Originally Posted by
FliesWay2Much
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
I'll write more when I'm at a desktop. For now, what you said is correct with two important caveats:
1.If the warrant said "gun" and the cops found drugs in a location in the house in which a gun could not have possibly been hidden based on physical size, the drugs were discovered illegally.
2. The drugs were in "plain sight" as courts have defined it. If drugs were on the kitchen table when the cops burst in, they can legally be siezed and used as evidence.
Yes, both are true I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just trying to show that just because you find something illegal that you weren't looking for doesn't mean that it is an illegal search or that the illegal item is inadmissible.
The problem is that searches are judged on the totality of circumstances. There is no hard and fast rule to measure PC in all cases. Even in this case, it will depend on where the ID's, and sleeves etc were found. Even in FOFANA that everyone points to here concedes that TSO's can still report contraband or illegal activity to law enforcement officials like any other citizen can. The circumstances just have to show that it was discovered as a result of the search for WEI, not specifically for evidence of illegal activity when challenged. Everything thing is taken into account, where it was found, in a container, size of the container, locked, sealed etc. Articulation is everything in these cases.
Are there problems? Yes, there are. However, I don't agree with most here. I don't beleive the search shouldn't be happening. I believe the TSO should receive better training to ensure the search is performed correctly and within court parameters.
FB
Nevertheless, [*24] the Court is equally aware of the importance of the protection granted by the Fourth Amendment
and the fact that individuals have a privacy interest in the contents of their luggage. United States v. Place, 462 U.S.
696, 707, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983) ("We have affirmed that a person possesses a privacy interest in the
contents of personal luggage that is protected by the Fourth Amendment."). As the Supreme Court recently stated, the
"central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment" was about "giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage
at will among a person's private effects." Arizona v. Grant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1720, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009). That
concern is implicated if airport checkpoint searches are permitted to balloon from "narrowly defined searches for guns
and explosives . . . justified by the need for air traffic safety" into "generalized law enforcement search[es] of all
passengers as a condition for boarding a commercial aircraft." See $ 124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d at 1243. In other
words, the need for heightened security does not render every conceivable checkpoint search procedure constitutionally
reasonable. Id.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court in no way suggests that secondary screening [*25] of passengers, including a
hand search of the passenger's luggage cannot be justified as administrative searches that serve the purpose of detecting
Page 7
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45852, *21
weapons and explosives in some, or even most, cases. Furthermore, the Court recognizes that contraband discovered in
the course of an otherwise constitutionally reasonable airport search may be reported to law enforcement officials.
Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616; United States v. $ 557,993.89, More or Less in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 81-83 (2d Cir.
2002) (finding airport search that was properly limited in scope to the detection of weapons was not invalidated merely
because searching agent discovered money orders evidencing other wrongdoing); $ 124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d at
1247 n.7 (noting that airport checkpoint agents are not prohibited from "reporting information pertaining to criminal
activity, as would any citizen"). The Court merely holds that where, as here, the evidence demonstrates that the
intrusiveness of a passenger's search was ramped-up based on a desire to detect evidence of ordinary criminal
wrongdoing, after the presence of weapons and explosives had been ruled out, the search can no longer be justified
under the administrative [*26] search doctrine and suppression is appropriate. 5 $ 124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d at
1247.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
The last sentence in context of your posting above is an example of preaching what is not practiced. That's called hollow sermonizing -- just like sinners in glass houses casting stones at non-sinners and sinners.
I will respond to you like I always do. My basis for my comments is the law, court decisions, and training. All of which, I can provide citations for. If you have a different viewpoint, that is fine. Provide the point, back it up with a citation and the source. I am all for the discussion. We can even agree to disagree but at least have the courage of conviction to stand behind what you say with some facts that others can look into.
However, I can not remember one post from you that you have ever backed up your claims with any type of verifiable source. It is pretty much standard Blah blah blah because I said blah blah I know someone who once said blah blah blah you are prejudice and bias blah blah blah. Never much of substance from you.
FB