NYPD Testing Gun-Scanning Technology

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Doober, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Doober

    Doober Original Member

  2. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    This is a search of a person without a warrant and legally and constitutionally is presumed to be unlawful.
     
    nachtnebel likes this.
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    We're screwed.
     
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    A government official looking under your clothing is a search. It doesn't matter one bit when his hands are involved or he uses a machine.

    This is not a new issue. Why are they screwing around with this? Are they hoping people won't notice?
     
  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    What a lame article for such an important topic.

    Obviously I'm with the ACLU here. If the police are looking underneath my clothes as I'm walking down the street, they'd better have at the very least, reasonable suspicion. What I believe should be required though is probable cause.

    It's essentially a strip search.
     
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Yeah, but we're already getting strip-searched at the airport. The magic words are always "administrative search." Once they declare this an administrative search (if they do), then it'll become just as routine as the abuse now going on at airports.
     
  7. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    There's a long line of cases that allow for administrative searches at the airport beginning with the cases involving metal detectors. And remember, when the TSA is going through your stuff, it is a warrantless search not based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It is only okay because of the administrative search doctrine, which is really an exception to the Fourth Amendment.

    Out on the street there is a long line of different cases with Terry v. Ohio as the leading case. If law enforcement wants to stop you on the street and do a physical pat down of your outer clothing they have to have reasonable suspicion (reas suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause) that you have just committed a crime or that you are about to commit a crime. There is no administrative search procedure for people walking down the street. There is a lot of well-established case law on this issue.
     
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Also keep in mind that technology advances. Fuzzy today will be detailed tomorrow. Something that is mounted on a tripod or monopod today will be handheld tomorrow and eventually might even be integrated into eyeglasses.

    What we don't put a stop to now will be harder to stop and more invasive in the future.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Sunny Goth, I understand. But my question is still how long before that case law gets re-interpreted, or changed, or overturned, or whatever the correct terminology is.

    A Terry search is still a violation of the 4th Amendment in my opinion. So since that horse is long out of the barn, I think we can expect more violations, more encroachment, more creeping "administrative or whatever We Your Overlords choose to call it" searches.
     
  10. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    We aren't going to stop technology, that's for sure.

    Hey! maybe we'll all start wearing full-body chain mail! :p
     
  11. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Terry is a pretty well-settled case law. It's not going to be overturned.

    I can see them trying to encroach on Terry, like somehow saying going to the mall is like going to a football stadium is like going to an airport and using the scanners in that way. But walking down the street? I'm really not sure how the enforcement can think this type of search would be upheld by a court.

    Well, you wouldn't be alone in that view (that Terry is a 4th A violation).

    If we were to see administrative searches on the street, and I don't think we will, it wouldn't be because of creeping encroachment. It would be a wholesale change from established case law.
     
  12. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    They're already searching at football stadiums. And the sheeple are putting up with it.
     
  13. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Football games are private events. The 4th amendment does not apply. Never has, never will.
     
  14. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Granted. I'm talking about the creeping nature of these searches, and people's willingness to put up with them. The more "normalized" they become, the more people will accept them -- everywhere.
     
  15. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Right - mostly.

    California has a right to privacy built into the state constitution - and it applies to government and non-government actors. There's an ongoing case in CA about the pat down policy by the NFL and the plaintiffs have been allowed to have their case heard. We'll see how that turns out.

    I know that at least 13 other states have a right to privacy in their state constitutions, but I don't know if any of them are written so as to include non-governmental actors.
     
  16. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    If not, they should.

    It's been said, on Slashdot so it's mostly regarding EULAs, that the greatest oversight the founders of the US made was not to enshrine citizens' inalienable rights in law such that neither public nor private entities could violate them. Granted, they had no idea that we'd be facing a situation like we are now with Big Media trying to buy laws like SOPA to censor free speech, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    I wonder if we'll start seeing laws intended to replicate the effects of the Bill of Rights in the private sector in light of recent activism trends (Occupy, anti-SOPA/PIPA, stadium gropedowns, etc.)
     
  17. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I agree with your statement but it is unsettling that Federal employees are doing screenings at private events. Kinda muddies the line.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  18. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Which is a good point -- in situations where federal supremacy doesn't apply, state courts can reach decisions that federal courts can't. In the case of a California football game, however, it's still not a 4th amendment issue -- it's a privacy issue being decided under the California Constitution.

    Minnesota has much the same reputation but our judges aren't too inclined to ad lib on the bench & carve out new case law -- an attempt a few years ago to have the privately owned & operated Mall of America declared a public space backfired badly. Their mall security is now more notorious than ever.
     
  19. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    True.
     
  20. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    If this comes to pass, I would like to see people carrying 1/8 or 1/16 steel plate cut in the shape of a "L" around. You could go to any metal fab shop and have them make a stack with a plasma cutter for not much money.

    "What's tucked in the small of my back, officer? Just this paperweight. Wanna have one?"

    :p
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.

Share This Page