Vigilance, Perseverance, Justice
Subscribe to feed
‹ Pitch Forks • Bizarre… ›
February 24, 2012 in Uncategorized by Timbuk3 | 26 comments
5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)
One key point:
If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said “no” to the search.
Tags: Authoritarians, Judiciary
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=7612
iconoclast_555 on February 24, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Doesn’t the PA act kinda preclude all of this?
And if you refuse access, might not the administration order a drone strike against you?
Apparently, that’s the law of this land, ever since we booted that evil Dubya and elected that saintly Obama.
Log in to Reply
Timbuk3 on February 25, 2012 at 12:40 am
“Doesn’t the PA act kinda preclude all of this?”
If we’re talking about an expectation of privacy in electronic communication, I’d have to agree. Not to defend the Patriot Act in any way, but as far as I’m concerned anyone who’s actually committing a crime and talks on a phone about it, emails about it, or post on a blog about it, is an idiot who deserves to be caught.
That’s not to say I think the government has the right to eavesdrop on us without a warrant. I absolutely don’t agree they have that right.
But I don’t want the value of the article to get lost in that. The real point is, don’t surrender your rights for your own convenience. Example, you’re justifiably pulled over for speeding and the cop says “I’ll let you off on the speeding if you’ll let me bring my drug sniffing dog and walk around your car.” Unless you’re on the way to the hospital because you’re stroking out, refuse. At least ask him what probable cause he has that you have drugs in your car, and don’t accept “we get a lot of drugs on this route” as an answer. You were pulled over for speeding, remember? That has nothing to do with being a drug mule. Hell, any decent judge would agree that drug mules are probably careful about speed.
Why pay a speeding ticket when you can get off so easily (because you know there are no drugs in the car)? Because every time you give into this blackmail you allow the 4th amendment to be eroded just a little bit more. You give the police state a little more power.
If a genie gave me three wishes, one of them might be “I wish every American knew the laws that govern them.” It might make them smarter voters, to boot.
The second would be a very carefully worded request for more money than I can spend in the rest of my life.
I’d keep the third, for emergencies.
iconoclast_555 on February 25, 2012 at 6:06 am
My point was that, increasingly, are rights are basically written on wet paper.
With a powerful lawyer you might be able to fight for them, but in reality, in a country where the potus can unilaterally kill you without trial, your rights aren’t strong enough to wipe your ass with.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 12:48 am
the potus can unilaterally kill you without trial
Read the constitution. Specifically, read article 1, section 6, and article 3, section 3.
Go ahead, I’ll wait, or accept my layman’s interpretation; If you declare war on the US we reserve the right to fucking kill you. Not the POTUS. EVERYONE who lives here. Declare war on the US, and I’ll fucking shoot you myself, knowing full well the courts will be on my side BECAUSE I FULFILLED MY DUTY TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
The fucker who had declared open war on ME and my CHILDREN and my GRANDCHILDREN wasn’t someone who was pulled over for speeding, and he no longer had any civil rights. Treason is a serious fucking crime UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US.
I’m OK with standing on principle. I’m less OK with supporting sworn enemies of the country I happen to live in.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 5:00 am
“If you declare war on the US we reserve the right to fucking kill you.”
Actually, Congress has the right to declare war – and then we can kill. The potus (or executive) has no right to unilaterally kill a US citizen without trial, which he’s done.
I point to the 5th Amendment.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 11:12 am
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I’m pretty sure I can find one more person who’d be willing to give testimony that the shit-stain you’re so hell-bent on defending had declared war on America.
You’re welcome to defend a sworn enemy of the US. You’re welcome to ignore the fact that he, not the POTUS, chose to end his rights as a citizen. But it clearly delineates who you are, and what your goals are, when you do. Which explains why you’re worried about being nuked from the sky, and I’m not.
I’ve already gone on record as being opposed to the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with your allegation that the POTUS can order a drone strike if you refuse some local pig access to search your vehicle when you’re pulled over for speeding.
Try not throwing out so many red herrings and straw men, willya?
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 3:53 pm
OK, no prob. Let the executive state the entire case, without any check or balance, and let the shit-stain be executed without due process.
You might be next.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm
“You might be next.
Only if I become a traitor and declare war on the US. Not likely, given that I’ve taken an oath to defend the constitution.
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 5:10 am
BTW, it was through fear mongering that the PA was passed in the first place.
Don’t be so askeered that you’ll allow your rights to be curtailed.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 1:03 am
are (sic) rights are basically written on wet paper.
There’s a huge divide between us. I say that we only have these rights if we insist on keeping them, “remaining ever vigilant”. Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying we’ve already surrendered them.
Not to sound like a right-winger, but the price of peace, as well as our rights, is eternal vigilance. There’s no shortage of fuckwipes like the Koch brothers who’d gleefully take both from us.
