Originally Posted by
gojirasan
Oh I see. I guess I was reading it wrong. I was reading [special maritime] and [territorial jurisdiction] as 2 separate areas. I wasn't applying the word "special" to territorial jurisdiction. I was interpreting "territorial jurisdiction" to mean anywhere in the US and maybe places like Puerto Rico as well. Legal language can be tricky.
Yes, but one way to avoid this particular problem in the future is to understand that there is a major difference between what kinds of laws a state can pass and what the Federal government can pass. A state can pass any law it wants to as long as that law doesn't violate the state or Federal constitution. But the Federal government can only pass laws in areas where the constitution gives it specific permission to do so. General criminal codes are not one such area (drug laws are passed under the "commerce clause" and some question their constitutionality for that reason, but that's
way OT here). So any law Federal law that purported to make things like assault, rape, robbery, etc illegal everywhere can't mean that. There has to be some specific Federal interest (such as here, jurisdictions that aren't in any state or where the victim is a Federal employee or protectee).
Originally Posted by
Combat Medic
When Pissy said:
"Nobody likes to have their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line, but truth of the matter is, we're gonna have to do it."
He told us that this is not a reasonable search. Otherwise there would be no violation happening.
That was a
very serious, and stupid, in my opinion, mistake. I think he just blew immunity for the entire workforce.