I argued with my Biology teacher about Civil Liberties today...

[Bush_Sucks]

He says it should be ok for cops to search you without a warrant if they're suspicious. I tried to tell him how stupid that was but he wouldn't bite.

Anybody wanna suggest some things for me to say to him to make him realize the stupidity in that kind of thinking?

[movonne]

1. Probably should not be a teacher if he can't figure that out.

[SharonAnn]

2. He probably needs to study the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights

and The Declaration of Independence.

Then, to put that stuff in context, needs to read some American history of the mid to late 1700's.

There's a reason the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure" is there.

[The Shadow]

21. Nazification of America

Americans need to realize that, to forgo any of our freedoms, for any reason, at any time, we as Americans will cease to exist.

What will we become? Only time will truly tell, but as it looks right now the closest parallel I can draw is that of nazi Germany.

In case some of you have never studied the history of the third reich, (I'm no expert, so please bear with me)hitler wasn't always ranting and raving in his speeches that we always seem to see in film clips, but was also the consummate evil lying bastard.

For example bushhole didn't start this terrorism thing or the national security excuse for all of his actions, hitler did.

hitler burned down the reichstag (German Parliament) , said that "terrorists" (his words) did it, instilling fear in the populace (sound familiar). He then convinced the german public that they must forgo certain civil rights and freedoms in order to catch the terrorists, so they did.
He used the term "national security" whenever he wanted to control the population. And the rest we know, is history.

When our fundamental freedoms are compromised or lost for any reason, that uniqueness in the world that makes us Americans will be forever lost and we will become merely a footnote in history!

[Bush_Sucks]

3. What can I say to him to make him look really stupid?? N/T

[Catch22Dem]

4. Easy...call the cops on him

Anonymous tip that he has some meth or something. They'll search his shit. All they need is suspicion, right?

[Bush_Sucks]

6. HAHA, that's good...

I tell him that random searches is harassment but he tells me, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?"

[mitchum]

13. Beat me to it!

An excellent idea :)

[liberal72]

5. Well . . . . .

if you are in high school use rationale arguements such as the possibility of slippery slope, question him if he is able to give up his own privacy zone. If in college do something a little more aggresive. Ask him if he is willing to take out his wallet show everyone what is in it or what he has in his pockets or briefcase. I say this because most of these people use the arguement "Well if you are innocent you have nothing to hide" which I personally find to be the most dangerous mentality a person can have.

[bobbieinok]

7. 'It's OK if they do it to you? your spouse? your child?'

The summer there was so much trouble in NYC - racial profiling, etc...

...O'Reily had a black or Hispanic (either state or federal representative from NYV) on the show who was trying to discuss many people's problems with this.

...Bill, older white guy in expensive suit, says something like most people would say if police find a few criminals when they do this, then it's OK.

...I remember looking at him and thinking that's easy for you to say; I wonder what your view would be if some policeman stopped you because you fit the profile of a suspect in a recent crime.

[GoBucksBeatBush]

8. ask him...

ask him if he thinks it's ok to teach creationism as hard science instead of evolution. then ask him how he would appreciate it if the gub'ment were to be able to walk in a remove him from teaching if they thought he was teaching the wrong stuff.

same thing...giving arbitrary power to the police state is not really ever a good thing.

[Trillo]

9. Suspicious of what? n/t

[Bush_Sucks]

11. You know, suspicious behaviour...Acting shady, etc.

[Trillo]

14. Is "acting shady" against the law? n/t

[Paragon]

10. How about "Stick to biology, asswipe"?

Just a thought. ;-)

[Terry_M]

12. The cops do turn a house upside down when they search through it, right?

Ask him what would protect him from getting searched in the middle of the night and then having to rearrange everything for half of the next day, if say he doesn't give a donation to his local police department this year.

[izzie]

15. Lets hope he just wondered if any one knew why?

If you were the only one that got up tight , you, the teacher and the rest of the class are in deep trouble.We all are.I think it may have been put out by the teacher to get you all to think.

[Bush_Sucks]

19. Yup, I was the only one who opposed his views.

He was being serious.

[dmr]

35. Then YOU are the one who taught class that day!

By speaking up, you made some of those kids think!

Good for you, and thank you. :)

[DustMolecule]

16. I've kept this tacked to my bulletin-board

(gee, how 'low-tech', huh?)...for, ehm, less than 2 years now - I say this to illustrate/remind people how quickly things are 'attempting' to move.

It's a clip from an 'Ask Marilyn' column in the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine Section, dated July 28, 2002. The column is written by Marilyn Vos Savant.

Q: I had a discussion with someone recently about the ever-increasing intrusions on privacy in America. My argument was that Americans are constitutionally entitled to privacy. His argument was that if you have nothing to hide, the intrusions shouldn't bother you. What is your opinion?

