reminds me I left a notebook on the desk in class…. I’ll have to get it tomorrow) I had nothing that was illegal in my bag.
They apologized to me for the inconvenience, chatted about competitive shooting and ca law a bit and sent me on my way.
I was a bit shaken and class was almost over so I left to go get a cold soda and go home (I only have one class on Thursdays)
My wife was really distraught over this, and has all but forbidden me from discussing guns in public or chatting on calguns while at school. I don’t blame her, it’s a hard phone call to get, “hey babe, I’m being detained on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon please contact T.M. for me”
Chuck called me on my cell phone shortly afterwards and I explained to him what had happened, and why I took the pre-emptive step of contacting him. (I didn’t feel that some unsubstantiated report constituted probable cause for violating my privacy or treating me like a criminal, and what if a single round of ammo was lodged in my backpack somewhere from a range trip three years ago? Its happened before (I only found out when I had to get on an airplane and they x-rayed my bag), or if I had an exacto knife from one of the art classes that I had forgotten about and had wound up in with my pens…
I just feel uncomfortable allowing people to search through my possessions, and I didn’t want to allow for an accidental empty brass casing or something to cause me to get expelled from a school that I’ve worked very hard at (3.87 GPA, I’ll be graduating with two AA’s this quarter and transferring to a new school next year)
I also felt a little embarrassed that my bookmark for my recreational reading is one a friend made me that features the land-o-lakes girl and has a little flap that you lift to make her show her breasts… I don’t mind you guys knowing about it, (hey its just guy bawdy talk) but pulling it out at school and discussing it would be inappropriate, also in our PC world I didn’t want to get kicked out of school for having something like that. (I hadn’t thought about it being inappropriate until they asked to search, It wont be accompanying me to school in the future)
I didn’t want to make the officers jobs harder by not granting consent for the search, I just value my rights and I don’t want doodles of guns or notes from my polysci class to ruin the education that I’m working so *&^%# hard to get. Part of me also distrusted the fact that they actually had P.C. for a search, it just seemed that if they had it, they would have gone ahead and gotten a warrant for it prior to pulling me out of class. I guess schools are a different sort of environment, the warrant was obviously granted via the telephone.
C.M. is going to be sending me a few cards and a magnet, he was very understanding and having access to him incase of something like this was a huge relief. Apparently (according to my wife) mentioning calguns brought immediate recognition and action. It actually brings a tear to my eye thinking that you guys are out there and organized and I’m not just one man that has to stand alone (ok it’s a bit melodramatic). Seriously, just the though of it meant more than you can know.
I’m not sure who reported me as a dangerous guy, (maybe it was the local news? I sent a commentary letter to them yesterday from a school computer discussing the RKBA) I don’t really care who did it, though its saddening that this is what our society has come to, reporting ‘suspicious activity’ instead of just talking to the ‘suspicious’ guy about what’s going on first.
I just wanted to let you guys know about it, It feels good to get it out so I’m not just thinking about it. (I was a little shaken up buy the whole thing, I’m a big advocate of following the rules to the exact letter of the law, and to be accused of being a criminal actually hurt)
To T.M. thanks for being there,
To the officers (who I’m sure are reading this, I encouraged them to come and find out what the site was all about) Thanks for being professional and courteous about the incident, I’m sorry for making your jobs harder.
To the rest of you guys, be careful where you look at Calguns, people are snoopers and even if you are a clean cut professional looking upstanding individual with no prior history of anything, you too can be a suspect based on the word of someone who disagrees with you politically, or misreads an email you write to the newspaper.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=67652&page=22
Personally, I would be looking to find any legal avenue possible to create a putative counter to this behavior, against both the "informant" and the school. That's frankly what I have noticed the Supreme Court recommending in some of these cases like no knock, where if enough of the wrong people get killed then the liability will "correct" the problems :(
Charon
-
While I regret this guy had to go through all that. (It totally sucks!)
I don't hold anything against the police "informant." More than likely she was just being vigilant and misunderstood what he was up too. I hate to say it, but nowadays, you can't be to careful. It didn't sound like it was malicious (though i suppose it could have been).
Sorry the guy missed his class.
-
A follow up post
An interesting update..
I went in to the campus police station today to begin the process of requesting a copy of the police report and warrant along with any accompanying documentation. The staff were polite and courteous, and the nice officer who came into the classroom was actually there working on something and came out to say Hi.
