Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: O/T, but 4A related

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Text of story at the link -

    FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) -- The military says a Fort Campbell soldier was charged after refusing to allow a search of his vehicle and causing a gate into the installation to be shut down.

    Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said the soldier, whose name was not released, refused a random search at the gate on Thursday, causing security officers to consider the man and his vehicle a threat.

    The gate was closed for about 30 minutes.

    The soldier will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for making a threat or hoax intended to cause panic or public fear and possession of a prohibited item.
    I don't see the surprise here. ALL military bases are posted with Giant signs noting that all cars are subject to search, and most bases also have severe restrictions on possession of firearms.

    This guy gave consent for a search by attempting to enter the base. Oh and lets not forget that most bases might be just a bit sensitive to people carrying firearms in from the outside just now.

    Regards

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    intended to cause fear or panic? defiantly not. but a military base is one of those places where you leave your rights at the door before you enter. its about as bad as walking into a prison. as much as an inconvenience as it would be you just have to suck it up and let them search your car. they own you, you dont ask questions... unless your a sgt major or colonel haha than you just say f*** off and they do

  4. #4
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    r6-rider wrote:
    intended to cause fear or panic? defiantly not. but a military base is one of those places where you leave your rights at the door before you enter. its about as bad as walking into a prison. as much as an inconvenience as it would be you just have to suck it up and let them search your car. they own you, you dont ask questions... unless your a sgt major or colonel haha than you just say f*** off and they do
    IMO any MP standing some kind of guard duty that backs down to a Sgt Maj should be disciplined. Any time I stood duty at an entrance to a secured area, either they got the go-ahead because of a list or we called up the chain to get permission.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    i know i was just kidding. but i do see them get away with alot of stupid stuff because no ones wants to question them

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    Text of story at the link -

    FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) -- The military says a Fort Campbell soldier was charged after refusing to allow a search of his vehicle and causing a gate into the installation to be shut down.

    Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said the soldier, whose name was not released, refused a random search at the gate on Thursday, causing security officers to consider the man and his vehicle a threat.

    The gate was closed for about 30 minutes.

    The soldier will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for making a threat or hoax intended to cause panic or public fear and possession of a prohibited item.
    I don't see the surprise here. ALL military bases are posted with Giant signs noting that all cars are subject to search, and most bases also have severe restrictions on possession of firearms.

    This guy gave consent for a search by attempting to enter the base. Oh and lets not forget that most bases might be just a bit sensitive to people carrying firearms in from the outside just now.

    Regards

    Regards
    100% correct. You agree to a search before you enter any military base, or you don't enter. And the signs that say "deadly force authorized" aren't kidding either.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    Text of story at the link -

    FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) -- The military says a Fort Campbell soldier was charged after refusing to allow a search of his vehicle and causing a gate into the installation to be shut down.

    Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said the soldier, whose name was not released, refused a random search at the gate on Thursday, causing security officers to consider the man and his vehicle a threat.

    The gate was closed for about 30 minutes.

    The soldier will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for making a threat or hoax intended to cause panic or public fear and possession of a prohibited item.
    I don't see the surprise here. ALL military bases are posted with Giant signs noting that all cars are subject to search, and most bases also have severe restrictions on possession of firearms.

    This guy gave consent for a search by attempting to enter the base. Oh and lets not forget that most bases might be just a bit sensitive to people carrying firearms in from the outside just now.

    Regards

    Regards
    Being charged like he is is utter bull****!

    If he was chosen for random inspection, he still has the right to refuse. Refusal means he cannot enter the base. That means him & his vehicle get turned around and refused entry. The only way that would not be true would be if he was doing something illegal and the illegal actions were observed by the gate guards.

    It does NOT NOW OR EVER mean you forfeit your rights to refuse a search.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    r6-rider wrote:
    a military base is one of those places where you leave your rights at the door before you enter.
    Actually, that's not correct as a technica matter - the rights are still there, though the circumstances often allow for more "reasonable regulation."

