-
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.
-
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.
O/T, but 4A related
- Thread starter suntzu
- Start date
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
suntzu wrote:
Text of story at the link -
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 -
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
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
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
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
r6-rider wrote:
r6-rider wrote:
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.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
r6-rider wrote:
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."
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.
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
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?
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
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
Mike wrote:
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
NightOwl
Regular Member
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.
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.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
NightOwl wrote:
BINGO!! Give that man a cigar, he got the only bulls-eye on this issue.:monkey
NightOwl wrote:
BINGO!! Give that man a cigar, he got the only bulls-eye on this issue.:monkey
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
Gordie
Regular Member
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.
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.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny 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.
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.
Decoligny 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.
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.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
darthmord wrote:
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
darthmord wrote:
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
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
Hawkflyer wrote:
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.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
darthmord wrote:
Exactly.
darthmord wrote:
Exactly.
Nutczak
Regular Member
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
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
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
NightOwl wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
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.