Apparently it takes seven to ten days for a police report to be submitted and filed so that I can request a copy. They said that they will have a copy for me when it is completed.
The interesting part of the trip was the response to my request for a copy of the warrant, at first they just stated that telephonic warrants do not have face sheets, and after talking amongst themselves for a minuite or so in back, they informed me that when they called in for the warrant "that service was not available to us at the time" but they assured me that it would all be explained in the narrative of the police report.
I did not ask any follow up questions (the obvious one being "Did you actually get a warrant or did you do a search without consent and without a judge giving you the ok" The reason being that I didn't want to cause anyone to review and 'revise' the report before I was able to get a copy of it in my hand.
They did not actually state to me that they had asked for and received a warrant at the time of the search, they just went off on the telephone and came back and performed the search after telling me that they were going to go get a telephonic warrant.
I'm curious to see the report and find out what the actual story is. I'm beginning to suspect that they performed the search based on nothing but the presumption of probable cause which I do not feel was substantiated.
If they did search me without a warrant, its completely unacceptable, and given that I was waiting for a callback from legal representation (which I stated plainly in front of them), to proceed with the search before I was able to obtain legal council just seems kind of shady to me.
I don't want to get too far offtrack with wild speculation (its possible that they did indeed obtain a warrant and simply were referring to the fact that a manner of printing or transmitting a written copy was temporarily unavailable)
but........
It still remains to be seen just how far the rabbit hole goes... now we just have to wait 10 days... but hey in CA us gunnies are used to it...
-
While I regret this guy had to go through all that. (It totally sucks!)
I don't hold anything against the police "informant." More than likely she was just being vigilant and misunderstood what he was up too. I hate to say it, but nowadays, you can't be to careful. It didn't sound like it was malicious (though i suppose it could have been).
Sorry the guy missed his class.
Doesn't sound to me like they acted on anything more than one person's opinion. Just how far are you comfortable with letting them violate the 4th Amendment. Perhaps a follow up search of your house? Questioning your employer? Maybe this "nut" just left his illegal mass killing machine at home that day? After all, the informant apparently provide a great deal of detail that other posters at the site in question (and a search under his name would likely confirm) say never existed.
Maybe it was just someone with a political agenda, doing her thing for the cause.
Charon
-
TEH SKY IS FALLING!!!
-
TEH SKY IS FALLING!!!
So I take it where individual rights are concerned you lean more towards giving the government broad powers to infringe those rights with little actual evidence required to trigger such an infringement?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
So I take it where individual rights are concerned you lean more towards giving the government broad powers to infringe those rights with little actual evidence required to trigger such an infringement?
Charon
What rights were infringed here? Someone thought he was armed. At campus, that is a bad thing. Cops came to check it out. They got a warrent. Turns out he wasnt armed. End of story.
-
The whole 4th amendment thing.
"I saw Hortland discussing child sodomy on a message board, and I could tell he takes part in that type of thing from those nasty posts I think I saw." says random citizen. [edit: maybe even the person you pissed off by taking his usual parking place that morning.] "Perhaps we should drag him in for questioning and confiscate his computer for a week to check for child porn." says police official. Well, if that works for you :aok
Charon
-
1. The informant was not part of whatever discussion she thinks she saw. He didn't articulate a threat to her directly, and apparently he didn't in writing to others either.
2. The informant was the sole source.
3. There was no arm seen by anyone. No direct evidence. No printouts of posts. No effort to check his posts. And, he directly countered her contention. Her word vs his, yet somehow his word didn't count.
4. No previous record of behavior to suggest a threat.
5. Perhaps she was just being politically vindictive? No recourse?
Charon
-
When I was in college there was a group that went by the name of "Environmental Fundamentalist". They were extremely anti government, anti usa, and supported and justified at the time, the killing of US troops in Iraq. They were extremely vocal, and too be honest it scared me. The final straw was when the chairman of the group told me, "I think everyone of us has a person deep down inside of us that is willing to strap an IED to his chest and blow him self up".
At the time I was doing an internship with Connecticut's Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
I alerted my boss about it, and proper action was taken.
Sure it is their right to say that crap, but I don't see myself at all different from the girl who reported this to the police. Sure, my case is a lot more extreme, but guns are a very sensitive subject to some people, especially on campus following Virginia Tech, and I see no problem with her reporting what she thought she saw....Reporting something could mean the difference between two different situations, 1 which could end with a very chitty outcome.
