Because those points are inconvenient and not in keeping with his formed opinion.

Maybe he missed them-- it was a long post.

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to go back and read the full text of what you posted. If the D.O.J. is looking into it, that is a good thing. I have some questions about this, such as why the DA didn't have qualified immunity. While asserting the 5th Amendment protections isn't incriminating, it certainly raises questions of a person in authority. Theoretically, they have the ability to influence how a case is presented, therefore perceived. If there is corruption, I certainly hope it's rooted out and those responsible are punished to the maximum extent the law allows. Going back to my original statement, we can't hold that as an indictment of the entire system.

Can't hold it against the entire system, but it does appear that substantial portions of the system are indeed corrupt. Lest there be any doubt about this, Ari has given ample data in this case. Even a brief perusal of the news in the past year demonstrate that public corruption is widespread and deep. Witness not one, but two Illinois governors in prison for lengthy stretches, the ex-mayor of Detroit completed one felony prison sentence and is presently under federal indictment for lying in court, graft, witness tampering, etc.

Add to that a number of other questionable federal, state and municipal activities, one of which got a federal agent killed in the line of duty, and yeah, I'd say that there are substantial portions of the "entire system" that we should have serious concerns about. Certainly enough doubt to suggest that relying heavily on our founding fathers' wisdom that the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty should continue to be the resounding law of the land, and that searches should remain illegal absent a warrant specifying what is to be searched and what may be seized has been issued for good reason only.

See, MaximumSisu, it looks like WWNF hadn't read the whole thing. I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt rather than assume nefarious intent.

----------------------------------------------------------------

That defense hasn't been raised yet (there are almost 300 docket entries already!), so it will have to be evaluated if and when it is raised. This is a very complicated area of law-- when DAs can be held liable for misconduct-- but the issue is generally whether the DA was acting as an advocate (a lawyer, appearing in court and filing papers), versus acting as an investigator (interviewing suspects), in which case the protections are less.

The problem with taking the 5th in a civil case is that it is lawful for juries and judges to make negative inferences based on taking the 5th (unlike in criminal cases). The Judge made that negative inference in his initial order, explicitly saying he was doing so (he took a page to explain why).

It'll take another 2-5 years to shake out-- it is moving at the speed of federal court.

Fair enough. But this is an example of a system that is setup in a way that allows gross abuse. (Texas is looking at changing their laws after all this came to light).

I'd assume that many of these searches were done by consent. Aside from that, The Carroll Doctrine allows for a warrantless search of a mobile conveyence because the Supreme Court deemed it impractical to obtain a warrant.

^ That was a lot to read and it was a very busy day.

This will be interesting. If they can show a pattern of seizures outside the law, the DA will have a ton of liability.

I would certainly doubt the credibility of officials doing so in a civil trial. Going back to the DA, if I was a juror I'd be influenced to believe that there was a cover up when she exercised this right.

This reminds me of the little speedtrap towns we have in Florida.

[First - as usual, IANAL, and my comments are based on my limited information and understanding - which may or may not be correct.]

Define consent and you will likely have your answer. Is it truly consent if the person is threatened with arrest (or worse)? Not to mention that too many people don't understand that they have the right to tell the officer no if he asks or starts to search. [That and the (IMO) backwards consent the courts have given by noting that unless the person objects to the search before / as an officer starts, it is deemed to be a consensual search.] And, if I understand correctly, unlike what the TSA will tell you, your voluntary consent for the search of your property can be withdrawn stopping any further consensual search.

The Carroll Doctrine does not give carte blanche to the officer to search your vehicle, the officer is required to stipulate probable cause for the search to be legal. And, when practical, they are still obligated to obtain a search warrant.

I've always heard that if an officer requests to search your vehicle, you politely tell them that you do not consent to a voluntary search of the vehicle, but you will not interfere with any search they undertake. (again - IANAL - YMMV)

Those exist all over the country. Here in Illinois, the state legislature solved that problem-- and it was a huge problem until they stepped in. State law capped the fines for speeding violations statewide at $75 (1-20 over) and $95 (21-30 over); the 'arresting' agency is entitled only to 50% of the fine is collected.

I doubt the law reduced the number of drivers speeding, but when it was passed (a long time ago), it did reduce the number of speeding tickets issued statewide, most markedly in a few downstate counties. Property taxes went up the next year in more than one downstate county that hadn't raised property taxes in a long time.

^ to the Illinois legislature. Now tickets are given for traffic safety purposes, not to generate revenue. Get pulled over in Wisconsin, however, and you could end up forking over $250++. Guess where the speed traps are now . . .

They claimed the pilot knew they were bad guys. Remember, this was a jet charter, not public transit.

You can't truly give consent under duress.

Very true.

Absence of protest does not generally constitute consent. Normally there has to be some type of overt affirmation.

Both are true. In a criminal matter, consent can be withdrawn up until the point the officer has established probable cause. TSA searches are administrative and do not follow the same guidelines. Basically, what the courts decided was that once a person presents themself or their baggage for screening, it is implied consent throughout the process. There was nothing to prevent passengers from probing the screening procedures by revoking consent if they believed a prohibited item was about to be discovered. Police are much better trained to develop and articulate probable cause and always have the option to seek a warrant. Screeners cannot.

Yes and no. The Carroll Doctrine basically says that a mobile conyance can be searched with probable cause, which is what would be required to seek a warrant. There are some exceptions, such as the actually ability for the conveyance to be mobile, but that is splitting hairs for this conversation.

For your legal protection, that would be the best route to take.

Actually, that one sounds legit. They seized the airplane because the airline wasn't paying a fine they were supposed to pay.

I think we are seeing the same thing we saw with alcohol prohibition: The majority of cops involved in prohibition enforcement became corrupt.

Legally, any transportation for hire is usually considered similar to rental car. I think the pilot being aware of criminal activity would make it forfeitable though, as he was acting as both a co-conspirator and agent of the company.