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