If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Brent P" > wrote in message ... > In article >, jaybird wrote: >> >> "Brent P" > wrote in message >> ... >>> In article >, jaybird wrote: >>> >>>> That's not entirely true. Your state has to issue you a valid driver's >>>> license to operate a vehicle on our (the citizen's) roadways. There >>>> are >>>> violations outlined in your state's laws where those privileges can be >>>> suspended, cancelled, or revoked. It is true that we all have the >>>> right >>>> to >>>> travel freely throughout the country, but driving a vehicle on public >>>> roadways has restrictions outlined in the states' traffic codes. >>> >>> Travel freely? There is no such right anymore. Use public >>> transportation, >>> you may be subject to search. Don't like it, don't use it. You travel by >>> air, same thing. Travel by rail, again, same deal. Travel by bicycle? >>> codified that a bicyclist can be stoped by an officer at any time. Walk? >>> well that court case was lost too, cops can demand papers. So what is >>> this right to travel freely jaybird? Because as I look around, each mode >>> of transportation has fallen. We have to give up our other rights to >>> travel from place to place. >>> >>> You can sit there and parrot the party line of your masters and tell us >>> the slippery slope isn't there, but each time we look around we are >>> further down the slope. > >> That's strange. I've used every mode of transportation you described and >> I've never had to endure any of that. I've had to put my bag on an xray >> machine in airports, but that's all. > > Subject to search. Didn't say it happened everyday or to everyone. > SUBJECT TO. And a bag being x-rayed is a form of search. > > Here again you show not only your ignorance of the english language but > of big city life. When special people come to town, the police start > excerising these powers. No special people, then not much is going to > happen. However the security checkpoints in large buildings downtown are > still in place regardless. I was merely pointing out the paranoia factor once again. Security checkpoints in large buildings downtown would make me feel safer. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Brent P" > wrote in message ... > In article >, jaybird wrote: >> >> "Brent P" > wrote in message >> ... >>> In article >, jaybird wrote: >>> >>>> I can explain that. A great expectation of privacy is inside our home. >>> >>> Why? > >> Ask the courts. > > They aren't arguing it here. You are. Defend your arguement. > >>>> It >>>> lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is mobile >>>> (in >>>> a >>>> nutshell). > >>> Why? > >> Again, ask the courts. Read up on some case law about it and that should >> answer it for you. > > It doesn't. You're presenting the arguement here. Your job to defend it > HERE. It is not my job to give you a class on case law. Just because you don't understand the levels of one's expectation of privacy does not make it my responsibility to teach you. I googled a few examples for you, but you'll just have to research it yourself. I didn't read through these completely, but they came up: United States v. Knotts Kyllo v. United States > >>>> Where the line has been drawn for K9 sniffs is that while it is >>>> true that your vehicle and its contents are "effects", the air that is >>>> around it is not private property. > >>> Neither is the heat signature of your home visable from the street. Nor >>> the sounds that can be picked up with a sensitive microphone. > >> ...which are more intrusive means than smelling air outside your vehicle. > > Maybe to you. I find the use of any equipment or trained animal subject > to the interpetation and honesty of the operator. That operator I do not > trust. Thusly regardless of how intrusive you or I find it, to me, it is > all equally objectionable _without_ warrant. And that's fine that you have your own opinion. I choose to operate according to our courts' opinions. A K9 sniff outside of a vehicle does not require a warrant. > >>>> If your vehicle has air coming from it >>>> to the outside, that air is not your property either. If a dog, or >>>> other >>>> means are used to detect an illegal substance in that air which is >>>> coming >>>> from private property, that gives cops the same reason to investigate >>>> where that air is coming from as it would if they were to look in your >>>> vehicle's windows from the outside and see something illegal. > >>> And if they hear you say something suspicious they should be able to >>> burst right into your home to. > >> Not necessarily. If you say something like "I've killed 3 people and set >> a >> nuclear device inside my house", then yes. If you say "don't tell that >> cop >> about the porn mags under my bed", that's not going to be enough. > > Porn is still legal in most forms. But you show your true colors here, > you have no problem with the warrantless monitoring itself. I have no problem with warrantless activities when done in accordance with our laws. > >>> There is no difference in the logic. Once you erase the bill of rights >>> in >>> one place, you