    The facts of this case have yet to come out so its hard to say what actually happenned - but I have personally declined a car inspection atthe Fort Belvoir Gate and just was told to turn around and leave - no big deal, and this was after Sept. 11, 2001.

    However there is a inspection doctrine re airports that once you submit to air travel screening nspections, the government may seize you until the inspection is done - the idea is that if a bad guy is testing security, and the scanner spots somthing weird in the bag, the bad guy can't just say, "oops, changed my mind, I'm not flying today, see you later."

    if you want to balk at an airport inspection of your person and bags, you need to leave the line at the TSA screening point early enough that you don't get caught up in this doctrine - maybe the military is trying to apply this doctrine as bases, but frankly, this seems over bord - for example, what if while you are in line to ghet on post uyou relaize "oops, did mywife leave the shotgun in the trunk again? Maybe I better tunr around and go back off post to check before I try to get thru the gate."

    That would seem reasonable and prudent to me, especially since someties the no weapons signs appear just before you get to the gate guard point.

  9. #9
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    r6-rider wrote:
    a military base is one of those places where you leave your rights at the door before you enter.
    Actually, that's not correct as a technica matter - the rights are still there, though the circumstances often allow for more "reasonable regulation."

    The facts of this case have yet to come out so its hard to say what actually happenned - but I have personally declined a car inspection atthe Fort Belvoir Gate and just was told to turn around and leave - no big deal, and this was after Sept. 11, 2001.

    However there is a inspection doctrine re airports that once you submit to air travel screening nspections, the government may seize you until the inspection is done - the idea is that if a bad guy is testing security, and the scanner spots somthing weird in the bag, the bad guy can't just say, "oops, changed my mind, I'm not flying today, see you later."

    if you want to balk at an airport inspection of your person and bags, you need to leave the line at the TSA screening point early enough that you don't get caught up in this doctrine - maybe the military is trying to apply this doctrine as bases, but frankly, this seems over bord - for example, what if while you are in line to ghet on post uyou relaize "oops, did mywife leave the shotgun in the trunk again? Maybe I better tunr around and go back off post to check before I try to get thru the gate."

    That would seem reasonable and prudent to me, especially since someties the no weapons signs appear just before you get to the gate guard point.
    lol I have to laugh at that. Ft. Belvoir has a HUGE classified communications hub on the grounds. Top Secret (and probably higher) information. I honestly can't imagine why someone would try and get on base and not think they would be able to skip the search?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    r6-rider wrote:
    a military base is one of those places where you leave your rights at the door before you enter.
    Actually, that's not correct as a technica matter ¬*- the rights are still there, though the circumstances often allow for more "reasonable regulation."

    The facts of this case have yet to come out so its hard to say what actually happenned - but I have personally declined a car inspection at¬*the Fort Belvoir Gate and just was told to turn around and leave - no big deal, and this was after Sept. 11, 2001.¬*

    However there is a inspection doctrine re airports that once you submit to air travel screening nspections, the government may seize you until the inspection is done - the idea is that if a bad guy is testing security, and the scanner spots somthing weird in the bag, the bad guy can't just say, "oops, changed my mind, I'm not flying today, see you later."

    if you want to balk at an airport inspection of your person and bags, you need to leave the line at the TSA screening point early enough that you don't get caught up in this doctrine - maybe the military is trying to apply this doctrine as bases, but frankly, this seems over bord - for example, what if while you are in line to ghet on post uyou relaize "oops, did mywife leave the shotgun in the trunk again?¬* Maybe I better tunr around and go back off post to check before I try to get thru the gate."

    That would seem reasonable and prudent to me, especially since someties the no weapons signs appear just before you get to the gate guard point.
    I think the point of the post was outrage that people could be searched just because they want to enter a military base.