A:Intrusions by whom, and for what purpose? I think that his argument is weak. It would justify the public release of just about anything: your credit-card purchases, your telephone records, your medical conditions and more. The ability to invade privacy implies ownership, and that's why most of us detest it so much. One of the first signs of a child's growing maturity and feeling of independence is his or her desire for privacy. This is not an effort to hide; it is an expression of human dignity.
----------

bolding emphasis is mine.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

17. Correct me if I am wrong . . .

. . . but it is my understanding that a cop can pat down (not necessarily fully search) any detainee to check for a weapon that could be used against the cop.

The problem is that this pat down is abused and courts don't do a damn thing about it.

[atre]

32. You're right: A legal explanation for those who care

Before searching or seizing items, officers generally must have at least "probable cause" to believe (1) that the things to be searched or seized are connected with that criminal activity and (2) that the things to be searched or seized will be found in the particular place to be searched. Before arresting a person, officers generally must have "probable cause" to believe that (1) a crime has been committed Although the precise boundaries of "probable cause" have never been specified by the Court ("fair probability is the most popular definition), most legal scholars believe it means "more probable than not."

In Terry v. Ohio, however, the Court created a tremendous loophole to the "probable cause" requirement by creating the "Terry stop" or "Terry patdown." Terry allows a brief detention of persons (or as we learned later in U.S. v. Place, property) when an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a detainee poses a threat to the officers or to the public. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, has ill-defined boundaries. In Terry, however, the Court did say that the suspicion must be based on "articulable facts," and cannot be based upon mere hunches or intuition.

The patdown of a person is limited to his outer clothing to search for a weapon. If the detainee is or was in a car, the officers may search the interior compartment of the car (but may not search the trunk) for a weapon. If the detention is too long or too intrusive, the patdown may become an "arrest" (which will therefore be invalid if there is no probable cause).

This is just a cursory framework and does not include the many nuanced intricacies, such as the warrant requirement. This is not meant as legal advice, but is rather meant to educate my fellow DUers.

The problem with the Court's Fourth Amendment framework is the same as the hearsay framework (and thank God that Crawford simplified that in criminal courts). The problem is that the framework is so complex that few judges and even fewer lawyers and even fewer police officers understand it. Judging by a recent decision, even the 5th Circuit doesn't know what the hell is going on.

[alcuno]

18. Make sure you don't use the word "stupid" with your teacher.

I'm assuming that you are talking about warrantless searches of your home or property. The whole purpose of obtaining a warrant is to show that there is some sort of reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to do so. The police can always go into an area IF they think that a crime is occuring or a crime is imminent. By imminent, I mean something like a murder is about to occur.

If no crime is occuring or is imminent, I don't understand why the police shouldn't have to show cause in order to get a warrant and search your car or property. Police who are simply "suspicious" can do more damage than good. Remember, the police are there to assist in the enforcement of laws. There are other members of law enforcement, such as the state's attorneys, whose job it is to look at the evidence and assist in proceeding lawfully.

Police on the loose could actually damage the ability of others to skillfully conduct investigations and collect evidence. Potential criminals good be set free because of bungling.

Besides, do you really want the police, simply acting on information from your neighbor that you are a terrorist, to be able to come into your house without a warrant. You'd have neighborhood feuds going on throughout the country with neighbors "turning in" neighbors because they are mad at the way someone parks their car on the street.

[Bush_Sucks]

20. kick

[SemperEadem]

22. I think the example of using anonymity to sic the police on you

to even up a grudge is a good one.

Say, for instance, your neighbor, for whatever reason, has a problem with you. They decide that they're going to anonymously call the police because they say they smell some funny chemical odor coming from your home and tahey think you might be terrorists making bombs. They've seen lots of suspicious looking people coming in and out of the house at all hours of the day and night. SWAT arrives, puts a gun to your head and tells you they're going to blow your head off if you and your wife don't sit down and shut the eff up. They rampage throughout your house, going from room to room, demanding to know where the bombs are. They find a couple of lawfully owned guns, but at the time, the don't know that.

They don't let you call your lawyer because you're not charged with anything yet, you're being detained, but because you're asking too many questions, they put you and your crying wife in handcuffs and separate you two. After searching your house, turning it upside down, they find nothing. You don't know why they're there because you're not doing anything but refinishing or revarnishing a old desk in the basement that you're selling on ebay.

Once the cops are done trashing your place looking for bombs, they leave you to clean up their mess without so much as a "sorry about that...".

He's saying that's ok because he had nothing to hide?

[Davis_X_Machina]

23. Basically they already can...

...it's called a "Terry stop", and they are widely abused.

Details here

[Bozita]

24. Do it all respectfully ... You're trying to persuade him

Besides, I heard that he's got child porn on his home computer's hard drive.

Keep us posted.

[Bush_Sucks]

26. Naw, he won't be persuaded, he's a fundie...

But I will respectfully make him look like a fool though.

[Bozita]

27. A fundy biology teacher?? No wonder he's talking civil rights

That's really sad.

[Bush_Sucks]

28. I know..

I questioned him about that, but he of course gave me the usual non answer.

[Bozita]

29. IMHO go with SemperEadem's technique

post #22

That'll get him.

The other approaches are too cerebral for the guy.

[Fenris]

25. Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There it is, right there in the Constitution. But it doesn't stop there. The Supreme Court has also ruled on it:

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in State courts. The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures could not be properly enforced as long as illegally obtained evidence continued to be presented in court. The ruling argued that there was no other effective means of deterring widespread Fourth Amendment violations by police. The ruling acknowledged that sometimes a criminal could go free due to improper police conduct, but argued that the interest in promoting professionalism among police outweighed this concern.

Also, four things you should know about the Mapp ruling:

1.Consenting to a search automatically makes the evidence admissible in court. Don’t consent to warrantless searches!


2.A search is legal if the officer has probable cause to believe you may be engaged in criminal activity.


3.Police officers are quick to conclude that probable cause has been established. Don’t try to be clever, just keep your mouth shut.


4.If you feel that police have seized evidence from you illegally, don’t discuss it with the arresting officer. Get a lawyer.

[atre]

34. Mapp v. Ohio

Mapp is not really the principal decision for the Fourth Amendment framework. All Mapp did was incorporate to the states the exclusionary rule, a rule the Court had already recognized for federal courts. This rule is not a part of the Fourth Amendment; rather it is a prudential rule based on the Court's supervisory power over the lower courts, designed to ensure judicial integrity and to deter police misconduct.

Katz (definition of search), Terry (brief detentions to search for weapons), Schneckmonte (consent) are more on point.

Another thing that your cite doesn't mention about consent searches is that YOU don't necessarily even have to give the consent for YOUR OWN property. If the officers reasonably believe that they have recieved consent by a person with at least "joint authority" over the premises, they may conduct the search.

Some other important points:

1) If the officer does not have any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, you are free to ignore the officer and simply walk away. (Don't run, though, because the Court says unprovoked fligh provides reasonable suspicion).

2) If you are being arrested in your home or searched (in anywhere but your car or mobile home), ask to see a warrant first.

3) Never waive your Miranda rights! Never! Always ask to speak to a lawyer.

[Guaranteed]

30. They have to have probable cause

to search anyone or anything without a warrant- except in some cases, like they can always look in your trunk if you get pulled over, but they can't look in the cooler IN your trunk.

Basically, probable cause means that, in order to search you, they have to have a DAMNED good reason, i.e. they have to have observed you doing or in possession of something that legitimately leads them to believe that you might have something else illegal or incriminating on you.

[RapidCreek]

31. Make an anonymous call to the cops

from a pay phone and tell them you saw him selling pot to some kids in the parking lot at school. That should be good for a couple of chuckles. Wait a month or two before you do it though.

RC

[atre]

33. Explanation: clipped from my post above

Before searching or seizing items, officers generally must have at least "probable cause" to believe (1) that the things to be searched or seized are connected with that criminal activity and (2) that the things to be searched or seized will be found in the particular place to be searched. Before arresting a person, officers generally must have "probable cause" to believe that (1) a crime has been committed Although the precise boundaries of "probable cause" have never been specified by the Court ("fair probability is the most popular definition), most legal scholars believe it means "more probable than not."

In Terry v. Ohio, however, the Court created a tremendous loophole to the "probable cause" requirement by creating the "Terry stop" or "Terry patdown." Terry allows a brief detention of persons (or as we learned later in U.S. v. Place, property) when an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a detainee poses a threat to the officers or to the public. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, has ill-defined boundaries. In Terry, however, the Court did say that the suspicion must be based on "articulable facts," and cannot be based upon mere hunches or intuition.

The patdown of a person is limited to his outer clothing to search for a weapon. If the detainee is or was in a car, the officers may search the interior compartment of the car (but may not search the trunk) for a weapon. If the detention is too long or too intrusive, the patdown may become an "arrest" (which will therefore be invalid if there is no probable cause).

This is just a cursory explanation and does not include the many nuanced intricacies, such as the warrant requirement (which likewise has many loopholes itself). This is not meant as legal advice, but is rather meant to educate my fellow DUers.

The problem with the Court's Fourth Amendment framework is the same as the hearsay framework (and thank God that Crawford simplified that in criminal courts via the Confrontation Clause). The problem is that the framework is so complex that few judges and even fewer lawyers and even fewer police officers understand it. Judging by a recent decision, even the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't know what the hell is going on.

What can you tell your teacher? Tell him even Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would think he's a moron. The very reason we have the Fourth Amendment, as recognized by Scalia, is to prevent "general searches" - suspicionless, warrantless searches that the Founding Fathers so feared. Tell him if he disagrees with that, he can get the hell out of the country (if he likes cameras in bathrooms, Singapore is nice) or start a movement to repeal the Fourth Amendment.

Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, in criticizing the Patriot Act, said, "People often say that they have nothing to hide, but that ignores the possibility that anyone can be criminalized." Granting the state the power to search persons without suspicion gives the government such power that it can "create" a crime and implicate a person in it. The 4th Amendment framework requires essentially that officers catalog their activities, thus eliminating most of the potential for frame-ups.

I guarantee you that your teacher does not mean that he favors suspicionless searches of everyone, though. I'm sure he meant only "swarthy" Arab individuals, like Ann Coulter in her most famous column.