effectively doom it everywhere. > >> No, you just need a better understanding of what our courts have ruled >> on. >> Individuals have different opinions, but we have to look to the court >> system >> to be a place where we can come to an agreement. > > The consitution is in plain and simple language. Every year these courts > you call 'a place of agreement' slide us ever so closer to a police > state. Ruling time and time again for the powers of the state and its > police forces. Unlike you, I don't have a special pass so I must be > concerned about things. > > I live in the state from where this court case came. It has blessed the > use of canine searches at whim. The speed limits here are set artifically > low. Dangerously low. I have no freedom of travel any more. At any time I > may be stopped, detained for hours, searched, questioned, forced to > produce documents, etc and so forth. That's not a free country. The only > thing still working in my favor is that the probability of it occuring is > low. That's not comforting. I know we have different opinions. All I can do is offer reasons why. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave C." > wrote in message ... > > "BE" > wrote in message > nk.net... >> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have a >> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your home, >> and that was the ruling made here. What am I missing? > > Nothing. Stay home. Don't leave it. Ever. Not even for > roceries. -Dave You can leave, just make sure you leave your pot at home. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message ... > jaybird wrote: > >> It all depends on the circumstances. There's not really one specific >> factor like this one that'll raise an eyebrow; it's a combination of >> circumstances. Just the sole factor of being nervous is not enough to >> start ripping your car apart. Nervousness coupled with other factors >> that we may never know about without reading this guy's case report were >> enough for this cop to pick up on more illegal activity. Apparently he >> did a damn good job. > > If the officer and prosecution did a good job, then case would not have > even made it to the USSC. That's not necessarily true. Many cases go all the way to the USSC which are valid, solid cases by law. Just look at the case of the lady arrested for the seatbelt violation: A****er v. City of Lago Vista. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
> Trust me, most (and notice, I say most, not all) cops can distinguish > between normal human anxiety and when a person has really done something > wrong. So what exactly constitutes the difference. Even jaybird states that this is only one of a number of factors and in itself does not cause suspicion unless it is present with those other factors. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
jaybird wrote:
> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually see > people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog outside of > a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of privacy > than a vehicle.... different circumstances. What about the air outside a residence? |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Paul wrote:
> And I'm sure that there are elements in our soceity that would like the > government to do just that - tak away our right to free speech on the > internet as a precursor to taking away our right to free speech > period... The government has skipped the internet step entirely. I'm sure you've heard of the practice of "free speech zones." Suprisingly West Virginia University had several designated areas with that designation. In other areas, you could be subject to arrest by campus police by airing your views in front of a crowd. I don't know if this is still the case. I also believe that this restriction existed during the Republican national convention as well. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
> Doug Warner wrote: >> (Brent P) wrote: >>> Subject to search. Didn't say it happened everyday or to everyone. >>> SUBJECT TO. And a bag being x-rayed is a form of search. >> And, I can't lock my luggage, otherwise they'll just cut/destroy the >> lock, and then steal whatever they want. Fortunately, I haven't had >> to fly anywhere since 9/11. At least, when >> I drive, I don't have to wait four hours in lines and risk a strip >> search every time. (My first thought on 9/11 when I realized it was >> a terrorist attack >> was: "Here comes the police state". It wasn't long in arriving.) >> (Some federal snooper will probably read this.) > But you see, if we won't have those "strip searches", we would have 20 > more 9/11s. 9/11 was a result of our assinine foreign policy (maintaining troops in Saudi Arabia for absolutely no good reason). Strip searching Americans does not solve anything. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 08:10 AM |
Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital | [email protected] | Driving | 1 | December 6th 04 01:17 PM |
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response | [email protected] | Corvette | 0 | October 9th 04 05:56 PM |