    Almost any base will allow people to turn around for a variety of reasons. Frequently the sentries will actually turn people away without a search. What they typically will NOT allow is people entering the base without a search if one is requested. In most cases a search is done on a random sample basis. But brother if you are the sample selected I suggest you recognize that in most cases you have entered the federal property by the time you reach the sentry, and let the guy do his job.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    It's worth noting that this is an active duty soldier, not a regular civilian, and he's being charged under military law.

    He signed up, and essentially agreed to that particular code of conduct and set of rules. In so doing, via his consent, he's bound by them. Same as any other contract, imo.

    Nothing to see here, as far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    It's worth noting that this is an active duty soldier, not a regular civilian, and he's being charged under military law.

    He signed up, and essentially agreed to that particular code of conduct and set of rules.¬* In so doing, via his consent, he's bound by them.¬* Same as any other contract, imo.

    Nothing to see here, as far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
    BINGO!! Give that man a cigar, he got the only bulls-eye on this issue.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    It's worth noting that this is an active duty soldier, not a regular civilian, and he's being charged under military law.

    He signed up, and essentially agreed to that particular code of conduct and set of rules. In so doing, via his consent, he's bound by them. Same as any other contract, imo.

    Nothing to see here, as far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
    BINGO!! Give that man a cigar, he got the only bulls-eye on this issue.
    This Bozo should also be charged with failure to obey a lawful order. The subject to search signs are there primarily for the Civilians. The Base Commander also has a set of General Ordersincludingand order that all Military members must obey the lawful orders of Security Forces personnel in the execution of their duties.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Unless he had something illegal in the car (drugs, explosives, etc.), all he would have had to do was to declare the weapons (if that is what he had) and either go to the armory and check them in, or turn around and take them home. Every base that I have ever been on would allow you to declare and check any weapons in your possession.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    It's worth noting that this is an active duty soldier, not a regular civilian, and he's being charged under military law.

    He signed up, and essentially agreed to that particular code of conduct and set of rules. In so doing, via his consent, he's bound by them. Same as any other contract, imo.

    Nothing to see here, as far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
    BINGO!! Give that man a cigar, he got the only bulls-eye on this issue.
    This Bozo should also be charged with failure to obey a lawful order. The subject to search signs are there primarily for the Civilians. The Base Commander also has a set of General Ordersincludingand order that all Military members must obey the lawful orders of Security Forces personnel in the execution of their duties.
    Do you know for a fact that a standing order was in place to require all service member base entrants to automatically submit to a vehicle inspection?

    I know that here in Norfolk, I can opt out of a vehicle inspection. If I do, I am required to turn around and leave w/o issue. This has been my experience at every military facility I've been to.

    Also, being military doesn't mean a cessation of all rights, even the 4th. For example, the Navy periodically conducts Health & Comfort inspections. They can inspect all of your rack, storage containers, and lockers. They do so to ensure things are maintained at a certain level of cleanliness and that potential health/ safety issues are caught. Now, the last time I went through one, it was made *VERY* clear that the inspector could only inspect (request I open containers, drawers, doors, latches, etc). They could not paw through my belongings.

    One of the reasons they could conduct these inspections is the facilities I was using was owned by the Navy and therefore, part of my agreement with them. They could inspect their property at any time and I had to agree to use it in an appropriate manner (which included allowing inspections). If I chose to use my own facilities, then they could NOT inspect my stuff.

    Going back to the detainment & unlawful search of the guy's vehicle... acceptable use of the base gate requires random inspections. If you decline such, you are required to not use the gate. Thus you must leave.

    A good lawyer will get the guy off the hook. A lawful order cannot permit an unlawful search. This is no different than telling a police officer 'No, I do NOT consent to this search' only to have the officer conduct it anyways. The officerbroke the law, just like the people at the gate did.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Do you know for a fact that a standing order was in place to require all service member base entrants to automatically submit to a vehicle inspection?

    I know that here in Norfolk, I can opt out of a vehicle inspection. If I do, I am required to turn around and leave w/o issue. This has been my experience at every military facility I've been to.

