4th Amendment Violation

[IncendiaryGunner]

Even if it was private land, that really would not give them the authority to search... and this is public land...

Searching every person at a checkpoint, without any reason to believe that individual specifically broke a law, is pretty shady....

I like their intent - but if they are actually searching people at a checkpoint without consent, that seems like a violation. Then again, if everyone that gets searched gave consent first, then that is their fault for waving their right. Since it does not seem to give enough detail to make that determination ...

I know I wish more people picked up their casings at a public range I go to...

 

[jbombelli]

It is not etiquette, it is a park rule.

Pick up your trash. You have no right to be a slob.



I understand that you do not like property rights so I am not surprised.

This is about property rights and how AZ shooters fail to respect them.



Do not need probable cause, but yes, if the plate is visible and the officer sees an expired tag, yes it is permissible to stop them.

It is a checkpoint to entry into another's property, BLM land, not your land, mine. If you want to come into someone's property, you best respect their property rights. You have no right to beautiful slobbery or beautiful dead beatness.



It does not but the protections change when you go into public.

Again, for the second time, what BoR violations are you talking about?



The officers need no such thing.

Who is telling you this? L. Neil Smith? Are you reading some far out wookie blog again?

So I assume you'd have no problem with your car being tossed by the police every morning as you leave your driveway, before you're allowed entry into MY roadway?

 

[jamil]

So I assume you'd have no problem with your car being tossed by the police every morning as you leave your driveway, before you're allowed entry into MY roadway?

Isn't that called a sobriety checkpoint?

 

[rambone]

It is not etiquette, it is a park rule.

Pick up your trash. You have no right to be a slob.

I understand that you do not like property rights so I am not surprised.

This is about property rights and how AZ shooters fail to respect them.

If they want to enforce park rules, they can monitor the shooting range and give out tickets. Stopping and searching cars is out of bounds.

Do not need probable cause, but yes, if the plate is visible and the officer sees an expired tag, yes it is permissible to stop them.

Anyone who bothered to click any of the videos could see that they were stopping everyone, not just someone with expired plates.

It is a checkpoint to entry into another's property, BLM land, not your land, mine. If you want to come into someone's property, you best respect their property rights.

The same logic could be used to set up checkpoints on any public roadway, or send the TSA to search people on any public transportation.

It does not but the protections change when you go into public.

Again, for the second time, what BoR violations are you talking about?

Searching people without probable cause. The 4th Amendment. You already stated where you stand on requiring probable cause.

The officers need no such thing.

Who is telling you this? L. Neil Smith? Are you reading some far out wookie blog again?

Who is telling you that PC is not required?! Are you reading Dick Cheney's memoirs again?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So I assume you'd have no problem with your car being tossed by the police every morning as you leave your driveway, before you're allowed entry into MY roadway?

If I consent to it, then I have no grounds to complain. Where I live the police cannot do this as I am not entering federal property and I do not live in Arizona.

Stopping and searching cars is out of bounds.

Depends.

If people are consenting to it, then no it is not.

Anyone who bothered to click any of the videos could see that they were stopping everyone, not just someone with expired plates.

And so? What is the violation? Lots of reasons to stop people including consent, immigration or rule of entry onto BLM land.

The same logic could be used to set up checkpoints on any public roadway, or send the TSA to search people on any public transportation.

No, the same logic would not apply.

It is public land. It is Arizona. It is BLM land.

I do think within 10 years we will send internal checkpoints like Saudi Arabia on public highways as TSA continues it's mission creep.

Searching people without probable cause. The 4th Amendment. You already stated where you stand on requiring probable cause.

I am standing on what the state of the law is. I know you really, really, really want it to be something out of Ceres or The American Zone or whatever, but the police can search people without probable cause via consent without triggering an unreasonable search. Or, if police have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous they do not need probable cause. Many other exceptions could apply.

The police do not need a warrant to search your car.

Who is telling you that PC is not required?! Are you reading Dick Cheney's memoirs again?

That would be the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anyone who bothered to click any of the videos could see that they were stopping everyone, not just someone with expired plates.

Let's talk about the videos that you posted, ram.

First video:

A. Shows Officer Bambi checking in a deer. Tell me how this is a 4th Amendment violation?

B. Same Officer Bambi is talking about OHV tax stamps which should be displayed on ATVs which are openly visible on plates. Tell me how this is a 4th Amendment violation?

Second Video, again tell me how what is shown is a 4th Amendment violation:

A. The Wide Body in the gray t-shirt is going on about a citation of some sort. "Does this have to go to court?"

B. Dude with Bad Facial Hair sitting on yellow ATV. Awaiting citation of some sort.

C. Guy with silver Tacoma breezes right through.

D. Guy with towed ATV talking about ATV and his registration.

E. Gator thing, again babbling on about registration/street legal.

F. Head of deer, Officer Bambis checking in a deer.

G. Mini SUV with 3 dogs, no idea what the issue is there.

H. Red truck, breezes through.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If you don't want to talk to the police, don't play their games and talk to them. Don't turn an encounter into consent as you will automatically lose.

Am I free to go?

You have to whoa when they says whoa. You have to pay your taxes on your ATV or you get a citation. You have to pay to kill the state's animals.

