• 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.

4th amendment story...WtF

Malcolm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Cleveland Ohio
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
people like him get to vote in representatives who make up things like, "the patriot act." There are millions of them.
 

Steeler-gal

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
560
Location
Fairfax County, VA
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.
 

hazek

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
88
Location
--
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
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:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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....
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
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:

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Citizen

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

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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. :rolleyes:

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?
 
Top