"What if they left and the wife was inside bleeding to death?  Who would get the blame then?"

Probably the person who inflicted her injuries. I would assume if the cops thought someone was bleeding to death, that would fall under the realm of exigent circumstances or probable cause.
This "We can go in and you can sue us later if we're wrong" rationale is insane. I hate to bring out the N-word, but I think German citizens had more rights under the Nazis than Indianans have been given by their own court.

If the reporting is correct: "In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."

I don't have a problem with the cops busting down the door if there's someone bleeding, what I object to is them having the right to bust down the door when someone isn't bleeding. That's dangerous as hell.
Where are Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of the "government is trying to control our lives" crowd on this? Well, Limbaugh's probably hiding his stores of prescription medication in the wall safe, but Hannity should be outraged!

the problem with most any law is its application.  as long as cops are busting down the doors of criminals without a warrant, then voters aren't going to be up in arms about their civil rights, as wrong as it might be.  what happens when the cops bust down the doors of law-abiding citizens?  or they pass a law that makes criminals of what is today are law-abiding citizens? or they bust down MY door?

Max wrote:

To whit (from Drudge Report).  How long have decent law-abiding conservative Americans tolerated unwarranted searches and pat downs of criminals, and people who by their very identity can be reasonable suspected of illegal activity because they are black, latino, Muslim, etc.?  But the moment we get equal application of the law, and they try to pat down "MY" wife or children, feeling their breasts and crotch, then suddenly "I" am a civil libertarian.

"AUSTIN (AP) - The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.

Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person�  including through clothing.

It also prohibits searches “that would be offensive to a reasonable person.�

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/texas-house-bans-offensive-security-pat-downs/

That applies to "airport security pat-downs" of people not expected of committing a crime.  Funny that this issue was born because of lack of airport security and the problem it caused (9/11).  Someone had to be the scapegoat, right?  Use 20/20 hindsight to place blame on someone.  Now the issue is people not happy with the measures airports have take to make sure these things dont happen again.  So now you use 20/20 hindsight, nothing has happend in long while and blame the airports.

Max wrote:

not sure if this is what you meant, but it sounds like what you are saying is to profile people and pull people out of line for pat-downs if the they look like they are expected to commit a crime, and we're right back to having two levels of civil rights, one for the people we do not expect to commit a crime and another for the people who we do expect to commit a crime, in which case it all boils down to:

1) which people are doing the expecting, us or them?
2) which crimes/criminals are getting the proactive patdowns?  If we can use the law to proactively confiscate and search the computers and phones of all bank executives on the presumption that they are expected to commit crimes, then i might be with you, and sit back and watch as some arab-looking guy's wife and daughter get fondled in a TSA line while mine walk through without a hitch.

I am not sure what you are talking about.  Out in the world there has to be some degree of suspicion to do anything.  Then if your suspicions are right you still have to articulate them for court.  Not only that but normally your search is limited to weapons.  You can never randomly search people, computers or anything.  There is no such thing as a "proactive patdown". 

As for airport security I dont think people need there anus touched but I dont think they should expect not to have their privacy violated some.  they are using someone elses service.  They dont have to use it if they dont want to do it under their conditions.

Max wrote:

as I said,  wasn't sure what your point was, either.  sometimes hard to understand and empathize from forum posts.

what i am talking about is that people who do not look like you or i have been complaining for years that they are subjected to racial or ethnic 'profiling', that is, they look like they might be expected to commit because they are black, muslim, whatever, and encounter enhanced security checks, whether on the street (e.g. DWB, driving while black) or else at TSA/airport security (where Muslims come in for extra screening, and a few imams were recently kicked off plane just for making the pilot uncomfortable). 

so, my point is that nobody who is not guilty of a crime wants to be stopped and searched, and none of us want to see out wife and children groped.  but some people have been complaining that this has been happening to them for many years as a result of racial/ethnic profiling.

Why do you tun everything in to a racial thing?

Airport searches are not unwarranted searches because they cant be held to the constitutionbeing that they are not part of the government.  If you came over to my house to drink beer and I told you I was going to pat you down before you entered then I could do that.  If you didnt like then you are free to leave.

It says that there was little debate.  Likely because this inst ground breaking.  I doubt many women had their anus checked during an airport screaning.  I doubt they even pat people down much.  they have metal detectors.

"Funny that this issue was born because of lack of airport security and the problem it caused (9/11).  Someone had to be the scapegoat, right?  Use 20/20 hindsight to place blame on someone.  Now the issue is people not happy with the measures airports have take to make sure these things dont happen again.  So now you use 20/20 hindsight, nothing has happend in long while and blame the airports."

