Violation of 4th amendment right?

It's getting to the point that unless you are in your own home expect to see more and more of these types of "rules" being applied. Of course it's all in the interest of safety and security so the majority of the public won't feel violated as maybe they should. The less it is challenged the more it will be applied.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I have a memory of a higher burden being placed on anything which would impose on enumerated rights. It's from an Alan Gura video discussing strict scrutiny as it applies to the 2A, and Gura said that the government simply can't toss out numbers and expect the Court to allow restrictions on enumerated rights, they have to bring more to the table.

He went on to say that strict scrutiny applies unequally across enumerated rights, with the Court traditionally giving preferential treatment to certain rights but not to others.

So I thought perhaps such higher scrutiny could apply to the 4A, although I am uncertain about the application of the term "unreasonable", which is absent from the 2A.

Frank Ettin said:
Second, a public safety concern over the contents of bags or coolers is hardly nebulous, especially in light of the recent events at the Boston Marathon.
Click to expand...

Public concern is great, but that's not what I said.


I'm saying that searching private bags and coolers hoping to stop crime is by definition nebulous, since it's unclear that a net positive societal benefit will derive from the monetary costs & other resources expended searching the private property of people when there's such a low probability of encountering nefarious activity.
 
speedrrracer said:
I have a memory of a higher burden being placed on anything which would impose on enumerated rights. It's from an Alan Gura video discussing strict scrutiny as it applies to the 2A,...
Click to expand...
You might want to try actually reading both Amendments. They say different things.

The Second Amendment says:
...the right...shall not be infringed...
Click to expand...

The Fourth Amendment says (emphasis added):
The right ... to be secure ..., against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; ...
Click to expand...
So the a determination of whether the right protected by the Fourth Amendment has been violated specifically requires a determination of whether the search or seizure was reasonable. There is considerable decisional law considering the question of reasonableness.

speedrrracer said:
...I'm saying that searching private bags and coolers hoping to stop crime is by definition nebulous, since it's unclear that a net positive societal benefit will derive from the monetary costs & other resources expended searching the private property of people when there's such a low probability of encountering nefarious activity.
Click to expand...
Feel free to argue that to the judge if the occasion arises for you.
 
I don't see a "no guns allowed" sign so I wonder what would happen if you were searched and were carrying with a concealed carry permit? If they sent you home or arrested you this would be a violation of BOTH 2nd and 4th Amendment rights! Yes or no?:confused:
 
So if we are to be searched for this event what about the next parade or carnival? Is there a number of people present rule for searching people in a public place. It used to be you had to have something that brought suspicion like time of day or an activity the person was engaged in not just being there.
 
Punisher_1 said:
So if we are to be searched for this event what about the next parade or carnival? Is there a number of people present rule for searching people in a public place. It used to be you had to have something that brought suspicion like time of day or an activity the person was engaged in not just being there.
Click to expand...
Well, as has been mentioned, the right protected by the Fourth Amendment is to be secure from unreasonable search. So if some governmental authority wants to routinely search the bags, coolers or persons of people attending some public event, if the searches are challenged the governmental authority will have the burden of convincing a judge that the searches are reasonable.

There has been a pretty fair amount of litigation of the question of the reasonableness of searches under various circumstances. So there's a good deal of decisional law about when a search is, or is not, reasonable. And judges will look to that body of decisional law when trying to decide if a particular search requirement is, or is not, reasonable.

I'm not, however, going to do many hours of research and then write what would amount to a law review article discussing in detail the existing legal standards for determining the reasonableness of a search at a public event.
 
With the ever changing circumstances that occur I have no doubt that there will be further case law decisions about a reasonable search. I just wonder how it became so difficult to know your rights since they were written. As you said it could take hours of research to come up with an opinion that could still be argued. It seems it should just be simpler for both the citizen and the LEOs.
 
Fourth Amendment law is fertile ground for litigation. It's a very fact intensive area, and the rewards for litigants (who are often inmates) can be tremendous (like freedom instead of incarceration + the inevitable 1983 suit if the inmate prevails).
 
It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that the terrorists have won, when we can't go to a public park without having our personal affects searched, they have won.
 
Well, first, we have to define "public". Are you sure that the property in question is owned by the city, parish, county, or state?

I'm not familiar with the vagaries of Florida law, but I work within Louisiana Law. I work in a school, which some might consider to be a "public" building, but if a key-holder asks you to leave and you fail to do so, you can be cited for trespassing, or arrested for a variety of charges if you make a scene.

The best place to deal with this is not in the Courts but in the City Council offices. Make it a political issue. Solve it at the administrative level before it becomes an issue in the courts.
 
Not knowing FL law: here in WA this would be a reason to sue the entity that owns the park, and the LE jurisdiction for a violation Of Article 1 section 7 of the WA State Constitution, as well as the 4A. WA does not allow for any random stops, or road block DUI (etc) checks.

US Supreme Court ruled in Delaware V Prouse that a license check, for no other reason than to check for a license was not legal and a 4A infringement, but (don't have a cite) the US Supreme court also ruled that DUI road block checks were legal because of the overwhelming public safety interest.

My conclusion, whether #4 is legal, or not, would depend on FL state law, and/or whether the defense can convince the judge/jury that there was not an "overwhelming" public safety interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top