-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Truck drivers jailed for 19 days after exercising rights at highway checkpoint
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
Ah, yes. AFAWK.
And there's your answer. Searches shall be reasonable. And feel free to find an essay about "reasonableness" and whether all searches require warrants. (Hint: there are essays and they are called cases; just like the one the BP agent cited to the trucker.)
Furthermore, why are you quoting the 4th A? Did they search him? (Other than his person taking him into custody.) His effects apparently were impounded. 4th doesn't actually apply here...
Last edited:
So the 4th amendment doesn't cover seizure of one's person?
The 4th only mentions searches, which shall be reasonable or based on warrant. Was he searched? Was he seized (as evidence, as opposed to arrested)?
Terry is based on the 4th, but the question is not whether police can arrest, but whether they can detain to conduct a limited search and questioning (pat down only when justified). So Terry is under 4th A jurisprudence, but the 4th doesn't address arrest/detention per se.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
There is no debate. The Supreme Court has held that border checks are reasonable.
The fourth amendment doesn't mention seizures?
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.
The Fourth Amendment absolutely addresses seizure of persons.
Unless I'm mixing up my SCOTUS cases, Terry defines an investigatory stop as a detention, but considers temporary, investigatory detentions as inherently reasonable. In fact, the question of seizure as defined in the Fourth Amendment was the very first thing the Terry court had to determine. To wit:
Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. 12 We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime - "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.
...The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search" is two-fold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. 15 This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope.
The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment - the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. "Search" and "seizure" are not talismans. We therefore reject the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a "technical arrest" or a "full-blown search."
In this case there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing...
And the Supremes are always correct and virtuous. All hail our Black-Robed Overlords.
Calling an internal immigration checkpoint 30 miles from the border a "border check" is asinine. Not even SCOTUS attempts to do so, and differentiates the authority and scope of the Border Patrol at internal immigration checkpoints.
Just because I don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional
Agreed, the 4th indeed addresses seizures of persons too, whether warrantless or not. That being agreed, then what?
What did the Court in Martinez-Fuerte have to say about Terry and the 4th Amendment with respect to these checkpoints?
Did Terry violate the 4th and was there a seizure? Did Martinez-Fuerte violate the 4th and was there a seizure?
And why are you quoting SCOTUS as authority when you consider them to be oppressors?
And just because 9 black-robe wearing people say something is constitutional doesn't actually make it constitutional (Marbury v. Madison be damned.)
To wit: had SCOTUS ruled in Heller that the second amendment didn't protect the individual right to carry a firearm outside the home, that decision would not have changed the obvious meaning of the constitution. SCOTUS would merely have made a wrong ruling (as they have done, continuously, throughout the history of the country).
Actually, the term I use is "Black-Robed Tyrants", because they can legislate by judicial fiat, with no recourse or means of redress.
SCOTUS is comprised of humans, and as such, they are capable of making incorrect decisions. Just because I call out their obviously wrong decisions does not mean that I believe that they are "oppressors", or that they are completely illegitimate. I am a strict-construction constitutionalist, not an INGOtarian.
It's kind of how it works in the real world.
There needs to be an empowering statement in the constitution for the government action to be valid and constitutional. There is no clause in the constitution that empowers the federal government to set up roadside checkpoints and interrogate American travelers. If they wanted to obtain the power legitimately, they needed to pass an amendment that creates it.
These are examples of powers that ACTUALLY do exist in the constitution:
READ MORE: Article I, Section 8
.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Notice, no checkpoints.
I think most of the founders have gone on record stating the exact opposite.
i'll just leave this here...Implied Powers of Congress
No, not really.
It may be legally enforceable, but something that is explicitly unconstitutional based on a plain reading of the constitution is not rendered constitutional just because SCOTUS says so.
"Government can use its power to enforce" != "constitutional". It merely means that government is acting in a tyrannical manner (even if that tyranny is on a relatively small scale).
For instance: Kelo was tyrannical.
There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Hoosierdood
- JettaKnight
- stoyan79
- Creedmoor
- TacOpsGuy320
- semperfi211
- Bosshoss
- Xterminator
- tca1352
- bgarman47
- bboalltherm17
- NyleRN
- NHT3
- syntax357
- Ingomike
- Brad69
- Basher
- Chalky
- indyartisan
- HCRMPD1
- d.kaufman
- DoggyDaddy
- rwilky78
- Malware
- jsharmon7
- Steel and wood
- Bobby
- Emerson Dambiggins
- SheepDog4Life
- Hopper
- darkkevin
- tjones
- acd1010
- indyblue
- 2013Godje
- user11230706
- printcraft
- Chewie
- Ted@
- Jim McKalip
- DragonGunner
- Rudyjr
- ROOTS54454
- Johnhammel13
- mbkintner
- mcapo
- rwilken50
- Doug28450
- ACR
- hoosierdaddy1976
