Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep and on this thread we have people arguing on behalf of the government for the different ways they can steal your money and freedom.
It isn't so much people arguing on behalf of the government but explaining what the law is. Now you may or may not disagree with the law but it is what it is. And it is best to have a good understanding of it.
It isn't so much people arguing on behalf of the government but explaining what the law is. Now you may or may not disagree with the law but it is what it is. And it is best to have a good understanding of it.
I think its time for laws to change. I'm tired of hearing that response (not singling you out!), but its not acceptable to have unjust laws on the books.
It should've taken you straight to my post. It does when I click on it...? Anyway, here you go:
The Fourth Amendment makes no distinction between public and private property. Further, Katz v. Unites States set the precedent to not make the distinction between public and private property in terms of search and seizure. If a phone booth becomes privacy-entitled when the door's closed, I don't see why a car would be any different.
A car isn't any different. That ruling changed the expectation of privacy from being location based, to simply being in place when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (and society accepts it as being reasonable).
However, it is not black and white. There are degrees of privacy. The expectation of privacy you have can be greater or lesser depending on the circumstances.
From my crim pro notes:
Hierarchy of expectation of privacy
Highest expectation applies to home.
Middle expectation applies to business premises (Mankusi v. Defort).
Lowest expectation applies to vehicles (and contents), pedestrians
A car isn't any different. That ruling changed the expectation of privacy from being location based, to simply being in place when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (and society accepts it as being reasonable).
However, it is not black and white. There are degrees of privacy. The expectation of privacy you have can be greater or lesser depending on the circumstances.
From my crim pro notes:
Hierarchy of expectation of privacy
Highest expectation applies to home.
Middle expectation applies to business premises (Mankusi v. Defort).
Lowest expectation applies to vehicles (and contents), pedestrians
What is the "Lowest expectation applies to vehicles" part of your notes based on? Like I said, I really don't see why the physical contents of a vehicle potentially owned by the driver would deserve any less privacy than a conversation in a public phone booth a person is only borrowing. It just doesn't add up this way at all, IMO.
What is the "Lowest expectation applies to vehicles" part of your notes based on? Like I said, I really don't see why the physical contents of a vehicle potentially owned by the driver would deserve any less privacy than the conversation in a public phone booth a person is only borrowing. It just doesn't add up this way at all, IMO.
The court said the guy had an expectation of privacy in the phone booth, the courts have also said you have an expectation of privacy when it comes to your car.
Sometimes I worry about this country when people are so ready to give up their rights and submit to a police state. Especially on issues where no crime has been committed yet.
Sometimes I worry about this country when people are so ready to give up their rights and submit to a police state. Especially on issues where no crime has been committed yet.
We have far more rights today than we did in the past, so...
I might shock you by saying this but I think the stuff with toll booths and open windows is fine. Toll booths are there for a legit reason unrelated to searches and traffic stops are fine if made for a valid reason e.g. speeding, not signaling etc. if an officer develops probable cause or reasonable suspicion (depending on what they are searching for) during those things that is fine with me.
My issue is with stops that have absolutely no probable cause, or reasonable suspicion and are completely unrelated to some other activity like a minor traffic violation or a need to pay a toll. That is because there is no reason for them save to do a search for which there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Well, I don't know where you're from, urban or rural, but growing up in Chicago during the 60's and 70's and having witnessed, and experienced profiling by Chicago cops, and being stopped for nothing other than a tail light being out, we'd {my buddies and myself} thought we lived in a police state.
I believe the only thing that saved us from being stopped frequently was the fact that our one friend owned and drove a Plymouth Fury, exactly like the PD used, except it was black, and had the little beanie antenna on the decklid and a spotlight, so cops must have thought we were all UC officers. We toked a lot of joints and drank a lot of beer in those good old days, and never got stopped when we were with him.
On the other hand, I drove beater cars, and got stopped at least one every month for something. And, the cops who pulled me over, if at night, would shine his bright flashlight into my eyes and pan the inside of my klunker with it looking for stuff.
Well, I don't know where you're from, urban or rural, but growing up in Chicago during the 60's and 70's and having witnessed, and experienced profiling by Chicago cops, and being stopped for nothing other than a tail light being out, we'd {my buddies and myself} thought we lived in a police state.
I believe the only thing that saved us from being stopped frequently was the fact that our one friend owned and drove a Plymouth Fury, exactly like the PD used, except it was black, and had the little beanie antenna on the decklid and a spotlight, so cops must have thought we were all UC officers. We toked a lot of joints and drank a lot of beer in those good old days, and never got stopped when we were with him.
On the other hand, I drove beater cars, and got stopped at least one every month for something. And, the cops who pulled me over, if at night, would shine his bright flashlight into my eyes and pan the inside of my klunker with it looking for stuff.
It does happen its called a pretextual stop, it has never happened to me, but it used to happen to my parents all the time when they lived in California in the early 1980s and it happened like clockwork to my grandfather in the 1960s every time he drove through the state of Georgia on his way to visit family in Florida. I don't think its right, but on the other hand I am not sure how you would necessarily sort that out from stops also for infractions that are not pretextual and do yield probable cause for other things. Police discretion can be a problem, but it is hard to deal with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