That said, I also don't think it would be to bad for this girl to try and contact the guy she reported and tell him it's nothing personal, she thought she saw a threat and acted accordingly, and hope he understands.
-
Originally posted by Charon
2. The informant was the sole source.
Charon
As I recall, there was only one source in the NJ terror cell that was broken up by the guy at Circuit City... but he's a hero. She got it wrong. There's no doubt. But at least she had the stones to do something about what she thought was going on.
I don't think it's fair to assume she was acting to bolster a political agenda or to be malicious.
To me it seems like she suspected something... she notified the authorities, they investigated, and it is now over.
As far as the dudes after post about the telephone warrant, well we'll see how that pans out. But as far as the "informant" is concerned... I don't think she did anything wrong.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
When I was in college there was a group that went by the name of "Environmental Fundamentalist". They were extremely anti government, anti usa, and supported and justified at the time, the killing of US troops in Iraq. They were extremely vocal, and too be honest it scared me. The final straw was when the chairman of the group told me, "I think everyone of us has a person deep down inside of us that is willing to strap an IED to his chest and blow him self up".
At the time I was doing an internship with Connecticut's Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
I alerted my boss about it, and proper action was taken.
Sure it is their right to say that crap, but I don't see myself at all different from the girl who reported this to the police. Sure, my case is a lot more extreme, but guns are a very sensitive subject to some people, especially on campus following Virginia Tech, and I see no problem with her reporting what she thought she saw....Reporting something could mean the difference between two different situations, 1 which could end with a very chitty outcome.
That said, I also don't think it would be to bad for this girl to try and contact the guy she reported and tell him it's nothing personal, she thought she saw a threat and acted accordingly, and hope he understands.
snitch
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
snitch
I think Cav is Udie.
;)
-
whats udie
-
What happens after ulive.
shamus
-
As I recall, there was only one source in the NJ terror cell that was broken up by the guy at Circuit City... but he's a hero.
Well, he actually had something solid to present.
One of the suspects brought a video to Circuit City in January 2006 and asked that it be converted to DVD. The tape depicted 10 young men, including the six suspects, who were shooting assault weapons at a firing range in a militia-type style, while calling for a jihad and shouting "God is great" in Arabic.
I would say that might constitute probably cause. In this case there was no evidence beyond what she alone claimed to see, in something she was not directly involved with at the time that has proven (apparently) to be about as wrong as can be as confirmed by other board members including at least one LEO member.
She got it wrong. There's no doubt. But at least she had the stones to do something about what she thought was going on.
She had the "stones" to panic about a classmate visiting a firearm related Web site, then be so panicked that she either totally misunderstood what he was stating or decided to embellish what she saw or didn't see. In the first case hysterical overaction jumps to mind, in the second case criminal misconduct jumps to mind, though it would certainly take some stones to pursue her political agenda in such a manner.
I don't think paranoia and hysteria support safety. The whole cried wolf thing.
Charon
-
When I was in college there was a group that went by the name of "Environmental Fundamentalist". They were extremely anti government, anti usa, and supported and justified at the time, the killing of US troops in Iraq. They were extremely vocal, and too be honest it scared me. The final straw was when the chairman of the group told me, "I think everyone of us has a person deep down inside of us that is willing to strap an IED to his chest and blow him self up".
At the time I was doing an internship with Connecticut's Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security.
I alerted my boss about it, and proper action was taken.
Sure, my case is a lot more extreme...
That's kind of the point. Your case was a lot more extreme.
That said, I also don't think it would be to bad for this girl to try and contact the guy she reported and tell him it's nothing personal, she thought she saw a threat and acted accordingly, and hope he understands.
Assuming she wasn't the anti-firearm version of you "Environmental Fundamentalists," and just decided to win one for the team. And its not really about his hurt feelings or her fear of firearms, its about rights. Her fear should be based on at least some hard evidence before the police perform a search.
Charon
-
If the story, the way he told it, is actualy fact, then at the very least the so called evidence should have been checked out before contact with him.
It would have been all too easy to do.
Sad to say, but just about anyone can drop a dime on someone else and put them through much turmoil.
-
This guy's rights were violated so extremely it's not even funny. Illegal search. Imprisonment.
