XPost: or.politics, talk.politics.guns, az.politics   
   From: meso@mer.ica   
      
   On 5/2/2014 1:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Mayan Stonebird wrote in news:lk0p1i$6ho$1@dont-email.me:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|