Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: 4th amendment story...WtF

  1. #1
    Regular Member Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    89

    4th amendment story...WtF

    I go to a community college and was sitting outside having a conversation about a thread that I read on this forum. It had to do with the 4th amendment. As I'm telling this story a guy walks up and joins in. This is the debate that followed.

    Me: The officer couldn't search his car because he would not give them authority and they had no probable cause. Not that I condone breaking the law; if you are, why give the cops permission to search a vehicle you know has something illigal in there?

    DUDE: You have to give them permission. If you don't say yes, it implies guilt, then they can search.

    what? "It implies guilt"

    Me: you do know that's wrong?

    DUDE: No, that's the law.

    Me: then why even have a 4th amendment? If refusing a search is irrelevant then why even ask in the first place?

    DUDE: I don't know, that's just the law.

    Thats when I left. The point is, here is a man in his 30's with kids and doesn't know the basics of his constitutional rights. wow. I felt bad for him. but more importantly our country as a whole. a few million more of him and we got problems.

    True story, I was just bewildered, and I wonder why I can't quit smoking.
    T.V. brings on a whole new meaning to thinking inside the box.

    -M

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    people like him get to vote in representatives who make up things like, "the patriot act." There are millions of them.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  3. #3
    Regular Member Steeler-gal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    562
    DUDE: You have to give them permission. If you don't say yes, it implies guilt, then they can search.
    I took a legal ethics course taught by a lawyer a few years back. He used to talk real life situations with us before getting into the curriculum each night. The most important thing he told us is that law enforcement will say anything to get you to talk or search your person/house/car. To them you saying "no" does imply guilt and they'll use that guilt to get you to let them search your car, but it's not probable cause. You can still say No until they arrive with a search warrant.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    --
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm View Post
    The point is, here is a man in his 30's with kids and doesn't know the basics of his constitutional rights.
    And even more worrisome is that you yourself also seem to not have the completely accurate knowledge about your rights, at least your language implies you don't.

    Our rights are not constitutional rights. The constitution doesn't give any rights to anyone. The constitution gives privileges to the government. Your rights are god/nature given. The constitution is merely suppose to protect them from infringement primarily by the government.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Your friend has no real world experience in court -

    When a suspect invokes his right to remain silent, the invocation, and subsequent silence/refusal to answer questions is not admissible in court.

    Same deal when they decline an officer's request (usually a demand) to search - though the officer will write in their report the suspect was "uncooperative." However, once on the stand, the officer's characterization of the individual as "uncooperative" is objectionable on many levels - subjective, prejudicial, etc., and will be stricken. It may well be grounds for a mistrial.

    While refusal to consent to a search may imply guilt to an officer, in an objective analysis - the one the court uses - it adds nothing to the calculus of determining whether the officer's suspicion has risen to the level of "probable cause," which forces an officer to get clever and see if he can justify a warrantless search or arrest on other grounds.
    Last edited by DCR; 11-30-2011 at 11:31 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeler-gal View Post
    I took a legal ethics course taught by a lawyer a few years back. He used to talk real life situations with us before getting into the curriculum each night. The most important thing he told us is that law enforcement will say anything to get you to talk or search your person/house/car. To them you saying "no" does imply guilt and they'll use that guilt to get you to let them search your car, but it's not probable cause. You can still say No until they arrive with a search warrant.
    Officers think it implies guilt and might try to make you feel guilty, but legally it does not and can not imply guilt.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    I blame public schools, the goverment both federal and state control education and what content is taught. The goverment over the years has not taught goverment and how it works correctly. They have either stopped teaching kids what the goverment can or can't do and what rights people have or have replaced it by re-writing history and teaching lies. Call me paroniod but this is what I've noticed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Steeler-gal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Officers think it implies guilt and might try to make you feel guilty, but legally it does not and can not imply guilt.
    That is correct and is what I meant. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.
    =============================
    NRA Certified Instructor & Range Safety Officer
    Teaching classes in Lorton VA & Springfield VA
    PM me if you need a class, RSO or safety briefing

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeler-gal View Post
    That is correct and is what I meant. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.
    oh, oops.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Once again, the un-edjucated demonstrate their intelligence!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm View Post
    Thats when I left.
    What? The point is, here is a man in his 30's with kids and doesn't know the basics of his constitutional rights. You should feel bad for him, and realize that more importantly for our country as a whole that a few million more of him and we got problems.