You know, if he'd been a person of a certain minority accused of having drugs in his bag, the Rev. Jackson and company would be throwing a fit right now. Whoopie would be explaining how in that particular part of the country, carring around crack to school is normal, much like dogfighting in the south, and that it's not a big deal :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
TEH SKY IS FALLING!!!
I'd be worried if I was living in the states, maybe you don't understand the depths a pee'd of chick will go too....
-
Now if Santa Monica College is a government institution, then the US Constitution applies and constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure apply in this case.
If Santa Monica College is a private institution, then the student does not have these constitutional guarantees, the student institution agreement applies.
The Constitution limits government. Ford Motor Company can prohibit guns on work premises by a matter of policy without constitutional restrictions. The State of California cannot.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
whats udie
It is a "who" not a what.
Udie is a guy who used to post here. Good guy actually, I've met him.
-
If Santa Monica College is a private institution, then the student does not have these constitutional guarantees, the student institution agreement applies.
Then why the need for a judge to sign off on a warrant for the search? Skuzzy doesn't have to allow my first amendment rights on this bbs, but he can't have me arrested. He was searched by the police as part of the legal process under the threat of arrest and confinement.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Then why the need for a judge to sign off on a warrant for the search? Skuzzy doesn't have to allow my first amendment rights on this bbs, but he can't have me arrested. He was searched by the police as part of the legal process under the threat of arrest and confinement.
Charon
At the bottom of their website it states, "Copyright © 2007 Santa Monica Community College District"
Santa Monica College is a governmental entity and is bound by the US Constitution.
I said, "If Santa Monica College is a private institution, then..."
My explanation applies.
-
It does seem shady that a warrant was not produced. Don't police officers carry pre-signed John Doe warrants for such cases where a warrant is needed on the scene? I would not be satisfied with a telephone warrant (is there such a thing?), but one on paper that I could see and read if I was determined to make the police produce a warrant. I'm not sure I understand why folks go to the trouble of postponing the inevitable far as a search warrant is concerned, but if it has to be then it should be readable. You shouldn't have to take their word they have one.
I'm glad this fellow didn't get in trouble, but given the current way of things imo he was not very smart using a school computer to discuss firearms, particularly in a gun hostile state. I hope he wrote every word after thinking about it and how it could possibly be construed. It's sometimes hard to convey meaning on forums without being misunderstood. Heck yes you can get in trouble, and believe it or not, writing on a computer forum is serious business. At least the police were nice about it. Were these campus police, or campus and city police in conjunction?
Les
-
Originally posted by Charon
Then why the need for a judge to sign off on a warrant for the search? Skuzzy doesn't have to allow my first amendment rights on this bbs, but he can't have me arrested. He was searched by the police as part of the legal process under the threat of arrest and confinement.
Charon
That's not true either. If you make a post advocating terrorism, recruiting for same and so on, skuzzy could forward the posts to the feds along with your IP info. While skuzzy wouldn't be the one investigating or arresting you, any more than the reporting person in your story was, you could be investigated, have a warrant served etc. on you during the investigation. The warrant has to be sworn out from a judge who issues it.
Leslie,
You really have no clue about warrants. No Police do NOT carry copies of a "john doe" warrant with them. A warrant has to be specific as to what is being sought, what is being searched and the time to do so. Telephonic warrants are used often in cases of an exigent nature where time is a critical factor and or court business hours are over. There will be a designated magistrate to call each day / night for that purpose. That magistrate has to confirm the request for the warrant and file papers indicating it as well as sign the document later.
-
Mav, just offhand, what would you say the percentage estimate was for approval on the telephonic warrants?
-
That's not true either. If you make a post advocating terrorism, recruiting for same and so on, skuzzy could forward the posts to the feds along with your IP info. While skuzzy wouldn't be the one investigating or arresting you, any more than the reporting person in your story was, you could be investigated, have a warrant served etc. on you during the investigation. The warrant has to be sworn out from a judge who issues it.
True. But if I understand correctly from the Circuit City thread there is not a lot HTC personnel could do about it personally. To infringe my rights I would have to have signed away those rights or be dealing formally with the legal justice system and warrants, etc. I know when you live in a dorm you sign away rights to searches etc. on their property and in some jobs you consent to searches and other infringements as part of your employment contract. But, don't those infringements have to be specified and agreed to before hand?