Obama, and any member of congress, isn’t my “savior”. It’s MY job to fight, not theirs.
I can expect them to fight for me, but I can also shit in one hand and wish in the other, and place a bad bet on which will fill first.
I’m fucking tired of this “I voted, therefore I am resolved of any responsibility because I live in a representative Democracy” attitude. Give up, if that is your need or wont. But don’t criticize peen or me for not doing the same. I fully intend to remain firmly lodged in my Rep’s ass, telling him what to do to represent ME, not himself.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 1:16 am
With a powerful lawyer
Gawd, you live in a bleak world. I honestly pity you.
I got in trouble with the law, once. I had a public defender. He’s since deceased, but he was a great guy.
After that, I got a Ph.D.
I only have the rights I insist I have. I only have the position I earn for myself. And at some level I can’t rely on the government, I’m responsible for my own outcome in life. That’s not “right wing”. That’s fucking caveman reality.
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 5:04 am
“Gawd, you live in a bleak world. I honestly pity you.”
Sorry, the last time I checked, the world IS pretty bleak.
If you’re rich enough you can get off with almost anything these days. See the banks? The the oil companies? See the Dubya/Cheney cabal? Or a long etc.?
You seem to be in one bad mood…
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 11:24 am
“You seem to be in one bad mood
I’m tired of unfounded allegations being used to besmirch a POTUS who, under the circumstances he was handed, has done a good job. He’s a likable guy, and a pretty good vocalist, too. The RW has gone mad trying to find a way to make him “the other”. He’s a socialist, Hitler, not the right kind of “christian” … there’s an extremely long list of things they’ve called him.
If I ever have the chance to “have a beer with him”, I’m going to enjoy it. I’ll ask him if he has any plans to nuke ordinary Americans who are pulled over for speeding and refuse a search. I suspect he’ll laugh and ask who was crazy enough to make that allegation. I’ll ask him if he thinks the next POTUS will claim that right/ability, based on his actions. I suspect he’ll (rightly) point out that would be unconstitutional, and he hopes the GOP doesn’t control congress if a GOP POTUS claims that right, but we’ll probably agree we wouldn’t bet on a GOP congress holding a GOP POTUS accountable, such is their cognitive dissonance; IOKIYAR.
I know who to fear, and it’s not the Democrats or our POTUS.
It’s the GOP, who have become so extreme I don’t think they stand a chance of winning the vast squishy middle.
Yeah, the world has become pretty bleak. But it’s not because of politics or because of whoever happens to control the economics, right now. It’s because we’ve seriously overpopulated the planet, and we shit where we live and eat. I don’t know what to do about that.
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm
You’re tired of unfounded allegations?
Whatever happened to the paladin of the Tittieboard?
What the hell what would you do if we had an actual rwinger hereabouts – instead of a token leftist and a bunch of centrists?
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 6:04 pm
“What the hell what would you do if we had an actual rwinger hereabouts”
Rip ‘em a new one.
iconoclast_555 on February 26, 2012 at 5:01 am
“There’s a huge divide between us. I say that we only have these rights if we insist on keeping them, “remaining ever vigilant”.”
Then why don’t you defent the 5th?
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 11:15 am
I think that advising people not to submit to a search without probably cause is defending the 4th, but I see no reasonable argument that it’s not also defending the 5th, the right to not incriminate oneself.
iconoclast_555 on February 28, 2012 at 12:26 pm
The 5th’s text is as follows:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
Thus your defense of the 4th, and mine of the 5th, are similar.
pnh on February 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm
If Alvarez wasn’t so determined to try to use as many opportunities as possible to find evil and make it Obama’s fault — he might have made a point.
For some years now the customary advice — such as that given in the OP — is only as good as a particular state’s regard for the constitutional principles involved. I’ve seen state supreme court — and later the US supreme court — uphold some ridiculous stuff.
As Tim has been saying — probably starting the first day I met him — it’s about the supreme court. A president is only an administrator — somebody essentially hired to do a job with duties laid out by the constitution and laws passed by congress — with the supreme court being the authority on how those things are to be interpreted.
Even with a Democratic president and congress — as long as the supreme court is packed with right wing ideologues — right wingers have the potential to challenge and tear down any good they would do — anyway.
When Tim used to talk about the supreme court — I was dismissive — associating that with abortion. I wasn’t impressed — wasn’t going to support somebody I didn’t like/want to protect abortion. Now I’ve come to understand that abortion is probably way down the list of threats from a right wing court. I even wonder if perhaps the right deliberately keeps abortion in the news for the purpose of making it seem that abortion is the only concern — hoping that folks will be dismissive of the idea that the supreme court alone is a strong enough reason to stand with Dems despite other disagreements.
