|
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 19105408)
Wrong.
This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations. Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 19107923)
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 19105408)
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 19104546)
Originally Posted by Pup
(Post 19098765)
Thanks to everyone for the replies. All very interesting!
Out of curiosity--and let's say it was hypothetically under California law--how would that go, in practice? Let's say that rather than answering "no" and showing the pocket pressed flat, I just said, in a calm voice, "I decline to answer." How would a typical security guard be trained to respond? Where would it go from there? I'm guessing it wouldn't be as simple as, "Okay, just thought I'd ask, but you don't have to answer. Have a nice day." For what it's worth, the funny thing is that I'd left my metal-frame glasses in my shirt pocket the whole time, because I completely forgot they were there, and neither I nor the guard noticed them. Plus my wife realized afterwards that she had an 8" metal nailfile in the bottom of her purse that would have looked just like a dagger on X-ray and might have been considered dangerous on search, which they didn't notice, but they caught her bottle of Coke! (She thought no food and drink just meant no eating or drinking, not a ban on sealed food inside a purse, so she wasn't deliberately trying to sneak it in.) In other words, it would be exactly like refusing to answer questions at customs. They will give you a hard time, call in a few supervisors, try to wear you down by making you wait, but eventually let you through. This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations. Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed. Concerning the coke bottle and the nail file hypothetical, as I wrote in my earlier post, glass bottles and objects such as metal nail files are not permitted to be brought into most Los Angeles County courthouses. Please review the progression of the discussion. |
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 19105408)
Wrong.
This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations. Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed. Is it really common for guards to approve people without incident or alarm, and then ask them what's in their pocket after already approving them into the sterile area? I'd expect not, since most people keep walking to the office where they're going, rather than waiting in view. I could have done the same if I wasn't waiting for my wife. If it's common to ask additional questions after approving people, it's a pretty poor way of doing security. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 19098025)
This is the law I found for California:
"every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor: ... Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision." (California Penal Code section 602 y) So from what this sounds like, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to go through a search of your person and property when entering or re-entering a courthouse. In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter. So I really hope that it does not mean that a male is allowed to pat-down a female? |
Originally Posted by Pup
(Post 19147489)
But that wasn't what happened. I had gone through screening and been fully cleared without incident, and was standing in the courthouse within view of the guards, and then one of them thought he noticed something in my pocket. There was actually nothing in it--it was just an oversize pocket in my cargo pants that bagged out--so I truthfully said "no," but the screening process was already over.
In response to Tanja's response which follows, each and every Los Angeles Superior Courthouse with which I am familiar, about 75 - 80% of them, has numerous female deputies and screeners. In all my years of practice I have never seen a pat down of either members of the public or inmates performed by a person of the opposite sex. |
Originally Posted by tanja
(Post 19147542)
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 19098025)
This is the law I found for California:
"every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor: ... Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision." (California Penal Code section 602 y) So from what this sounds like, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to go through a search of your person and property when entering or re-entering a courthouse. In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter. So I really hope that it does not mean that a male is allowed to pat-down a female? |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 19147702)
I read this to mean that it's a crime if you bypass security (sneak in through a back door) rather than if you go up to the checkpoint and refuse, but go no farther.
And what if you are a witness and so on and have to be in court. Does that mean that females have to let males touch them? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:43 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.