Libertarians, moderates, liberals and ...

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 15:20
VIEWED: 6399
PAGE 2 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I happen to know a girl who was searched (but not strip-searched) in her home because her mom's husband was a suspect in a homosexual murder. Now, that guy is a lot of unsavory things, but he's neither a homosexual nor a murderer. It was extremely traumatic for the girl. I think it would be traumatic for anyone.

I know one as well, from my brief foray into the world of defending the scumbag lawbreakers the liberals want to protect.

She was strip-searched by a drug store's security guards and it was not traumatic. In fact she was bragging because, you know, there's place they don't look...

Some people get traumatized by small claims court. Other are not phased by the most dire of circumstances. Its just people, some are eggshells.

H

RUE

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:20 PM

'Hero', Auraptor

So anyway, to reiterate the FACTS - the warrant ONLY specified the guy, the wife and young daughter WERE strip-searched, and it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I tire of your lies.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:27 PM

Hero- First of all, if this were the only repugnant ruling by Alito, it wouldn't be a big deal. But Alito's record- and his statements- support an intrusive Executive Branch immune from lawsuit. His dissenting opinions are virtually w/o exception to narrow the scope of the Fourth Ammendment

Quote:
Doe v. Groody is just one of a series of cases in which Alito pushed to narrow the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Alito has filed more than a dozen dissents in criminal cases and cases involving the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure - nearly always voting against individual rights (except, in the Rybar case described in Fact Sheet #1, the right to possess a machine gun).

His record as a judge is well out of the mainstream.

Quote:
Current U.S. Homeland Security Secretary and long-time Republican federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff, who was then Alito's colleague as a judge on the Third Circuit, wrote the majority opinion disagreeing with Alito. Chertoff asserted that if the court were to accept Alito's position, it would "transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliche 'rubber stamp.'" Id. at 243. Moreover, the Chertoff majority described the facts of the case as "a particularly bad instance" for the court to allow a wide interpretation of the search warrant. Id. at 242. Alito's dissent is out of the mainstream of Fourth Amendment law.

Here is the actual Affadavit and warrant language from the Doe brief

Quote:
Paragraph 17 of the affidavit reads as follows: This application seeks permission to search the premises of [John Doe] *** Center St. Ashland, Pa. and his red VW Rabbit bearing Pa. registration ********** as sales of methamphetamine have been made from the residence and the vehicle. The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons. App. 498a (affidavit). Paragraph 20 of the affidavit reads as follows: The application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant. It is the experience of your co-affiants that drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not actually reside or won/rent the premises. This is done to prevent the discovery of said items in the hopes that said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive. App. 498a (affidavit). Paragraph 21 “…for *** Center St. Ashland, Pa., the residence of[John Doe] and all occupants therein.” App. 498a (affidavit).

The affidavit was improperly written because it allows searches of others in the house. But it is also clear that the reason to search occupants was as potential purchasers or as places of concealment for the drug dealer. But the DRUG DEALER WASN'T HOME. The only people there was the mom and her daughter. Neither was purchasing drugs bc the dealer wasn't home, and neither was acting as a mule bc the dealer wasn't home. Aside from the fact that the warrant was unconsitutional, even from a PRACTICAL standpoint there was no reason to strip-search the mom and her daughter.

Auraptor- Nobody is protecting the rights of people to use kids as drug mules, and this is one of these cases that DT talked about- where someone says... "what you're REALLY saying is". So no, that's not what I'm saying, and these stupid brainless transparent rhetorical dodges are stupid, brainless and transparent.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

RUE

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:33 PM

SignyM,

The consitutional argument is that the warrant MUST be specific. If warrants are bendable then they are useless. Any warrant becomes an excuse for unreasonable search and seizure.

But yes, the affadavit did specify non-residents and people actively trading in drugs. In which case, as you pointed out, the search of the mother and daughter defies common sense.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:35 PM

Hero, Auraptor,

First of all, you are both confusing 'strip search' with cavity-search'.

Umm,where did I confuse one w/ the other? I didn't. Pardon if my use of the phrase 'drug mule' indicated to anyone as such. But it's good that you make a distinction between the two. Many might not have the right idea.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

HERO

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, to reiterate the facts - the warrant ONLY specified the guy, the wife and young daughter WERE strip-searched, and it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I tire of your lies.

What lies? I read right from the case. The wife and the daughter WERE strip-searched, even though the warrent was limited to Mr. Doe, but I disagree that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Warrant form did not contain enogh space for them to specify the additional persons they wished to search (I've seen them, you have to try and squeeze into a few lines, cause heaven forbid the courts allow an addendum, at least in my state, can't speak for everywhere). The application for the warrant did specify those additional details in numerous locations. The Judge reads the application and affadavits. Then he has to review the warrant (I mean the actual order). If it is sufficient he signs it, if not he can either refuse to sign it or write a different one specific to his own desires based upon the circumstances.

Apparantly the Judge found the warrant sufficient to accomplish the stated goals of the officers and signed it without any change. Therefore they reasonably believed they were acting in accordance to the valid warrant issued by the judge and "reasonable belief" is all they need, so Alito was right, the search was valid (in his and my opinion).

Maybe what you really disagree with is the 'reasonable belief' standard Alito applies. If so then your beef is not with Alito, but with the Supreme Court's precedent. I don't think you really want to get the Court started with reversing prior rulings.

H

RUE

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:44 PM

Hero,

Quote:
want to search ALL persons found on the premises

Actually, only non-residents who might be actively involved in drug dealing.

Auraptor,
You know I just hate it when people post-erase. I REALLY should remember to quote every little phrase. The missing one was that they were merely searched, but not strip-searched.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:50 PM

Hero- there were two issues in this case:
Did the search violate the girl's civil rights?
Could the police officers be sued?

Altho I think there is argument to be made that the officers reasonably believed they were acting in a lawful manner, the court apparently disagreed with that intepretation.

However, the search itself probably violated the girl's civil rights.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:51 PM

Quote:
You know I just hate it when people post-erase

Oh yeah- that's another brainless transparent trick.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:40 PM

Quote:
Auraptor,
You know I just hate it when people post-erase. I REALLY should remember to quote every little phrase. The missing one was that they were merely searched, but not strip-searched.

In Little Stewie voice - What the HELL are you talking about ? It was YOU,not I, who made the mistake of confusing strip search from cavity search. And I sure sure as hell didn't erase anything I posted, if that's what you're trying to claim.

And I didn't lie about anything. I said there WAS a warrant. There was. And now you want to chase your tail all over again as to what the warrant said, and why Alito allowed for others to be searched, etc, etc, etc.

If I got details wrong, then fine. I got them wrong. But don't accuse me of LYING about anything . You really ought to learn the difference between those two.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE