• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

UK police fired, 4th Amendment violation

bunnspecial

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
154
Location
Kentucky
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:

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
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?
 

bunnspecial

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
154
Location
Kentucky
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!
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
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:

BerettaOC

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
4
Location
Kentucky
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
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
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.
 
Top