One of the first things I did when I started studying law in depth was to fill my younger brothers in on their rights as American citizens. Like all good lads, they drive cars and may occasionally speed. Such speeding might just bring about an officer of the law, who might just ask them questions not relating to their driving at all. And what did I tell my brothers?
"Always tell them no. Ask for a warrant, and don't let them touch the inside of the car, or any part of your person, without seeing one."
It may not make you popular with the police, and it may cause even more of a delay in your busy schedule, but that's the high price of having rights. I don't suspect that either of my brothers would be in possession of anything illegal. Then again, if they were, I would hope that both would be smart enough to demand a warrant. Letting them know that police sometimes act "unscrupulously" was my job as their older brother.
Thanks to a commenter on my last post, I was alerted to yet another wrongdoing in my great state. There's just something about law enforcement in Indianapolis and their thinking that they can throw the net wide.
As DailyKos describes, federal agents working for the TSA, including Air Marshals, took up base at two bus stops in downtown Indianapolis and set up random checkpoints to pat people down, look in bags, and perform "behavior" tests for the stated purpose of finding weapons and people who were a threat to public safety.
Never mind the fact that there have been no federal crimes occurring on Indy buses. Never mind that Indiana allows anyone with a concealed carry permit (from any state) to carry a handgun legally. Never mind that citizens weren't informed that they could opt out (so that the searches weren't in violation of the Fourth Amendment).
DailyKos has some alarming first-hand accounts of the searches, as well as a far more detailed account than what I can give. Sadly, the Indy Star managed to keep the story to a few lines near the middle. At least this time the comments seem to agree with the general legal consensus.
So, little brothers, I add on to my previous statement. You should also say no to any federal officer demanding to search you anywhere that's not an airport or the White House. In fact, you might want to just steer clear of Indianapolis until the ACLU takes care of this.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The rhetorical ramblings of a student at Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington.
6 comments:
"Never mind that citizens weren't informed that they could opt out (so that the searches weren't in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)"
You don't need to be told that you can refuse consent to a search for the search to be valid under the 4A.
Oh, and if the police want to search your vehicle, all they have to do is arrest you. You have precious little 4A protection in your car.
Let them arrest you. False arrest without probable cause.
If only it were that simple. You can be arrested for speeding. As a matter of fact, you can be validly arrested for just about anything that isn't a clearly defined "citation only" offense.
Seriously, the amount of protection you do not have in your car is staggering, and the number of exceptions to the warrant requirement is equally stunning.
I had an undergraduate professor that said, on more than one occasion, that the only thing the Indianapolis Star was good for was wrapping fish.
That about sums it up.
I had a friend who was housesitting. The home owners car was stolen while he was at work. When the owner got home he asked the house sitter to get fingerprinted to "eliminate" his prints from the investigation. I told him not to do it as there is no controlling how long those prints stay in the system. What did he do? He ignored me. *sigh*
Post a Comment