Warrantless Wiretapping

[jamesrage]

...There's really no way to answer that question. It's a straw man. Trying to uphold the civil rights of our citizens is not undermining the government, no matter how you try and skew it.

The question is simple, yes you support the questioning and searching of suspicious persons at airports or no you think time effort and money should be wasted on searching and questioning little old grandmothers instead of someone who may appear to be suspicious.

You are trying to tell me that it is wrong to question sucpicious persons?

 

[Engimo]

The question is simple, yes you support the questioning and searching of suspicious persons at airports or no you think time effort and money should be wasted on searching and questioning little old grandmothers instead of someone who may appear to be suspicious.

You are trying to tell me that it is wrong to question sucpicious persons?

No, it's not - as long as you have reasonable cause for suspicion. Someone's skin color is not reasonable cause - them holding a bag of cocaine or lighting their shoe on fire is.

 

[jamesrage]

The Democrats whining about it today didnt seem to have much problem with it in 1994 and 1995.

I wonder what changed their minds. [/sarcasm]

Didn't you know that it is okay for one group to do this and not another[/sarcasm]?

 

[jamesrage]

No, it's not - as long as you have reasonable cause for suspicion. Someone's skin color is not reasonable cause - them holding a bag of cocaine or lighting their shoe on fire is.

the rats in the ACLU are also suing the TSA over behaviorial profiling.
They are making this horse **** claim that it could lead to racial profiling.


old story
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/18765prs20041110.html

new story
http://singrdave.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=96419

 

[Engimo]

the rats in the ACLU are also suing the TSA over behaviorial profiling.
They are making this horse **** claim that it could lead to racial profiling.


old story
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/18765prs20041110.html

new story
http://singrdave.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=96419

Current law permits the police to stop and question someone when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. In contrast, the "behavioral profiling" program instructs officers to detain anyone who they believe is exhibiting "unusual" or "anxious" behavior. What constitutes "unusual" or "anxious" behavior presumably is left to individual officer discretion.

"This case illustrates the danger of giving law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to detain people," said ACLU Cooperating Attorney Peter Krupp. "It is a clear case of unconstitutional racial profiling. Mr. Downing did nothing suspicious - unless you consider having dark skin and a beard evidence of suspicious behavior."

That sounds like a broad granting of power to the police that is wide open to interpretation. If people haven't committed any crime other than looking "suspicious" (horribly vague), how is it just to arrest or detain them?

 

[jamesrage]

That sounds like a broad granting of power to the police that is wide open to interpretation. If people haven't committed any crime other than looking "suspicious" (horribly vague), how is it just to arrest or detain them?

Being allowed to board a plane is not a right.Questioning someone is not a form of arrest.The articel says nothing about hauling them off to jail.

 

[Engimo]

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification.

They threatened him with arrest for not producing identification - something he does not legally have to do.

 

[jamesrage]

They threatened him with arrest for not producing identification - something he does not legally have to do.

He failed to produce identification.He could have been a escaped convict,terrorist and etc.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

# Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

 

[Engimo]

He failed to produce identification.He could have been a escaped convict,terrorist and etc.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

# Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

Yeah, what crime did they suspect this guy had committed, exactly? They said they were going to arrest him for not presenting ID, which is not in itself a crime - without having any reason to suspect him.

 

[jamesrage]

Yeah, what crime did they suspect this guy had committed, exactly? They said they were going to arrest him for not presenting ID, which is not in itself a crime - without having any reason to suspect him.

Did you miss this part?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify.

 

[Engimo]

Did you miss this part?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify.

Did you miss the part where it only applies when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed? It's only in the sentence right after that.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

See, the "when" is a qualifier, saying that the only time that it is okay for them to arrest people for not showing ID is when the cops have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.

 

[jamesrage]

Did you miss the part where it only applies when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed?

Do you think it is unsuspicious to not identify yourself?That individual could be commiting a crime or in the process of commiting a crime.

 

[Engimo]

Do you think it is unsuspicious to not identify yourself?That individual could be commiting a crime or in the process of commiting a crime.

Sure, and so could you. They asked for his ID on the basis that they thought that he looked shifty, and then threatened him with arrest when he didn't. The officers never had reasonable suspicion that the guy had committed a crime and therefore had no legal basis for demanding ID. You have no legal obligation to provide ID to anyone unless there is reason to suspect that you have committed a crime - certainly not the case here.

 

[teacher]

To anyone even directly related to the intelligence community... or anyone who has an intellectual interest into the funcions of the DoD and their affiliates....

It is more than clear that the NSA has been involved in remote telemetry that does monitor a number of keywords.

This is a virtue of our nation. The NSA is looking out for us as a whole. This has been going on for years and nothing can stop it. It is a virtue of intelligence and not a virtue of presidential power. The president has no "say" over this contrary to popular belief.

Now, it is a much different situation when a president, or any executive official, demands that the NSA use it's resource to single out persons without the benefit of a third party. An arbiter. An oversight.