Well, hindsight is all we have to go on, and it's difficult to fathom something on the scale of 9/11 until it actually happens. I think we've done the "Hey, how come nobody raised a red flag when a bunch of guys learned how to fly but not take off or land a plane, bought 1-way tickets with cash and didn't have any luggage but my 90-year-old grannie has to get felt up by the TSA?" Monday morning quarterbacking to a point it's no longer productive.
Flying will never be 100 percent safe, but I think everyone has to remember it's optional, not an involuntary requirement.

APRTW wrote:

Airport searches are not unwarranted searches because they cant be held to the constitutionbeing that they are not part of the government.  If you came over to my house to drink beer and I told you I was going to pat you down before you entered then I could do that.  If you didnt like then you are free to leave.

Actually, I don't think that's correct.

After 9/11, didn't all airport searches get taken over by the TSA or private groups who contract with the TSA?  If so, the searches are being performed "under color of law" (the legal standard for constitutional claims) and would have to meet constitutional standards.

I doubt that Texas law survives constitutional scrutiny. The law requires specificity. If the prohibited conduct is unconstitutionally vague, the law is void. What is "offensive to a reasonable person?"  Two people could engage in the ecact same conduct, but only one of them offend the person being searched.  That's a huge problem.

AP, I understand what you're saying about the situation the police were in. I agree, that when you go to a domestic, you need to see the potential victim. But as I read that story, it seemed to allow the police to enter someone's home at any time for any reason. So for example, while I'm sitting here typing on my blackberry, the police could walk in my house and I would be powerless to stop them. I agree with Artie, that's unconstitutional.

Fors, or Max, or anyone else who's older than 30, do you remember that debate about the Miami cop from a couple of decades ago who became a national news story for his an uncanny ability to detect drug trafficking?  He patrolled Route 95 and basically pulled over every car that fit a certain profile - occupied by Hispanic males and not speeding. The cop's logic was that by driving 55 mph, these guys were consciously obeying the law, which made them suspect since anyone with nothing to hide doesn't obey the speed limit.
Invariably, the trunk of the car would be loaded with narcotics, usually cocaine, and he'd make the bust. But the charges were inevitably dropped because the cop had no probable cause to stop the car and therefore no grounds to conduct a search.
I have no problem letting drug dealers rot in jail, but once you start letting people get pulled over for no apparent reason, you're heading for dangerous ground.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Fors, or Max, or anyone else who's older than 30, do you remember that debate about the Miami cop from a couple of decades ago who became a national news story for his an uncanny ability to detect drug trafficking?  He patrolled Route 95 and basically pulled over every car that fit a certain profile - occupied by Hispanic males and not speeding. The cop's logic was that by driving 55 mph, these guys were consciously obeying the law, which made them suspect since anyone with nothing to hide doesn't obey the speed limit.
Invariably, the trunk of the car would be loaded with narcotics, usually cocaine, and he'd make the bust. But the charges were inevitably dropped because the cop had no probable cause to stop the car and therefore no grounds to conduct a search.
I have no problem letting drug dealers rot in jail, but once you start letting people get pulled over for no apparent reason, you're heading for dangerous ground.

i don't recall that guy, but i am aware of research that shows a different skill, that is, some people are exceptionally talented at detecting lies.  there are claims that some of that skill is teachable.  this is behind the israeli version of TSA, i believe.  i have not faced it in israel, but have faced it in singapore (little known rumor that singapore has close, but closely guarded, ties with israel). basically, to get onto an american bound american flagged carrier, you must stand eyeball to eyeball with a person who looks directly at your face as he/she asks you questions and watches your responses.  the belief is that such a system is best for determining who needs additional screening, or rather, who does not.  it seems to have worked great for el al.

i agree with you that there must be equality before the law, and that profiling based upon race religion, creed, nationality, etc. undermines our system of government.  others do not agree with us, and indeed our country was built in the post civil war years on sherman's maxim that the only good indian was a dead indian.  kill 'em and take their land.  that mind set remains in many of us:

blacks > street thugs: pull 'em over and frisk 'em.
latinos > drug runners or illegal: pull 'em over and search their documentation and vehicle.
muslims > just kill 'em: they're terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or else didn't do enough to stop terror in the name of religion.
liberals > ignore or ridicule 'em: they hate America.

Last edited by Max (5/14/2011 12:05 am)