XPost: or.politics, talk.politics.guns, az.politics
From: meso@mer.ica
On 5/2/2014 12:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in
> news:b8o7m956diup0tq4hqoru5soaf10h155ht@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:06:22 -0500, RD Sandman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in
>>> news:qkh7m9dlvhbua4ea45sg4rj35kd9rif9qd@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 May 2014 10:39:17 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in
>>>>> news:mlp5m95066vuhm090qnhc7pnagev83pap5@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 18:17:05 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in
>>>>>>> news:mkj5m9tdgf5bv3ngpc5onhjev4fq355klf@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 16:33:40 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:gnc5m9tvp8vb6jkbkuoio1kl7ekdc7hjde@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 13:02:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 08:33:53 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 07:56:16 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 07:35:21 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 May 2014 06:46:15 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:53:44 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Representative Steven Horsford says people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in fear, under the constant presence of armed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> militia groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, we're all petrified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Armed gangs roaming the streets might not bother you but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does bother Bunkerville residents who want their town back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did they take a vote?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They certainly didn't take a vote in these creatures crawling
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of the woodwork and invading their community did they?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you're OK with feds stopping and searching on lonely
>>>>>>>>>>> highways miles from he border, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there is reasonable suspicion of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just what do you consider "reasonable suspicion"? Driving a car
>>>>>>>>> while hispanic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> profiling is only allowed at the actual international border.
>>>
>>> The article you cited below states differently.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Border search exception
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct
>>>>>>>> suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the
>>>>>>>> border,[5] the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed
>>>>>>>> that the border search exception applies only at international
>>>>>>>> borders and their functional equivalent (such as international
>>>>>>>> airports).[4]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, U.S.
>>>>>>>> Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agents, and U.S.
> Coast
>>>>>>>> Guard officers (E4 grade and above) who are all customs officers
>>>>>>>> (those tasked with enforcing Title 19 of the United States Code)
>>>>>>>> with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are permitted to
>>>>>>>> search travelers and their belongings at the American border
>>>>>>>> without probable cause or a warrant.[6]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pursuant to this authority, customs officers may generally stop
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> search the property of any traveler entering or exiting the
> United
>>>>>>>> States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles.[7]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing a challenge to
>>>>>>>> Customs' authority to search electronic files in United States v.
>>>>>>>> Ickes, held that there is no First Amendment exception to the
>>>>>>>> border search doctrine for expressive materials .[11] The Court
>>>>>>>> based its finding in part on the demands of protecting the nation
>>>>>>>> from terrorist threats that may cross the American border in
>>>>>>>> expressive materials.[12] in its analysis, the Court stated:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The border search doctrine is justified by the longstanding
>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>> of the sovereign to protect itself. Particularly in today's
> world,
>>>>>>>> national security interests may require uncovering terrorist
>>>>>>>> communications, which are inherently “expressive.” Following
>>>>>>>> Ickes's logic would create a sanctuary at the border for all
>>>>>>>> expressive material-even for terrorist plans. This would
> undermine
>>>>>>>> the compelling reasons that lie at the very heart of the border
>>>>>>>> search doctrine."[
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Supreme Court expressly did not rule what level of suspicion
>>>>>>>> would be necessary for a strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray
>>>>>>>> search,[21] though they did say that the only two standards for
>>>>>>>> Fourth Amendment purposes short of a warrant were "reasonable
>>>>>>>> suspicion" and "probable cause" (rejecting a "clear indication"
>>>>>>>> standard).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the border search context, reasonable suspicion means that the
>>>>>>>> facts known to the customs officer at the time of the search,
>>>>>>>> combined with the officer's reasonable inferences from those
>>>>>>>> facts, provides the officer with a particularized and objective
>>>>>>>> basis for suspecting that the search will reveal contraband.[22]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To form a basis for reasonable suspicion, a customs officer may
>>>>>>>> rely on his training and prior experience, and may rely on
>>>>>>>> entirely innocent factors, if the totality of the circumstances
>>>>>>>> provide the officer with reasonable suspicion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
