Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: UK police fired, 4th Amendment violation

  1. #1
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039

    UK police fired, 4th Amendment violation

    The comments at the bottom of these links will make you sick. Was this kid being rude? Sure. Is being rude illegal? No. People don't understand their right. I just wonder if the fired cop will try to sue UK?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPYS5HdQaT4



    Anyhow, this LEO was fired within 48 of this incident

    http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headli...183250092.html
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Are UK cops "real" cops? Or are they "real" cops only on campus?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Are UK cops "real" cops? Or are they "real" cops only on campus?
    I can't speak for UK, but at least at U of L the cops are real, legally sanctioned police with arrest powers and so forth.

    At Georgetown(the KY, not the DC one) where I did my undergrad, the "cops" are rent-a-cops and don't have any power other than what the school specifically allows them.

    And, yes the kid was being a punk but I don't recall there being an exemption for punks in the 4th amendment. From what I've read in my wandering over this story, the student handbook DOES specify the right of the police to enter the room without a warrant, but does NOT grant them the right to search without one.
    Last edited by bunnspecial; 12-13-2012 at 10:05 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by bunnspecial View Post
    I can't speak for UK, but at least at U of L the cops are real, legally sanctioned police with arrest powers and so forth.

    At Georgetown(the KY, not the DC one) where I did my undergrad, the "cops" are rent-a-cops and don't have any power other than what the school specifically allows them.

    And, yes the kid was being a punk but I don't recall there being an exemption for punks in the 4th amendment. From what I've read in my wandering over this story, the student handbook DOES specify the right of the police to enter the room without a warrant, but does NOT grant them the right to search without one.
    So UK's student handbook prevails over the United States Constitution?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    So UK's student handbook prevails over the United States Constitution?
    Truthfully, I think that UK is probably on shaky ground by having that provision, but none the less it's there.

    They've already had their butts handed to them in court once this year over students'/employees' rights(Mitchell v. UK) so maybe this one will go also!

  6. #6
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by bunnspecial View Post
    Truthfully, I think that UK is probably on shaky ground by having that provision, but none the less it's there.

    They've already had their butts handed to them in court once this year over students'/employees' rights(Mitchell v. UK) so maybe this one will go also!
    I guess time will tell. It makes my stomach turn to read the comments from youtube and WKYT. A lot of people don't see anything that the LEO did wrong. I think they are taking the LEO's side because the kid was being a sh!t head. But being a sh!t head isn't illegal and you don't forfeit your rights just because of your attitude.

    Did the kid bait the cops? Sure. He even said he did."I'm excited about it and I feel he got what he deserves. I egged him on and he took the bait and now he's where he should be." Do cops bait us? All the time. A good honest LEO shouldn't be able to be baited in the first place.

    Another part that bothers me is that the LEO wasn't fired for illegal search....he was fired for pushing the student.
    Last edited by self preservation; 12-13-2012 at 11:28 AM.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Are UK cops "real" cops? Or are they "real" cops only on campus?
    They're real cops, they are actually one of the biggest police forces in Kentucky. You cannot go anywhere near the campus without seeing a UK police.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4
    I know the kid in that video his name is graham and what they did to him was disgusting no matter what his attitude is

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaOC View Post
    I know the kid in that video his name is graham and what they did to him was disgusting no matter what his attitude is
    It most certainly was.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by bunnspecial View Post
    Truthfully, I think that UK is probably on shaky ground by having that provision, but none the less it's there.

    They've already had their butts handed to them in court once this year over students'/employees' rights(Mitchell v. UK) so maybe this one will go also!
    I agree .

    You can put anything in a lease or Student handbook. It doesn't make it legal. If it violates the constitution then it may be challenged in a court of law. As was the case here. I'm sure the student was addtressed and it will be changed.

    The kid was right, his dorm room is his home and he has a right to privacy. No matter who owns the property. Same applies to people who rent apartments and motel rooms.
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 01-03-2013 at 12:16 PM.
    Hoka hey

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    I agree .

    You can put anything in a lease or Student handbook. It doesn't make it legal. If it violates the constitution then it may be challenged in a court of law. As was the case here. I'm sure the student was addtressed and it will be changed.

    The kid was right, his dorm room is his home and he has a right to privacy. No matter who owns the property. Same applies to people who rent apartments and motel rooms.
    I've been suspicious of the so-called "right to privacy" angle on the Fourth Amendment for a while.

    The 4A guarantees the right to be secure in person, papers, houses, and effects. The privacy angle, apparently manufactured by SCOTUS, was quickly watered down under a court-manufactured standard that includes whether society recognizes a desire for privacy in a given situation--the same society that too often espouses the idea "I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind", the same society that tolerates being sexually assaulted and irradiated by government agents at airports.

    But, the pendulum is starting to swing back. A couple months ago, I saw a write-up on a legal blog that shot a few holes in the privacy angle. And, more recently, another paper appeared.

    If I recall, the author of the first paper did a little research and found that the court just made up the privacy angle to argue against a strawman standard that itself was never used by previous courts. This is not to say there is no right to privacy; just that the 4A shouldn't be watered down by a privacy standard. If I come across either paper again, I'll link it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I've been suspicious of the so-called "right to privacy" angle on the Fourth Amendment for a while.

    The 4A guarantees the right to be secure in person, papers, houses, and effects. The privacy angle, apparently manufactured by SCOTUS, was quickly watered down under a court-manufactured standard that includes whether society recognizes a desire for privacy in a given situation--the same society that too often espouses the idea "I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind", the same society that tolerates being sexually assaulted and irradiated by government agents at airports.

    But, the pendulum is starting to swing back. A couple months ago, I saw a write-up on a legal blog that shot a few holes in the privacy angle. And, more recently, another paper appeared.

    If I recall, the author of the first paper did a little research and found that the court just made up the privacy angle to argue against a strawman standard that itself was never used by previous courts. This is not to say there is no right to privacy; just that the 4A shouldn't be watered down by a privacy standard. If I come across either paper again, I'll link it.
    You are correct. While we do have a right to privacy. It isn't discussed in the 4th amendment. I should have said we are supposed to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have ruled that "house" is generally defined as privately owned, rented or leased properties. It's easy to see how right to privacy and being secure in our person, houses.... can be intertwined. Sorry to mis-speak.
    Hoka hey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •