TiVo Community Forum

TiVo Community Forum Archive 2
Covering threads with a last post date between
July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
THIS IS A READ ONLY SITE
 


 

SEARCH  |  ARCHIVE 1 MAIN SITE

 
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-30-2005, 10:22 AM   #121 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
I'm sorry, but does anyone really believe they were stress balls? First, who is going to use such a thing in public if it's made out of condoms? Second, how many people carry around multiple stress balls?

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:50 AM   #122 (Print)
unixadm
Super Moderator
 
unixadm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 4,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Then that's their problem. If I want to wire a clock to a few pieces of pipe, that's my business.

Actually, something looking like a bomb IS something that airport SECURITY should be looking for. Drugs aren't why we pay good money for them to scan stuff.



Uhh...last I checked, drugs are illegal. They have every right to search for drugs. And if you want to wire a clock to a few pieces of pipe, then go through an airport, I can assure you that you will be detained.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Sure I am... They wanna waste my time by pulling me over, I have no issue wasting their time by letting them rip my vehicle apart trying to find the "real" flour.


If you are pulled over, it is most likely because YOU did something wrong! You were speeding, make an illegal turn, weaved on the road, had something wrong with your car, etc. They are doing their job. Sure, there are some bad cops, but the majority of them are good and are trying to do their jobs correctly. If you really do this kind of stuff, you will only make it hard on yourself in the end.

__________________
TiVo has forever changed the way I view TV!

"I truly fear you!" - JediCowboyD
"Unixadm is right" - mwhip
"wow, you're good" - Brig1977
"[It's] Bad karma to prove a mod wrong." - newsposter

Last edited by unixadm : 12-30-2005 at 10:56 AM.
unixadm is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:53 AM   #123 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
Uhh...last I checked, drugs are illegal. They have every right to search for drugs.


The government does not have "every right" to search for things that are illegal, wherever they want. There's this pesky Fourth Amendment they have to deal with.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:57 AM   #124 (Print)
unixadm
Super Moderator
 
unixadm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 4,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
The government does not have "every right" to search for things that are illegal, wherever they want. There's this pesky Fourth Amendment they have to deal with.


In an airport they do.....if you don't like it, then don't fly. Just like when you go to a concert, a football game or whatever. You agree when buying the ticket that you can be searched. The 4th amendment prevents them from coming into my house without a warrant, searching my car without a warrant or my permission, etc. If I agree, then they can do the search. When I buy a ticket, I agree that I can be searched.

__________________
TiVo has forever changed the way I view TV!

"I truly fear you!" - JediCowboyD
"Unixadm is right" - mwhip
"wow, you're good" - Brig1977
"[It's] Bad karma to prove a mod wrong." - newsposter
unixadm is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:02 AM   #125 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
In an airport they do.....if you don't like it, then don't fly. Just like when you go to a concert, a football game or whatever. You agree when buying the ticket that you can be searched.


A "concert, football game or whatever" is not the government, or, it's the government searching you when you enter government property. Airplanes are neither. Is it your position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in airports?

Airline security is security, not law enforcement. Their job is to search for things that may be used to injure other passengers, not anything that may be illegal or evidence of a crime.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:02 AM   #126 (Print)
hefe
Hefeweizen-heimer
 
hefe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Round Lake, IL
Posts: 13,498
Send a message via AIM to hefe
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
In an airport they do.....if you don't like it, then don't fly. Just like when you go to a concert, a football game or whatever. You agree when buying the ticket that you can be searched.

The search isn't the problem, IMO. But the false imprisonment is.

Any field test that can't tell cocaine or heroin from flour isn't worth its...salt.

Really, if these tests are that unreliable, how can they be useful at all?

__________________
JPTMFITF4O5TISMO
Hefe's a cruel man, but fair.~edhara
That hefe, he's really smart!~Fish Man

Follow The Amazing Race in Google Earth. Complete through leg 6.
hefe is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:08 AM   #127 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
The government does not have "every right" to search for things that are illegal, wherever they want. There's this pesky Fourth Amendment they have to deal with.


Varies from state to state. The US Constitution does not prevent searches of cars. I disagree with that decision, but that's the one the USSC made.

Washington State's constitution offers greater protection.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:11 AM   #128 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Is it your position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in airports?

Airline security is security, not law enforcement. Their job is to search for things that may be used to injure other passengers, not anything that may be illegal or evidence of a crime.


First, the last point. The fact that they are not law enforcement wouldn't matter. They are government employees (at most airports). Where applicable, government employees cannot search you without a warrant.

As to the airport thing, again, warrants are not required in all situations. Washington state does not allow sobriety checkpoint roadblocks. Other states do. This, however, would be governed by federal law, and I'm not sure what the decisions are as to this type of thing.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:12 AM   #129 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
Varies from state to state. The US Constitution does not prevent searches of cars. I disagree with that decision, but that's the one the USSC made.


I don't remember seeing such a broad holding. Do you have a case name?
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:13 AM   #130 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by hefe
The search isn't the problem, IMO. But the false imprisonment is.

Any field test that can't tell cocaine or heroin from flour isn't worth its...salt.

Really, if these tests are that unreliable, how can they be useful at all?


I don't think there are many tests that are 100% reliable. And presumably the more accurate tests are more costly and more complex and not practical on-site.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:15 AM   #131 (Print)
SparkleMotion
Hot Patootie!
 
SparkleMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bless my soul!
Posts: 18,772
IIRC, SCOTUS said that looking into the passenger compartment of a car does not violate the 4th because it's all glass and would be visible anyway. But I think they stopped short of under the seats, glove compartments, and trunks (at least, IIRC).
SparkleMotion is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:15 AM   #132 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
I don't remember seeing such a broad holding. Do you have a case name?


It was in the early 80s. All I remember is they relied on the fact that in the early days of the country the authorities could search wagons behind horses. To me that might give them the right to search trucks, but not cars. For them to search cars I'd want some evidence that in the early days the authorities could do a body cavity search on horses!

But if you want real authority, look at all the car searches on Cops!

Most states don't have Washington's restrictive rules.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:16 AM   #133 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
First, the last point. The fact that they are not law enforcement wouldn't matter. They are government employees (at most airports). Where applicable, government employees cannot search you without a warrant.


Indeed, the Fourth Amendment applies to the government, whoever they are or whatever role they're playing. I was pointing out the limited function of airport security, which does not include searching for contraband that, while illegal, doesn't put the passengers of the plane in any danger. Of course, while searching for weapons they may find contraband, and are not required to ignore it, but they are not permitted to be searching for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
As to the airport thing, again, warrants are not required in all situations. Washington state does not allow sobriety checkpoint roadblocks. Other states do. This, however, would be governed by federal law, and I'm not sure what the decisions are as to this type of thing.


I hear you on sobriety checkpoints - I disagreed with the Supreme Court when they held that random sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. But the justification for their constitutionality, IIRC, is for public safety on the roads, not general law enforcement.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:17 AM   #134 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkleMotion
IIRC, SCOTUS said that looking into the passenger compartment of a car does not violate the 4th because it's all glass and would be visible anyway. But I think they stopped short of under the seats, glove compartments, and trunks (at least, IIRC).


Looking into the windows (where things are in "plain view") is different from moving things around or opening the trunk.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:19 AM   #135 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth...ithout_warrants

Search for automobile in this link. Unfortunately, it doesn't give a cite.

Edit: Here's the part:

"The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers."

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:19 AM   #136 (Print)
SparkleMotion
Hot Patootie!
 
SparkleMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bless my soul!
Posts: 18,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
I hear you on sobriety checkpoints - I disagreed with the Supreme Court when they held that random sobriety checkpoints are constitutional.
I believe the Gov't's argument was that a) Driving, being a privilige and not a right, is subject to stringent safety concerns. And that b) if all being stopped are sobriety tested, it isn't an unfair burden on a select few.

Despite those points, I'm with you. It's a bad idea and a worse decision.
SparkleMotion is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:20 AM   #137 (Print)
hefe
Hefeweizen-heimer
 
hefe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Round Lake, IL
Posts: 13,498
Send a message via AIM to hefe
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
I don't think there are many tests that are 100% reliable. And presumably the more accurate tests are more costly and more complex and not practical on-site.

No, but if I'm in the drug-detecting-test business, the first thing I do is test the product to see if it false positives the most basic white powders. If it fails on flour, baking soda, or the like, the product doesn't get out the door.

Does "not 100% reliable" mean that if they run the test with the same kit and sample 10 times they will get one, or two, or three false positives? Or that it always false positives on certain substances.

I wonder if they ran the test a second time when they got the first positive.

__________________
JPTMFITF4O5TISMO
Hefe's a cruel man, but fair.~edhara
That hefe, he's really smart!~Fish Man

Follow The Amazing Race in Google Earth. Complete through leg 6.
hefe is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:21 AM   #138 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
It's decisions like these that make me think the USSC will uphold Bush on his wiretaps, when it gets to them.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:22 AM   #139 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by hefe
No, but if I'm in the drug-detecting-test business, the first thing I do is test the product to see if it false positives the most basic white powders. If it fails on flour, baking soda, or the like, the product doesn't get out the door..


Actually, I wouldn't care if it detected flour in its raw form. How many people transport flour around?

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 11:40 AM   #140 (Print)
mike3775
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,216
Send a message via AIM to mike3775 Send a message via MSN to mike3775 Send a message via Yahoo to mike3775
It is very possible for a bad batch of field testing kits to get out of the factory.

If the factory does QA, they may only sample 1 out of every 10 kits, and thats even if they do the QA like they are supposed to and don't just lie and say they did, which probably occurs more often than companies would like to admit.
mike3775 is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:03 PM   #141 (Print)
busyba
Registered User
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
If you are pulled over, it is most likely because YOU did something wrong! You were speeding, make an illegal turn, weaved on the road, had something wrong with your car


Or you could have just been black.


Quote:
"The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects."

The Supreme Court obviously hasn't seen my car.

__________________
"of course, you are 100% correct" --jsmeeker
"Personally, I think that's an excellent point." --pigonthewing
"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --pigonthewing
busyba is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:12 PM   #142 (Print)
Langree
Goomba
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas Baby!
Posts: 2,280
Send a message via AIM to Langree
Not a bit.. first it's a "prank", then it's a "stress ball". Either way she's an idiot.

It's all over our ticketing info that bags can be searched, mine have been, I don't stress when i see the tag added to the bag.

if they didn't initially open the bag, and the screener spotted the condoms on the x-ray image, they then had cause to open the bag.

and sorry to say no police officer is going to sniff and or taste a suspicious white substance.

__________________
XBox Gamertag: Angry Langree

Langree's hit the nail on the head. -- AJRitz
Beaten to the punch by Langree. -- Clutchbrake
Reading Langree's next post makes me feel better. -- Hoffer
Langree is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:20 PM   #143 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
While we're talking cars and homes, there is the legal issue where "search instant (or incident) to an arrest" comes in. In other words, if you're arrested, your car is theirs... they can rip it apart without consent or warrant. If the arrest is faulty, then the results of the search are inadmissable.

BUT, seems to me that if I'm illegally searched, and drugs are found, the law enforcement folks should be REQUIRED to return the items illegally confiscated, regardless of the items' legality.
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:22 PM   #144 (Print)
SparkleMotion
Hot Patootie!
 
SparkleMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bless my soul!
Posts: 18,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langree
and sorry to say no police officer is going to sniff and or taste a suspicious white substance.
Then stick it in the nose of a drug dog. There really is no GOOD reason to have kept her without charging her for 3 weeks in a county lock-up.

No GOOD reason at all.
SparkleMotion is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:33 PM   #145 (Print)
Langree
Goomba
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas Baby!
Posts: 2,280
Send a message via AIM to Langree
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkleMotion
Then stick it in the nose of a drug dog. There really is no GOOD reason to have kept her without charging her for 3 weeks in a county lock-up.

No GOOD reason at all.


Waiting for the lab results would be my guess. If she had no way to post bail that's on her.

__________________
XBox Gamertag: Angry Langree

Langree's hit the nail on the head. -- AJRitz
Beaten to the punch by Langree. -- Clutchbrake
Reading Langree's next post makes me feel better. -- Hoffer
Langree is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:55 PM   #146 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkleMotion
Then stick it in the nose of a drug dog. There really is no GOOD reason to have kept her without charging her for 3 weeks in a county lock-up.

No GOOD reason at all.


You act as if they wanted to lock her up that long. Typically they don't really like people locked up due to the expense.

I once had a friend arrested and he couldn't make bail even though it was a small amount (and no, the friend didn't call me). After about three weeks the judge released him on PR just to get him out of the jail.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:57 PM   #147 (Print)
SparkleMotion
Hot Patootie!
 
SparkleMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bless my soul!
Posts: 18,772
What was the charge? She was being HELD on suspicion, but whatever happened to file a charge within 48 or 72 hours or they walk?
SparkleMotion is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 12:59 PM   #148 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkleMotion
What was the charge? She was being HELD on suspicion, but whatever happened to file a charge within 48 or 72 hours or they walk?


They presumably did that. But ultimately the charge was dropped as indicated in the OP.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 01:00 PM   #149 (Print)
unixadm
Super Moderator
 
unixadm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 4,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik

Airline security is security, not law enforcement. Their job is to search for things that may be used to injure other passengers, not anything that may be illegal or evidence of a crime.


Then why do they have Drug Sniffing dogs at the airport? What about the customs officials that look for illegal Cuban Cigars and confiscate them? I don't think a cigar is used to injure others. Anything carried into an airport is subject to search. A person is subject to search just by walking onto airport property. Anything found can be confiscated, and the person can be charged if it is illegal. 4th Amendment rights is only to protect you when on your property....not when you agree to it by entering someone else's property. There are signs all over the airport stating that "All bags and persons can be searched". You agree to give up your rights by walking on property.

__________________
TiVo has forever changed the way I view TV!

"I truly fear you!" - JediCowboyD
"Unixadm is right" - mwhip
"wow, you're good" - Brig1977
"[It's] Bad karma to prove a mod wrong." - newsposter
unixadm is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 01:03 PM   #150 (Print)
SparkleMotion
Hot Patootie!
 
SparkleMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bless my soul!
Posts: 18,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
I don't think a cigar is used to injure others.
Dunno...one in particular seemed to harm Bill Clinton a bit!
SparkleMotion is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
 
Forum Jump
Thread Tools

Go Back  TiVo Community Archive2 > Off Topic Areas (Non-TiVo) > Happy Hour - General Chit-Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.


Spider History Index