    You should have continued to engage, doing what you can to help lead him towards a more appropriate understanding of the law. You may not succeed yourself, but "some plant, some water."

    Every little bit helps. Don't give up.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Tx
    Posts
    326
    Never get in to a battle of wits with the unarmed.....
    Lower the crime rate by lowering the criminal survival rate!
    When people say 'God Bless America' I'm sure He says, "I gave you Texas!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    About the only good the Fourth Amendment will do you is in the event that you are pulled over, and the officer, for whatever reason, goes rummaging through your vehicle, including your trunk, and discovers ten kilos of marijuana in a bag, is that the evidence would surely be thrown out. Mind you, I did not state that the officer cannot rummage through your car if it tickled his fancy - that includes your trunk. Worse-case, the officer is reprimanded. Best-case for you, you get to brag to your buddies about how you were driving around with ten kilos in your trunk, the police found your stash, but it was deemed inadmissible in court, and the case was thrown out.

    The guy was right that the police will view your not letting them search as an admission of guilt. "Probable cause" is a thing that plays out later on down the road in court, not on the highway where the officer is pretty much free to do whatever tickles his fancy.

    *gavel strike* Next case!
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-03-2011 at 07:29 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by mark-in-texas View Post
    never get in to a battle of wits with the unarmed.....
    qft...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by mark-in-texas View Post
    Never get in to a battle of wits with the unarmed.....
    Read the stats: "34 members and 538 guests." For every one of member, there are almost 16 others who fall into general categories. When you response to someone who is beyond hope, there are 16 others reading it, most of whom are not beyond hope.

    It's they to whom you're reaching out, not the single individual.

    Stay focused on your real, broader target....
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    About the only good the Fourth Amendment will do you is in the event that you are pulled over, and the officer, for whatever reason, goes rummaging through your vehicle, including your trunk, and discovers ten kilos of marijuana in a bag, is that the evidence would surely be thrown out.
    What mix of Kool-aid flavors did you thrown into that cauldron, Beretta92FSLady?

    Here's what it is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Here's what it does: I can rest in peace at night, walking about town, and driving throughout our country, knowing that if I've done nothing wrong, secure in my house against searches/seizures without a properly-based warrant.

    Forty-eight years of living, including multiple encounters with law enforcement (most of them at my initiation) has continually substantiated that this axiom holds mostly true. So, am I, a drug-free individual all for the 4th Amendment? You betcha!

    I find your attempt to staple it's protections to only those who use drugs as either incredibly ignorant of the law itself, or possibly misleading for nefarious purposes.
    Last edited by since9; 12-04-2011 at 05:28 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670

    yes those are the words...

    but if it is so clear cut, citizens w/should not have to defend themselves in this country's judicial system(s) against everyone's individualized interpretation(S) of the entire document, and we would not need the high court to rule on those words to protect its citizens...

    congraduations, you have been fortunate in your encounters with the system. there are others, who in similar situations, might not be fortrunate and not be able to afford to hire someone to show the protectors of our society they misunderstood the document's words or the protectors put their own spin on the term 'unreasonable' (patriot act notwithstanding - shudder) and now they have run afoul and now have to defend themselves against bad interpretation(s) of those basic words.

    that the OP was able to instill a doubt in the individual he was talking to should be commended...w/a little luck that individual will follow through w/that sown doubt and research the subject to make up their own mind, one way or the other.

    wabbit

    ps...tho i am confused in your term: "... this axiom holds mostly true." ?
    Last edited by ncwabbit; 12-04-2011 at 06:09 PM. Reason: spelling

  18. #18
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    I think (hope) that what Beretta92FSLady meant is that the 4th amendment looks good on paper, often holds up in the courts, but has little to no effect on what an officer will actually do should he have a mind to. It seems most of her posts come from that direction, and not necessarily her own deeply held personal beliefs on the matter. Once again, I think (hope) that is the case, but I could be wrong.

    It seems to me we need that dose of reality when we get to talking about the way things are supposed to work, if only to remind ourselves that standing up for your rights isn't always conjecture and armchair quarterbacking.


    And I second the idea that you should have kept working with him. The fact he was even engaging you in conversation meant that hope was not yet lost.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm View Post
    SNIP (the OP)
    I suspect, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who believe cops are your friend and you are supposed to cooperate with them if you have done nothing wrong. Another version is the too common attitude that if you are doing nothing wrong, then you should be fine answering cops' questions. These people are out there. I've met them.