    SNIP...
    MCB Quantico has such a standing order. Clearly the base commander cannot "order" people not subject to his command to do anything. So his order is based on one of a few conditions being true. 1) You are in the military and are of lower rank than he. 2) You are on his base and you are lower rank than he. 3) You have signed a prior agreement for any number of possible reasons.

    On many bases a condition of employment is allowing a search of the vehicle when asked. By the time you enter the "chute" at the guard post, you are already on base property no matter what base you are entering.

    But the fact is that there is ALWAYS a big sign at the gate quoting the CFR that allows them to conduct searches. From the current story it would appear that this guy wanted to object to the search, and still enter the base or at least argued for such an option. These are mutually exclusive actions, and survivors who have attempted this approach are usually prosecuted.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    -snip-

    But the fact is that there is ALWAYS a big sign at the gate quoting the CFR that allows them to conduct searches. From the current story it would appear that this guy wanted to object to the search, and still enter the base or at least argued for such an option. These are mutually exclusive actions, and survivors who have attempted this approach are usually prosecuted.

    Regards
    Well, if he objected and still wanted in, he's got no legs to stand on unless he could get them to take a pass on the search (highly unlikely).

    The signage at the local Navy base here indicates entering the base constitutes consent to searches of your person and effects. (same metal sign that was posted when I was first stationed here in '95). From my Navy days, it was explained to us that if we wanted to refuse consent to search, we could merely choose to not enter the base which included turning around and leaving.

    Of course, that puts you in the infamous catch-22 of refusing the search makes you UA from your place of assigned duty vice letting them search your vehicle and person so you could go to work.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    -snip-

    But the fact is that there is ALWAYS a big sign at the gate quoting the CFR that allows them to conduct searches. From the current story it would appear that this guy wanted to object to the search, and still enter the base or at least argued for such an option. These are mutually exclusive actions, and survivors who have attempted this approach are usually prosecuted.

    Regards
    Well, if he objected and still wanted in, he's got no legs to stand on unless he could get them to take a pass on the search (highly unlikely).

    The signage at the local Navy base here indicates entering the base constitutes consent to searches of your person and effects. (same metal sign that was posted when I was first stationed here in '95). From my Navy days, it was explained to us that if we wanted to refuse consent to search, we could merely choose to not enter the base which included turning around and leaving.

    Of course, that puts you in the infamous catch-22 of refusing the search makes you UA from your place of assigned duty vice letting them search your vehicle and person so you could go to work.
    Exactly.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I was denied entry into Great Lakes Naval station a decade ago, I was on a service call to do some work on someoffice equipment at the base. Theguard at the gateasked for my identification and my car insurance card.
    I did not have my insurance card with me since a Wisconsin residentis not required to carry proof of insurance in their vehicle, or required to even have insurance for that matter.
    Illinois (where the base is located) requires car insurance, and proof of insurance in your car and the base will not allow vehicles through without it.

    So I was not allowed to enter the base. I made a phone call to the department I had the appointment with, I told them what was happening, they asked me to stand-by for a few minutes, and I was met outside the gate and escorted to my destinationwith someone with a uniform with a few more shiny decorations on it than the guards had. I have no idea of the rank of the person, but he made sure I was never delayed entry again. yes this was pre-9/11/01

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    It's worth noting that this is an active duty soldier, not a regular civilian, and he's being charged under military law.

    He signed up, and essentially agreed to that particular code of conduct and set of rules. In so doing, via his consent, he's bound by them. Same as any other contract, imo.

    Nothing to see here, as far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
    I agree, if the facts are as stated, it was a lawful order under the UCMJ. He disobeyed it at his risk. No 4th amendment issue whatsoever. If you can't obey the special circumstance rules which come with joining the military, don't join. I don't like not being able to have a pistol in my car when I go to work. But that is a condition of employment with the USAF as a civilian as it was when I was active duty. So is consent to search of yourvehicle.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Posting Permissions

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