I have yet to see or hear a 4th Amendment violation and don't know what all the stink is over. Do people think they can just foul a nest and fly off scot free? Do people think that enforcement of vehicle taxes is in itself a Fourth Amendment violation?

What's the beef, chief?

 

[poptab]

You have to pay to kill the King's animals.

fify

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll ask the most important question of all. Why am I paying for a public range/hunting welfare program?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You have to pay to kill the King's animals

Correct, this is a continuation of English law.

 

[rambone]

If you don't want to talk to the police, don't play their games and talk to them.

The video in the OP shows an officer saying to the driver of the yellow car that he WILL check him on the way out. That's not a consensual stop. They brag about stopping 250 vehicles this way.

No, the same logic would not apply.

It is public land. It is Arizona. It is BLM land.

I do think within 10 years we will send internal checkpoints like Saudi Arabia on public highways as TSA continues it's mission creep.

The TSA is already searching people in bus stations, on trains, at public gatherings, at the RNC and DNC, at Republican speeches, at highway weigh stations, and more. They justify themselves using the exact same logic as you do. They use the statist argument that if you want to use the king's roads, or the king's trains, or the king's airspace, that your rights are null and void until you get home. A lot of good my rights are there. Bend over for the checkpoints to scrutinize your cargo and prove you have paid your taxes.

That would be the United States Supreme Court.

Appealing to authority is so passé. The courts will rubber stamp fascism up to, and including, locking American citizens in concentration camps. Their approval of checkpoints is no shocker. Might as well hinge your case on how George W. Obama feels about it.

What's the beef, chief?

The beef has been stated, but you have such a wildly pro-state position on this that you think the Feds can set up checkpoints on any form of public property and start checking papers and cargo. You've stated your case. I know who I will not call to defend my rights.

 

[downzero]

I'm trying to figure out how a lawyer is arguing that a suspicionless seizure is not at least constitutionally questionable, regardless of whether there is a search. Kirk, is it your position that there is actually particularized suspicion of some crime being committed here? For the record, "you might have littered" is not particularized.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm trying to figure out how a lawyer is arguing that a suspicionless seizure is not at least constitutionally questionable, regardless of whether there is a search. Kirk, is it your position that there is actually particularized suspicion of some crime being committed here? For the record, "you might have littered" is not particularized.

This is standard Kirk Freeman logic.

If I post something pointing out what I believe to qualify as tyranny, he will cite the statutes that make it a legally accepted practice.

I'm not sure if he misses the point entirely or if he just likes to be argumentative, but the reality is that something can qualify as tyranny and still be accepted and practiced by law enforcement.

The spirit and the intent of the 4th amendment are being violated by nonsense like this. Quoting statutes and case law does not serve to refute that.

 

[steveh_131]

oh, also in before Kirk's repeated "You do not have the right to be a litterbug" strawman

 

[Stickfight]

I'm trying to figure out how a lawyer is arguing that a suspicionless seizure is not at least constitutionally questionable, regardless of whether there is a search.

Kirk is definitely pro-state, but as best I can tell he is arguing that if a person voluntarily allows the police to search through his stuff, and the police find something, there are no constitutional issues. That makes perfect sense to me. If there was someone in the videos who declined to be searched and was searched anyway, I missed it.

Or maybe the police smelled the litter from 40 feet away to provide PC for the search.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll ask again. Why are shooters and hunters receiving welfare?

 

[poptab]

I'll ask again. Why are shooters and hunters receiving welfare?

because if the government doesnt make parks no one would. we need the government to point guns at libertarians and take their money so we can have all these nice things. After all libertarians wouldnt have gotten anywhere if we didnt charge the government with stealing their money to build the roads they use to build their businesses.

 

[redneckmedic]

I think this can be summed up if both sides bow to constitutional logic.

If they say they will search your vehical and you allow it, no crime has been committed. However if you deny the process and it still takes place, no we have a rights violation.

There is absolutely nothing in the BOR or USC + Amens that says the authorities at large can't ask to...
See your permit,
Search your vehicle,
Enter your home,
Move to a different street corner,
Quiet your protest,
Get vaccinized,
So forth.

Most folks don't have the balls to tell "authority" shove off your can't tell me to do that, I figure most folks figure that complience moves the situation faster and smoother, and for the most part their right.

 

[lashicoN]

I'll ask again. Why are shooters and hunters receiving welfare?

Is it welfare? I thought all of these public hunting parks were paid for by shooters and hunters via excise taxes? Firearm manufacturers pay excise taxes and pass that cost onto distributors who pass it on to dealers who pass it on to end users. I don't agree with this system, but is it welfare if you are actually the one paying for it? If you're hunting or shooting, you bought a firearm.

 

[hornadylnl]

Is it welfare? I thought all of these public hunting parks were paid for by shooters and hunters via excise taxes? Firearm manufacturers pay excise taxes and pass that cost onto distributors who pass it on to dealers who pass it on to end users. I don't agree with this system, but is it welfare if you are actually the one paying for it? If you're hunting or shooting, you bought a firearm.

All federal lands are paid for purely by taxes on gun manufacturers and buyers?