Originally Posted by copwriter
Yes - one that is reinforced by comments like yours. You proclaim that your lawyer status makes you the emergent authority on all things constitutional, without knowing anything about your audience. And this from someone who didn't know that a "Kelly stop" was really a "Terry stop."
I never said that my lawyer status makes me an authority on all things constitutional. Empty hyperbole like that contributes nothing to the discussion. So let's try it one more time: Bart implied I knew nothing about Constitutional law when he said I should consult an attorney. My education, occupation and experience establish otherwise.
As for "Kelly" vs. "Terry," FT is a diversion, I'm usually doing other things while I'm responding here and I don't proof-read. If you want to jump on typos, feel free. Interesting, however, that I caught it when I re-read my post, but you did not.
However, after reading quite a number of his posts, Bart comes across to me as a pretty bright guy.
I never suggested otherwise.
I don't find it at all surprising that he would be well-informed on the constitutionality of his search and seizure powers.
Then why didn't he address, other than to say, "consult a lawyer"?
I was a cop for fifteen years before I started teaching. In terms of knowledge of the law, if you were to quiz me on contracts or securities law, almost anyone would know more about it than me. But, on matters of search and seizure and powers of arrest as they affect law enforcement and security personnel, I think I know as much as most attorneys, and more than many.
Probably so. What has that to do with Bart's failure to explain either the _practical_ or legal basis for demanding personal information?
This principle applies to other professional areas. I have a friend who is a retired Army Special Forces medic. If I were shot, I would much prefer to have him tending to me than my own physician, an internist. Why? Because my friend has tended to literally hundreds of gunshot wounds and similar traumas, where my physician may have never handled one. Sometimes, the guy without the sheepskin is just a better choice.
Sorry, but it sounds to me like you just don't like lawyers. That's fine.
But the farmer might actually give you a more well-informed answer than the professor of agricultural science.
You think Bart provided a more well-informed answer? On what basis?
Know what you get if you send the Godfather to law school? An offer you can't understand.
How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.
There are other methods available to you by way of your professional status. Ever heard of the case of
Kolender v. Lawson? Edward Lawson was a black man who liked to stroll around mostly white neighborhoods. He didn't do anything unlawful, but he still attracted the attention of the residents, who would call the police. The police would stop him, demand to see ID (which Lawson didn't carry), and then arrest him under a California law that made it a misdemeanor to fail to identify oneself on demand by a peace officer. He got arrested and jailed numerous times, the charges almost always being dismissed, before he got to take a case to trial. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who invalidated California's law (and similar laws in other states) as unconstitutional. The little guy fought city hall and won.
I've heard of the case. What's the relevance to this discussion?
I disagree. The first time that you were subjected to any search or detention that you felt to be unconstutional would give you standing.
Then you haven't been reading carefully enough. I've said, twice now, I think, that my carryons have never generated a hit on the explosives sniff test so I have never been asked to provide the additional information which is the subject of this thread. I don't have standing.
I suppose what annoys me more than anything else is when you want us to accept your views as the last word on constituionality because you're a lawyer,
No, I don't. No one has to accept my views. I gave my personal opinion, but within a very specific context, namely an inquiry to Bart as to why personal information was required after a false-positive. Bart's explanation was, we need it because we need it. My belief is that constitutes a 4th and 5th Amendment violation, so I don't find the explanation satisfactory, much less compelling.
then when doing some lawyer stuff might help to rectify what you view as an unjust situation, you can't be bothered.
What "lawyer stuff"? Filing a law suit? One more time: I don't have standing, even if I were inclined to do so. And I'm not inclined to do so, because I'm not about to sacrifice my career and my future in the name of combatting the excesses of this administration.
Maybe you need a dose of the Spiderman philosophy: "With great power comes great responsibility."
I don't have any power, so the Spiderman aphorisim is irrelevant.
But, with regard to your lawyer status, please get over yourself. The rest of us may not have law degrees, but we're not totally ignorant of the situation, either.
Sorry, but you seem to have a bug up your butt about lawyers. My lawyer status is relevant, and was raised, in response to only one thing: Bart's implication that I don't know law.