Charon
-
Charon,
You are starting to get into the realm of "what if" here. It's hard if not impossible to answer what you have posed as it is simply too general. You need to get more specific in the circumstances.
As far as a school is concerned, or work place either for that matter. You do NOT have full 4th amendment rights. You are not in a residential property agreement with the owner. In other words it's not your place, it's the schools or employers place and they have the right to consent to a search or the property including your locker, desk, cubical, company owned equipment and so on. If it is not specifically your person (and the Police can search you for weapons even there) or obviously private papers like your wallet, it's available for search. If the property owner has it noted that all bags etc. are subject to search on their property you have a choice, comply, leave your bags etc. home or be denied entry on the grounds.
You also do not have 1st amendment rights on property that is not public (owned by the "people") or belongs to another entity, be it individual or corporate. If you sound off and the "speech" is not approved of by the property owner you can be removed from it provided you do not have a lease agreement for the property. Property and lessee / lessor situations depend on the agreement and conditions for the use. Residential vs other uses. To get into that area you really need to talk to an attorney and again be in a specific situation rather than "what if".
In a situation like this bbs, you have No rights. It's not your server or service. You are a "guest" here and your presence and posting privileges can be revoked without cause or recourse save the pity of the folks who moderate it. Ask beetle.
As far as "signing your rights away" is concerned, don't think it has to be a signed contract in all cases. The above examples are not necessarily ones where the person signed any document releasing anything. If you do not "own" the rights in those locations to begin with you can't be able to "sign them away".
Jackal1,
Given the importance of getting a good warrant, one that will survive court scrutiny later on, I'd say that the percentage is pretty darn high. I don't know if anyone really keeps any stats on it however. If the judge does not feel there is sufficient reason to issue the warrant there won't be paperwork on it.
Any warrant and ANYTHING found in the execution of the warrant are subject to court scrutiny. If the warrant is lost in court, EVERYTHING found using it is gone as well. That's enough justification to make sure you have your ducks in a row before trying to get one. If you gain evidence to convict in a warrant but the execution or warrant was flawed, the evidence goes away. The warrant has to be specific as to what is being searched and to a lesser degree what is being sought. In other words, if you are searching for a stolen car in a garage, you can't search the bedroom closet or dressers of the house on the property.
Originally posted by Charon
True. But if I understand correctly from the Circuit City thread there is not a lot HTC personnel could do about it personally. To infringe my rights I would have to have signed away those rights or be dealing formally with the legal justice system and warrants, etc. I know when you live in a dorm you sign away rights to searches etc. on their property and in some jobs you consent to searches and other infringements as part of your employment contract. But, don't those infringements have to be specified and agreed to before hand?
Charon
-
As far as a school is concerned, or work place either for that matter. You do NOT have full 4th amendment rights. You are not in a residential property agreement with the owner. In other words it's not your place, it's the schools or employers place and they have the right to consent to a search or the property including your locker, desk, cubical, company owned equipment and so on. If it is not specifically your person (and the Police can search you for weapons even there) or obviously private papers like your wallet, it's available for search. If the property owner has it noted that all bags etc. are subject to search on their property you have a choice, comply, leave your bags etc. home or be denied entry on the grounds.
You also do not have 1st amendment rights on property that is not public (owned by the "people") or belongs to another entity, be it individual or corporate. If you sound off and the "speech" is not approved of by the property owner you can be removed from it provided you do not have a lease agreement for the property. Property and lessee / lessor situations depend on the agreement and conditions for the use. Residential vs other uses. To get into that area you really need to talk to an attorney and again be in a specific situation rather than "what if".
In a situation like this bbs, you have No rights. It's not your server or service. You are a "guest" here and your presence and posting privileges can be revoked without cause or recourse save the pity of the folks who moderate it. Ask beetle.
As far as "signing your rights away" is concerned, don't think it has to be a signed contract in all cases. The above examples are not necessarily ones where the person signed any document releasing anything. If you do not "own" the rights in those locations to begin with you can't be able to "sign them away".
I must not be doing a good job of expressing my point, because the bolded part is exactly what I'm saying. If I am on public or private property, unless I waive those rights they remain. They can look through their desk drawers and company vehicles, etc. There are obviously plenty of vocations involving national security concerns and money (casino staff) or valuable commodities like diamonds where you do waive those rights to be searched. But without that, and with my person or wallet etc. a valid warrant is required, as I understand it, hopefully (but I am realistic here) based on some higher standard of probably cause.
Charon
-
At the risk of opening a second can of worms, the constitution limits the government, not private citizens.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, but a private company can. If you mouth off to the press about something your company does not want public, you can be fired.
If your company decides to begin drug testing, they can search your pee for drugs, or you are free to decide to quit.
They can search your e-mail account because it's theirs, not yours.
Disneyland use to have a dress code. That's ok, it is their park, their policy.
Limits on our behavior or your company's behavior are statutory law, not constitutional. Your constitutional rights guarantee that the government cannot sanction you for your speech or your religion, or what you hold private without just cause.
A private company can hold you to their standards which can be more restrictive than those set by the constitution.
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, but a private company can. If you mouth off to the press about something your company does not want public, you can be fired.
If your company decides to begin drug testing, they can search your pee for drugs, or you are free to decide to quit.
They can search your e-mail account because it's theirs, not yours.
Disneyland use to have a dress code. That's ok, it is their park, their policy.
Limits on our behavior or your company's behavior are statutory law, not constitutional. Your constitutional rights guarantee that the government cannot sanction you for your speech or your religion, or what you hold private without just cause.
A private company can hold you to their standards which can be more restrictive than those set by the constitution.
True. My company can require a piss test (spelled out as a term of employment) or search my desk at will. But can my company search my person or wallet (or purse for women) or for that matter my car without having made that clear as a term of employment up front? I believe, if they think I stole something, for example, they still have to call the police and have something to back up that accusation before they search my person or personal possessions. Again, if that wasn't a clear term of employment in the handbook and application, etc.
Charon
-
My company has a policy of no firearms on company property. Including locked in my car. That I choose to continue my employment is an implicit agreement that they can look in my car for a gun.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My company has a policy of no firearms on company property. Including locked in my car. That I choose to continue my employment is an implicit agreement that they can look in my car for a gun.
Or that we even deal with that company in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It does seem shady that a warrant was not produced. Don't police officers carry pre-signed John Doe warrants for such cases where a warrant is needed on the scene? I would not be satisfied with a telephone warrant (is there such a thing?), but one on paper that I could see and read if I was determined to make the police produce a warrant. I'm not sure I understand why folks go to the trouble of postponing the inevitable far as a search warrant is concerned, but if it has to be then it should be readable. You shouldn't have to take their word they have one.
I'm glad this fellow didn't get in trouble, but given the current way of things imo he was not very smart using a school computer to discuss firearms, particularly in a gun hostile state. I hope he wrote every word after thinking about it and how it could possibly be construed. It's sometimes hard to convey meaning on forums without being misunderstood. Heck yes you can get in trouble, and believe it or not, writing on a computer forum is serious business. At least the police were nice about it. Were these campus police, or campus and city police in conjunction?
Les
God help us if the cops can carry pre-signed warrants.... why bother with warrants at all in that case?
In this day and age, if a judge believes such an accusation constitutes just cause, the judge can issue the warrant, and the search can be conducted, all without a rights violation.
I suspect our threshold for just cause is far lower today than ever, but let's not give up our freedom for a little more security.
-
Talon X, in reference to warrants "john doe" was the term my Dad used while mentioning it to me when I was a teenager, late 60s early 70s. John Doe is probably not the correct term, but dad said police carried warrants in their cars. Dad was not a policeman, but one of his friends was and so I'm sure something was lost in his telling me about it. He only mentioned it once during conversation and I didn't question him. We were talking about the Police at the time. Dad knew several policemen because the company he was employed with repaired police radios from time to time. In any event, this was over 35 years ago when I heard that, and as Mav has pointed out, I stand corrected.
Kinda off topic. Dad took my friend and me to the police range one day so I could shoot the old hammer lock double barrel .12 gauge. With buck shot no less!!! This was after warming up with a .410. I was about 10 at the time and it was the first time I had ever fired a shotgun. Arm had a bruise on it for several days. I was a wuss am ashamed to say, but that .12 gauge hurt. My friend was with us and he was the same way when he shot it. My dad's friend was a Lt. at the time and he was hitting the iron man target at about 100 yards or so using a .38 special. That was some awesome shooting. The Lt. showed us how to place the shotgun stock snugly to the meaty part of the shoulder to reduce the kick. Problem was there wasn't much meat there, but a double barrel has considerable kick. I can't remember if we shot the .38.