    I think you were on the right track asking about why bother having a 4th Amendment. Another good question that seems to grind the gears to a halt and start the thinking seems to be, "Are you saying the Founders fought a revolution and enshrined the 4th and 5th Amendment merely to protect guilty people?" James Madison and Patrick Henry, on opposite sides during the ratification arguments about a Bill of Rights would be very surprised to hear that.

    I've had some small luck quoting from Ullman vs US and Ohio vs Reiner. In so many words, the 5th Amendment is intended to protect the innocent, people who might get caught up in ambiguous circumstances.

    The same rationale applies to the 4th Amendment. Also, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is not to strew impediments in front of a cop. It is to ensure conclusions about probable cause are drawn by a neutral magistrate.

    For real hard-heads, you can try, "Literally over a million Americans have died defending those rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving those rights the first time a cop gets nosy."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by hazek View Post
    And even more worrisome is that you yourself also seem to not have the completely accurate knowledge about your rights, at least your language implies you don't.

    Our rights are not constitutional rights. The constitution doesn't give any rights to anyone. The constitution gives privileges to the government. Your rights are god/nature given. The constitution is merely suppose to protect them from infringement primarily by the government.
    Are they rights that are listed in the constitution? Wouldn't that make them "Constitutional rights"? He didn't say "constitutionally granted" rights, so why be an ass with those semantics?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Um, yeah. Herein cops explain they arrested me for refusing a search and remaining silent:

    http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf

    Rights, what rights?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 5A is there, use it. Do not relinquish your 4A. Only provide the absolute minimum amount of information required by law.
    "Do you know how fast you were going?"

    "Yes, sir."
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  23. #23
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    Um, yeah. Herein cops explain they arrested me for refusing a search and remaining silent:

    http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf

    Rights, what rights?
    I just read the first page of that .pdf. It states plainly that you were arrested for violating the implied consent law (not sure if that's what you call it in NV, but that's what it's called in TN). Driving is a priveledge, not a right. When you operate a piece of machinery that requires a license, certain rights are given up. In the case of operating a motor vehicle, the right to refuse a sobriety test is one of them.

    Who refuses to roll down their window at a sobriety checkpoint. How did you think that encounter was going to end?

    Sobriety checkpoints have already been ruled legal. If there's one thing you should learn from that situation, it's that you can't legislate from your car. If you think a law is unjust, you need to write your your representatives in congress. The cops can't change the law, they can only follow them.

    I think that turning right on red from a two way to a one way street that's turning into a two way street should get you a green right turn arrow even when the the light is red because, who are you going to yield to? Everyone but you has to stop. But how far do you think I'm going to get arguing that to a cop? Probably about as far as you made it refusing a field sobreity test.



    back on topic to the OP: sadly, there ARE millions of others like this guy. which is one of the biggest problems our country faces.
    Last edited by SovereignAxe; 12-05-2011 at 05:38 PM.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The question that is brought to my mind is, "Were the facts as related by the officers an honest relation of the event?"

    If they were, then you are rightfully toast. If not (I suspect that they are not), then you should not be. That the officers describe the reason that they suspected you of being intoxicated using almost the same words and that you blew a .000 makes me suspect collusionary CYA.

    IANAL, but if the checkpoint was lawful and your cooperation was mandated by law, then you may well be guilty of obstruction. If you want to make the constitutionality of the checkpoints an issue, you kinda have to go through with the trial and probable conviction. That is one of the expected prices that those who would advocate for rights must be prepared to pay.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Brimstone Baritone View Post
    I think (hope) that what Beretta92FSLady meant is that the 4th amendment looks good on paper, often holds up in the courts, but has little to no effect on what an officer will actually do should he have a mind to.
    This has been the case with much of the Constitution throughout our nation's history. Contrary to some misconceptions, however, the vast majority of law enforcement officers follow it and the laws stemming from it. Many people's perceptions may not agree, but I'd argue they're based on the fact that the 99% of law-enforcement action which is correct never makes the news. Only the mistakes make the news.

    It seems to me we need that dose of reality when we get to talking about the way things are supposed to work, if only to remind ourselves that standing up for your rights isn't always conjecture and armchair quarterbacking.
    I think we also need to be mindful that things work properly most of the time so we're not acting on hair-triggers. By all means it's important to be watchful of the times when things go wrong, just as it's important both not to overreact when things are going right while reacting properly when things go sour.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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