#26 Postby CaptinCrunch » Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:14 pm
The US constitution contains clear language requiring government officials to obtain a search warrant signed by a judge based on evidence of "probable cause" that the person to be searched has committed a crime.
Here's what the founding document of the United States says:
"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 war on drugs has voided this language. If you live in the US, you can now be searched without a warrant, at random, with no legal recourse. Whatever police find can and will be used against you. It's like a year-long hunting season, and everybody is fair game.
The war on drugs is the main device through which government has obtained the right to violate your privacy. In the last four decades, court rulings at all levels, but especially in the Supreme Court, have given police, school officials, private security officers, employers and others the right to inspect your body and belongings if they think you are guilty of drug crimes.
The "war on terror" has capitalized on and extended the government's drug war powers while quieting citizen resistance to government intrusiveness. That's why most people riding on subways and other public transit systems in places like New York City are passively submitting to random searches; they're afraid that terrorists will blow them up, based on recent bombings in London, so they've given up their rights.
New York Police Department officers, members of one of the anti-civil liberties police department in the country, are walking up to people on subways, trains, ferries and buses, and demanding that the people submit to searches of their bodies, baggage and other belongings.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican corporate magnate who runs the city as if it was his private company, authorized illegal police brutality and illegal citizen detentions during anti-war protests at last year's Republican Party convention in the city. He claims that the city's transit search policy is a necessary response to London terrorism.
"Are the searches intrusive? Yes, a little bit," Bloomberg said at a press conference. "But we are trying to find that right balance."
That "right balance" apparently includes racial profiling, a practice long used in the drug war. "Drug courier profiles" created by the DEA and other law enforcement agencies contain characteristics that apply to virtually everyone, but especially target non-whites, immigrants, poor people, hippies, and youth. Numerous lawsuits and journalistic investigations have established that blacks and Hispanics, and now Arabs, are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white citizens are.
To avoid being accused of profiling, New York police claim they have been instructed to search people at random, without probable cause. But it's a Catch-22 for them because either way, say constitutionalists, the searches violate US law.
Representatives of the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), say the police are using profiling, but even if they are just doing "random searches," the searches are violations of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
"We are entitled to move freely around the city without being worried about being searched by police," NYCLU Director Donna Lieberman said. "The NYPD can and should investigate any suspicious activity, but the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from conducting searches where there is no suspicion of criminal activity."
Lieberman is well-intentioned, but apparently does not realize that the Fourth Amendment is long dead.
Many judges will rule that evidence illegally seized was nevertheless seized "in good faith," and can be used to prove guilt. Prosecutors often use such evidence to create a "preponderance of information" that a crime was committed. Illegally-seized evidence can negatively influence a judge during sentencing, can help a prosecutor impeach the honesty of a defendant, and can be used as proof of other crimes that have nothing to do with the contraband seized.
An ancillary problem with America's new police search protocols is that police have been taught that there are dozens of traits that give them probable cause to search someone for suspected illegal activity.
As with the overly broad list of traits used by the DEA and other police agencies that allegedly indicate a person is carrying illegal drugs are so generic as to identify virtually everyone.
Drug cops seeking to identify drug-carrying travelers are advised that the following characteristics provide reasonable suspicion: "Arrived late at night, arrived early in the morning, arrived in afternoon, one of first to deplane, one of last to deplane, deplaned in the middle, purchased ticket at airport, made reservation on short notice, bought coach ticket, bought first-class ticket, used one-way ticket, used round-trip ticket, paid for ticket with cash, paid for ticket with small denomination currency, paid for ticket with large denomination currency, made local telephone call after deplaning, made long-distance telephone call after deplaning, pretended to make telephone call, pretended not to make telephone call, traveled from New York to Los Angeles, traveled to Houston, traveled to small town, carried no luggage, carried brand-new luggage, carried a small bag, carried a medium-sized bag, carried two bulky bags, carried two heavy suitcases, carried four pieces of luggage, overly protective of luggage, disassociated self from luggage, traveled alone, traveled with a companion, acted too nervous, acted too calm, made eye contact with officer, avoided making eye contact with officer, wore expensive clothing and gold jewelry, dressed casually, went to restroom after deplaning, walked quickly through airport, walked slowly through airport, walked aimlessly through airport, left airport by taxi, left airport by limousine, left airport by private car, left airport by hotel courtesy van, suspect was Hispanic, suspect was black female, suspect was young, suspect was old, suspect had long hair, suspect wore bright clothing, suspect wore conservative clothing..."
As you can see, the list includes virtually every traveler. Courts have upheld the legality of searches based on just one of the preceding traits.
0 likes
....but its so encouraging to know that most people think that this is ridiculous, and that Im not the only one.....