Les
-
Originally posted by TalonX
God help us if the cops can carry pre-signed warrants.... why bother with warrants at all in that case?
In this day and age, if a judge believes such an accusation constitutes just cause, the judge can issue the warrant, and the search can be conducted, all without a rights violation.
I suspect our threshold for just cause is far lower today than ever, but let's not give up our freedom for a little more security.
Unless I'm wrong, and I probably am, I'm pretty sure that you can challenge the issuing of the warrant. A judge can sign away, but it's the same way with probable cause, intentional bad evidence can get a warrant thrown out, and in the process, all the evidence collected from that warrant.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Here is an incident that happened recently in California... (snip)
Charon
Question, were these Santa Monica Community College Campus police, or Santa Monica police? There is a huge difference between the two. SMPD are professionals, community campus police, well.. to put it kindly they're bottom feeders. I wouldn't put it past them to substitute bullpoop for training and BS their way along.
I also wonder if this was an evening class.... granted I've been retired for a few years, but in my day there was no such thing as a telephonic warrant during the day when there were judges 'on duty' and available to read them, besides that all telephonic warrants usually went through a DA command post 1st. A true telephonic warrant must be accompanied with a hard copy for the suspect to read, usually via fax.
On top of that unless the police had additional reliable information and / or personal observations for additional PC, such as a duly trained police K-9 alerting on his backpack, or corroborating witnesses... no way in hell they get a warrant
In either case he should obtain the "CF" forms to file a complaint, unless the case law has changed, they have exactly 30 min before a detention becomes unreasonable, and he should press them on the telephonic warrant, it sounds like a pile of BS to me... esp if it came from the campus pseudo- police.
-
I also wonder if this was an evening class.... granted I've been retired for a few years, but in my day there was no such thing as a telephonic warrant during the day when there were judges 'on duty' and available to read them, besides that all telephonic warrants usually went through a DA command post 1st. A true telephonic warrant must be accompanied with a hard copy for the suspect to read, usually via fax.
The Warrant part does appear to be a hold up. In fact, they are not being very cooperative on releasing the incident report. I believe it's the campus police.
I went in to pick up the report today.
It had been almost exactly 9 24 hour periods since the report was filed, so I had figured that it should be available. (they had told me to come back in 7-10 days and 9 days seems to be plenty.
Well guess what.... I show up today and they don't want to give me the report. In the words of the people in the back room "He's not getting it today" I don't know if they think I'm deaf or stupid, but a sickly sweet smile doesn't cover up the feeling of being jerked around. And it doesn't mean that I can't hear the conversations you're having a few yards away from me (the glass is bulletproof, not soundproof)
Apparently it should be ready on the 12th (mind you this was originally filed last wednesday the 29th. Apparently I have to wait 10 SCHOOL days (the receptionists words not mine) for a copy of the report....
If I show up on wednesday (TWO WEEKS after the report was initiated) and find out that I have to wait an extra day because a federal holiday occurred during my "10 school day" wait I believe I will be mildly upset.
I made a special trip to school today to get the report (I don't have class on friday) so I'm not happy about this turn of events.
I remained polite and didn't make waves, but its getting ridiculous.
Does anyone know if it is actually 7-10 business days you have to wait for a report or 7-10 24 hour periods? I'd like to know if I am just being paranoid or if I'm getting jerked around. (you think that they'd have mentioned it to me when they explained it the first time if I had to wait a full 10 business days)
-
My Father had some wise words on the subject of rights.
'The only rights you have are those other people let you have'.
The police had to act on the information received. They would probably do the same thing again tomorrow. They can't take the risk of ignoring a suspicion given the current state of paranoia. His refusal to allow them to search his bag while within his rights merely reinforced the suspicion. Consider the scenario where that guy of Arab extraction, who had been reported by someone and who refused to allow anyone to search his bag. What do the cops do, stand there sweating, while imagining a ticking bomb in the bag or search it?
Make no mistake, I seriously resent any breach of the rights I have been granted by other people but I allow myself to be searched in situations where I know why they feel they have to search me. He knew exactly why they wanted to check his bag. He drew the line at that but he must have known the likely consequences.
