Another Rights Post

[Holden McGroin]

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.

[Charon]

"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

[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.

[lasersailor184]

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.

[TalonX]

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.

[Leslie]

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

[lasersailor184]

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.

[x0847Marine]

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.

[Charon]

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)

[cpxxx]

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!

[x0847Marine]

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.

[x0847Marine]

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.

[Charon]

'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