• 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.

How does NY city justify a search to enter Time Square?

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,346
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/times-square-new-years-eve-security.html
Those dogs will be among several layers of security that people will pass through twice, first at an outer access point and again when they enter the pens where they can watch the ball drop. Officers will also be checking people with metal detector wands and radiation detection devices, the police said.
How does NY city police justify a search, twice, to enter Time Square for the new year's event?
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
653
Location
Lynchburg
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/times-square-new-years-eve-security.html


How does NY city police justify a search, twice, to enter Time Square for the new year's event?

By saying this:

Hey everyone, we are having a big party over here, come on and join uis if you like. You are welcome to come and we would like you to. But if you do you will submit to a search. You do not have to come and you can stay away if you like, but if you come to the party, you will submit to the search. Hope to see you there.
So you and submit to a search or stay home.

Nemo
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,346
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
By saying this:
Hey everyone, we are having a big party over here, come on and join uis if you like. You are welcome to come and we would like you to. But if you do you will submit to a search. You do not have to come and you can stay away if you like, but if you come to the party, you will submit to the search. Hope to see you there.
So you and submit to a search or stay home.

Nemo
What I expected. But, what if I own and live in a building within that area of the city in which the city is trying to demand searches of persons in that public area? Without a warrant, what would be the reasonable suspicion the police would have to detain me and search me because I which to travel to my home?
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
653
Location
Lynchburg
You will have to talk to someone who has bench higher than mine for an answer to that. My thought is NFW but it is in NYC so . . ..

Nemo
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
They justify doing so because by the time someone brings an action in court the matter will already be over and done with. As no one is yet an 'injured party', no one has standing to bring the matter to court before the unconstitutional searches have occurred.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
They justify doing so because by the time someone brings an action in court the matter will already be over and done with. As no one is yet an 'injured party', no one has standing to bring the matter to court before the unconstitutional searches have occurred.
Exactly, and this is also the answer to almost all questions of "How does XYZ get by with doing JK and L....", "why doesn't SOMEBODY stop ABC from.....", "how can LMNOP do.....", "isn't DEF violating the GHI law by doing...". There are many more, but I'm running out of letters.

No matter how many times the question is asked, in whatever manner it is asked, the answer is the same. If a person is actually damaged by those actions, it would take a lot of time and a lot of money to get very little done about it and that "very little" would happen months later. It will only stop when the right people decide to spend that lot of money and that lot of time to get that very little done.

Short answer, they justify doing it because they can do it without any objection. There is no one to stop them from doing it.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,346
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Friday SCOTUS hears a qualified immunity case
Incorrect, it is Tuesday, January 9, 2018.

16-1371 BYRD V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 679 Fed.Appx. 146
CERT. GRANTED 9/28/2017
QUESTION PRESENTED:
A police officer may not conduct a suspicionless and warrantless search of a car if the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car-i.e., an expectation of privacy that society accepts as reasonable. Does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-1509
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,346
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
“By Clark Neily - - Monday, January 1, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

One of the most important tools we have for holding police and other public officials accountable is the ability to sue them when they violate our rights. But the Supreme Court has undermined this vital accountability mechanism with a legal fiction called “qualified immunity.” On Friday, the court will have an opportunity to change course by agreeing to hear a case involving a tragic miscarriage of justice.
Andrew Scott was home playing video games with his girlfriend after midnight on June 15, 2015, when someone began pounding on the door to his apartment. The frightened couple retreated to Scott’s bedroom, where he retrieved his pistol and then made his way back to the living room. Carefully opening his front door, Scott saw an armed man and started to back up. The man immediately fired six shots, striking Scott three times and killing him.

The shooter was Lake County, Florida, Sheriff’s Deputy Richard Sylvester, who was investigating an assault and battery involving a dark-colored motorcycle several miles away. Seeing a dark-colored motorcycle in the parking lot outside Scott’s apartment — but making no effort to connect the motorcycle to the assault or to Mr. Scott — deputies surrounded the unit, drew their weapons, and banged on the door without identifying themselves. When Mr. Scott answered the door with a gun in his hand, as he had a constitutional right to do, Mr. Sylvester shot him dead.

[ ... ]”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/1/supreme-court-must-dial-back-the-qualified-immunit/
https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...rein_in_aggressive_knock_and_talk_policing_pr


I feel sorry for anybody living in Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
 
Top