Thanks to the supreme court and twisted reasoning — it’s de facto law that folks in Texas are supposed to carry “papers” — that you can be arrested for not having proof of ID on you. Technically — only folks on probation or parole are supposed to identify themselves when asked — but well — if you don’t identify yourself how can they know you’re not on probation or parole — so it’s a twisted ass justification for essentially searching somebody without cause. If you’re near some place that they were called — that you “might” be involved or know something — and that you “might” be on probation or parole — is “probable cause” for arresting you if you don’t identify yourself.
I still don’t carry ID everywhere I go. I don’t drive — my money is direct deposited and I don’t write checks in stores — anymore. So far I haven’t been near any kind of event — but I almost wish for it. I’m going to refuse to say a damned thing and won’t hand them ID. It might not change anything — but I’ll gladly go to jail just for the personal satisfaction of making a statement that I refuse to be subjected to any kind of search when there is no reason to suspect me. What I “might” be isn’t good enough — and I refuse to start proving I’m not all of the numerous things I “might” be.
So — with things like that in mind — I’d probably vote for just about any Dem candidate. Even if I didn’t support him — I damned sure wouldn’t try to work against him in some attempt to blackmail the rest into listening to me — as if all the other voters agree with me or I — all by my lonesome — can get them in office and keep them there.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“As Tim has been saying — probably starting the first day I met him”
Probably before then.
“it’s about the supreme court.”
A POTUS serves, at most, 8 years. Senators 6, Reps 2. Of course they can be re-elected many times, but they have to win, which means they can’t piss too many people off.
SCOTUS justices are appointed for life, and are pretty much unaccountable to anyone once they’re confirmed. That’s as it should be; we want them to be independent, but it’s also scary as hell when you get judges like Scalia, or even worse Alito, who could outlive *me*. We could easily have 5 different POTUS, maybe more, before the disaster that is Alito leaves the court.
“A president is only an administrator — somebody essentially hired to do a job with duties laid out by the constitution and laws passed by congress — with the supreme court being the authority on how those things are to be interpreted.
Even with a Democratic the most liberal/progressive imaginable president and congress — as long as the supreme court is packed with right wing ideologues — right wingers have the potential to challenge and tear down any good they would do — anyway.”
Agreed, as long as you’ll let me make the one change in bold.
The SCOTUS has the last word. That matters.
pnh on February 26, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Probably before then.
Yeah. Considering how strongly you seemed to believe it — it’s a safe bet that when I met you that wasn’t a brand new idea.
I’m sure you had some idea what I meant. That the strongest memory I have about you from my early days on Yahoo — so — I wouldn’t be surprised if when i first met you — that’s what you were talking about. I don’t know when you started posting about that — but it’s likely that me reading those posts “started” as soon as I ran into you.
Timbuk3 on February 26, 2012 at 11:09 pm
“I’m sure you had some idea what I meant.”
Absolutely crystal clear. I’m honored and humbled that you remembered. I was just teasing an old friend.
Timbuk3 on February 27, 2012 at 12:30 am
“Now I’ve come to understand that abortion is probably way down the list of threats from a right wing court.”
Sigh. I get so tired of cleaning up your use of the English language.
(I’m teasing, again. Relax.)
Now I’ve come to understand that abortion is probably way down the list of threats from a right wing court.
There’s no question about this. I realize you have a good memory, but you may not remember I didn’t oppose Alito because of his stance on abortion. It was because he thinks it’s perfectly OK for cops to finger bang a 12 year old to check her for drugs, and he’s only surpassed in being anti-middle class / pro corp by Roberts.
Right now we have 4 justices who will vote in favor of the police state and “supply side econimics”, AKA corporate rule, EVERY time, and one (Kennedy) who will mostly do that. Since any or all of the other 4 will do that, too, more often than not, we have one of the worst SCOTUS in history.
We don’t make that better by making it worse. If I have to explain that sentence, I’ll go mad.
So, we need a succession of liberal/progressive, or at least Democratic, POTUS for the rest of my life to set things right.
The RW won by thinking long term. We need to do the same. And yes, that means accepting incremental gains over rainbow farting unicrorns that don’t exist.
iconoclast_555 on February 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm
“So, we need a succession of liberal/progressive, or at least Democratic, POTUS for the rest of my life to set things right.”
Kagan hasn’t exactly been a becon of even centrism, has she?
Timbuk3 on February 28, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Kagan is far more likely to vote in ways that benefit the middle class than Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts, and probably Kennedy.
So I’m not sure what you’re asking.
iconoclast_555 on February 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm
“If Alvarez wasn’t so determined to try to use as many opportunities as possible to find evil and make it Obama’s fault — he might have made a point.”
Forget about your interpretation of previous stances. If I have a point, I have one.
Our executive now has the power to kill an American citizen without due course – and without having to show probable cause.
The current potus might be expected to show restraint and not to abuse this abuse. But future potus’?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Powered by WordPress and Tarski