You really have to have common sense in these situations. He claims he was polite at all times. But he comes across as an opinionated individual who may well have drawn attention to himself in the school. The fact the story appeared on the internet and the fact that he evidentally pursued the warrant matter seems to point to that.
If a warrant is produced, well then his rights were never violated. If a warrant wasn't issued then he's scored one against the 'man'. Big deal!
Half the people here complain when an offender gets away with something because the authorities can't act because his rights might be offended. But they are quick to complain if the police accost them with a few questions. At worst, this guy was merely inconvenienced and embarrassed. Get over it and move on!
-
Originally posted by Charon
The Warrant part does appear to be a hold up. In fact, they are not being very cooperative on releasing the incident report. I believe it's the campus police.
I called an old pal at SMPD I went to the academy with (17 years ago) and ran the story by him, he laughed at the idea the campus police could even get a telephonic warrant, he questioned if any of them even knew what # to call.
He asked the same question I did; if a k-9 had alerted on the bag or not, which is how its usually done. A telephonic warrant is for exigent circumstances, judges want to hear and usually ask if a K-9 has alerted on the bag (car / house whatever) because it's considered solid PC, dogs rarely get it wrong and are non bias tools.. witnesses lie, change stories and are can be motivated to tell stories. Besides that K-9s are readily available and only take a minute at most to alert or not.
Besides that SM court / city hall / SMPD, with an on call judge most nights, is 13 or so blocks away... they are close enough to drive a hard copy to a judge in minutes.
He said he trusts them "about as far as he throw them" and that SMPD has investigated wrong doing by them many times before.
I highly suggest this dude goes to SMPD and runs this story past a real police supervisor, it sounds like these $17hr campus heroes pulled some major BS...
And I'll bet $20 when he finally gets a copy of the paperwork, after the run around for a few weeks while they hope he gives up, it will state "the subject gave us permission to search his backpack", OR there will be no official written report.. but whats called a "log report", a few vague sentences like "contacted subject Doe, Jon DOB 00/00/00 re: possible 417, ck'd ok" with no mention of a bogus telephonic warrant.
I'll bet another $20 these campus dudes pull this telephonic warrant BS all the time but never get called on it, most folks blindly trust "the police" and dont want to go through the 'hassle' of asking questions or filing a complaint.
-
BTW telephonic warrants are covered under PC817(c) below.. like I said it MUST be accompanied by a hard copy.
817(c)PC via http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Some highlights:
(c) In lieu of the written declaration required in subdivision
(b), the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath under
either of the following conditions:
(1) The oath shall be taken under penalty of perjury and recorded
and transcribed.
(2) The oath is made using telephone and facsimile transmission
equipment, or made using telephone and electronic mail, under all of
the following conditions:
(D) The magistrate shall transmit via facsimile transmission
equipment, or via electronic mail, the signed warrant to the
declarant who shall telephonically acknowledge its receipt. The
magistrate shall then telephonically authorize the declarant to write
the words "duplicate original" on the copy of the completed warrant
transmitted to the declarant and this document shall be deemed to be
a duplicate original warrant.
-
'The only rights you have are those other people let you have'.
You really have to have common sense in these situations. He claims he was polite at all times. But he comes across as an opinionated individual who may well have drawn attention to himself in the school. The fact the story appeared on the internet and the fact that he evidentally pursued the warrant matter seems to point to that.
He can be as opinionated as he wants. He has rights and if the government chooses to infringe those rights it better be done correctly with the proper probable cause. The government is technically supposed to be subservient to the people on this side of the pond, btw. The whole Bill of Rights clearly delineates some areas where the Individual rights are sacrosanct. The government doesn't like that and pushes where it can, and a lot of people could care less and certain things gradually become "acceptable." But some still do care. If you don't exercise your rights you lose them by default.
A lot of activist firearm owners are starting to push those rights now, particularly with the open carry issue. Really kind of having our "stonewall" moment, so to speak. Just a reminder to the local governments and petty fiefdoms that until the laws are changed officially we still have rights and we will exercise those rights (at least those still living in free states). Somebody has to sit down in the front of the bus, every now and then.
Once Parker/Heller goes to the SCOTUS, there may be a lot more opinionated people doing their thing. If the outcome is as expected. Plenty in my neck of the woods for sure, starting with King Daley and Ye Olde County of Cooke.
Charon