Let's not confuse facts here... the NSA has done nothing wrong... it is the president of our nation that has requested a special element of domestic surveillance.... and as of yet none of us knows what that might entail beyond the common sense red-flag and electromagnetic monitoring purpose of the NSA.

Let's remember that the NSA deals with domestic elements.... in terms of national (as opposed to international) security. Not that the NSA is oblivious to international communication but the redflags are predominately amongst domestic communication. Of course this is only my interpretation and should not be considered as a factual matter.

Get your story straight Conflict. Make up your friggin mind. Or should I just copy/paste all our words? Now do your usual dance.

 

[akyron]

Sure, and so could you. They asked for his ID on the basis that they thought that he looked shifty, and then threatened him with arrest when he didn't.

Gee what case are you talking about ? The Larry Dudley Hiibel case had a bit more to it than that.


"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime.

Hiibel was charged with and convicted of resisting a public officer in violation of state law, and he appealed the conviction."

...and appealed ....and appealed...etc SOP for the ACLU.


You make it sound like an officer with nothing better to do just strolled over to him to start trouble.
He took a swipe at his daughter and the officer was CALLED by a witness to come over and check it out. He got a bit belligerent and the daughter came screaming out of the truck and got pinched as well ...the rest is legal fees.

The video is kind of amusing.


I would not be surprised if the entire thing was a setup to run to court to start with.

The final answer was Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

"Looking shifty" does not even begin to cover the presented facts of this case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have no legal obligation to provide ID to anyone unless there is reason to suspect that you have committed a crime - certainly not the case here.

Not so. When a law enforcement officer asks you for your ID, you are obligated to give it to him, regardless of any probable cause -- because to determine your identity is not an 'unreasonable search'.

 

[Lefty]

Do you think it is unsuspicious to not identify yourself?That individual could be commiting a crime or in the process of commiting a crime.

Refusing to identify yourself or allow officers to search you or your property can not be used as justification of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion." They cannot threaten you with arrest if you refuse.

 

[Engimo]

Not so. When a law enforcement officer asks you for your ID, you are obligated to give it to him, regardless of any probable cause -- because to determine your identity is not an 'unreasonable search'.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=106

Not true. You are only obligated to give ID if you are stopped by an officer when driving - because driving without a license would be a crime. If you are walking down the street and a police officer asks you for ID and arrests you for not complying, the arrest can be contested if he did not have reasonable suspicion that you had committed a crime.

 

[Engimo]

Gee what case are you talking about ? The Larry Dudley Hiibel case had a bit more to it than that.


"A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime.

Hiibel was charged with and convicted of resisting a public officer in violation of state law, and he appealed the conviction."

...and appealed ....and appealed...etc SOP for the ACLU.


You make it sound like an officer with nothing better to do just strolled over to him to start trouble.
He took a swipe at his daughter and the officer was CALLED by a witness to come over and check it out. He got a bit belligerent and the daughter came screaming out of the truck and got pinched as well ...the rest is legal fees.

The video is kind of amusing.


I would not be surprised if the entire thing was a setup to run to court to start with.

The final answer was Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

"Looking shifty" does not even begin to cover the presented facts of this case.

I hate to break it to you, but I was talking about this fellow:

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/18765prs20041110.html

 

[Stace]

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=106

Not true. You are only obligated to give ID if you are stopped by an officer when driving - because driving without a license would be a crime. If you are walking down the street and a police officer asks you for ID and arrests you for not complying, the arrest can be contested if he did not have reasonable suspicion that you had committed a crime.

You know, Ohio just passed a law (or is trying to pass it, anyway....I heard this on the news the other night) saying that a police officer can stop anyone at anytime and ask for ID, and if they don't provide it they can be arrested.....I thought it sounded kinda....well...dumb.

 

[Engimo]

You know, Ohio just passed a law (or is trying to pass it, anyway....I heard this on the news the other night) saying that a police officer can stop anyone at anytime and ask for ID, and if they don't provide it they can be arrested.....I thought it sounded kinda....well...dumb.

Lots of cities have tried to pass laws like that, they have all been overturned by various courts.

 

[Lefty]

You know, Ohio just passed a law (or is trying to pass it, anyway....I heard this on the news the other night) saying that a police officer can stop anyone at anytime and ask for ID, and if they don't provide it they can be arrested.....I thought it sounded kinda....well...dumb.

That law passed? Wow. That's a great law.:roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes that law to court and it gets overturned.

 

[jamesrage]

Refusing to identify yourself or allow officers to search you or your property can not be used as justification of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion." They cannot threaten you with arrest if you refuse.

Refusing to identify yourself can be seen as though you are hiding something perhaps several dozen warrants or you are on the run from the law.

 

[akyron]

I hate to break it to you, but I was talking about this fellow:

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/18765prs20041110.html

Thanks. You are right. King does look pretty shifty.

 

[Engimo]

Refusing to identify yourself can be seen as though you are hiding something perhaps several dozen warrants or you are on the run from the law.

That's circular logic. You need reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to legally require someone to present ID - but you are getting that suspicion from the fact that the person is not presenting ID?

What?