SCOTUS hears arguments for major 4A case

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Synopsis:
Police don't need a warrant, but only need probable cause to search one's vehicle. In Collins v. Virginia (the Supreme Court of VA decided this case in 2015), SCoVA ruled that parked cars need no warrant to be searched either.

This stemmed from a police officer who walked onto a person's property and removed the tarp from a motorcycle. The officer was looking for a motorcycle that had run from him previously. The officer did not find the bike he was looking for, but found (via a VIN number check) the bike he was looking at was stolen. He arrested the man who had the bike.

The case was appealed, and now oral arguments began yesterday with SCOTUS.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought your point was that -- that you understood on the automobile exception for it to have -- include a categorical exigency aspect. In other words, while it's not the case that you see the guy, you know, revving up the motorcycle about to take off, which would be an exigent circumstance, but you think because -- you want to extend or apply the automobile exception to stationary vehicles on -- on -- within the curtilage because you think all the guy has to do is he sees the police officer, he runs out of the house, starts it up and goes away.
MR. COX: Yes, Your Honor. I think that's one of the least controversial points in this case is that because this Court has repeatedly held that a car doesn't actually have to be moving or with somebody there with a key, ready to jump on it.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, then that -that goes back to my basic question, which is how do I differentiate the -- the car in the garage if -- if -- if -- or the car through a window that you can see?
You would say that exigent circumstance -- that's what Virginia Court appeared to say, that it created an absolute rule. The police can break into anything, go anywhere where they see the car, whether they at that place legitimately or not.
MR. COX: Yes. This -- this Court has treated it as an absolute rule. They've never carved -- carved back on that.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And that's the rule you want us to uphold?
MR. COX: It -- it could. I mean, you could just apply -- apply that rule to this case and not make any new law, if you wanted to.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, and then we should just go ahead and do the same thing for drugs and papers too, because -- and Entek, we can overrule Entek while we're at it, going all the way back to the founding because, you know, we can see somebody, they have a fireplace, they have a chimney, they could destroy the papers that we see through the window or the drugs. We know that they have indoor plumbing. And so they can be readily destroyed too? What's the difference between the destruction of drugs and papers in a home and a car in -- in the garage?
Click to expand...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1027_j4el.pdf
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Synopsis:
Police don't need a warrant, but only need probable cause to search one's vehicle. In Collins v. Virginia (the Supreme Court of VA decided this case in 2015), SCoVA ruled that parked cars need no warrant to be searched either.

This stemmed from a police officer who walked onto a person's property and removed the tarp from a motorcycle. The officer was looking for a motorcycle that had run from him previously. The officer did not find the bike he was looking for, but found (via a VIN number check) the bike he was looking at was stolen. He arrested the man who had the bike.

The case was appealed, and now oral arguments began yesterday with SCOTUS.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1027_j4el.pdf
Click to expand...

Love to see someone with the time and money challenge the entire concept of the warrantless search and seizure that is the TSA.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
One could just argue that no one is forcing you to fly.
Click to expand...

True, but it is irrelevant. It is not whether or not I want to do it, it's whether or not the federal government has the authority to search and seize my things without a warrant.

If they could show that they've actually helped keep us safe, I might (probably not, let's be honest) agree that they can do this. But, how many terrorists have been stopped by the TSA? How many times have they grossly failed unannounced drills on them? How many lawsuits have been filed against them for illegal activities (like stealing) on the part of the employees?

No justification for their existence, in my humble opinion.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
True, but it is irrelevant. It is not whether or not I want to do it, it's whether or not the federal government has the authority to search and seize my things without a warrant.

If they could show that they've actually helped keep us safe, I might (probably not, let's be honest) agree that they can do this. But, how many terrorists have been stopped by the TSA? How many times have they grossly failed unannounced drills on them? How many lawsuits have been filed against them for illegal activities (like stealing) on the part of the employees?

No justification for their existence, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. On a macro level, why should taxpayers pay for the security of airline companies?
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Chris0nllyn said:
I agree with you 100%. On a macro level, why should taxpayers pay for the security of airline companies?
Click to expand...

The obvious comeback to that is that you are paying for airline passengers (and ground based citizens at risk from crashing aircraft) security. Not that I agree with it, but that's what the comeback is.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
Chris0nllyn said:
I agree with you 100%. On a macro level, why should taxpayers pay for the security of airline companies?
Click to expand...

Taxpayers aren't paying for the security of the airline companies. The airlines aren't requiring the security. The federal govt is.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
glhs837 said:
The obvious comeback to that is that you are paying for airline passengers (and ground based citizens at risk from crashing aircraft) security. Not that I agree with it, but that's what the comeback is.
Click to expand...

I get that, but where does that argument end? Cars can run down and kill people, as we've seen. I don't believe TSA is out on the roads patting down people, yet.

awpitt said:
Taxpayers aren't paying for the security of the airline companies. The airlines aren't requiring the security. The federal govt is.
Click to expand...

I'm a believer that the free market would take care of that. If people are scared to fly and believe the TSA will stop something, they sure as hell wouldn't fly with an airline who didn't have security. It's quite obvious we're way too far down that rabbit hole to go back.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
awpitt said:
Taxpayers aren't paying for the security of the airline companies. The airlines aren't requiring the security. The federal govt is.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the end though, the airlines are the ones who benefit the most in comparison (numbers of people who would die from a crash vice the damage to the airline and airline industry for the crash).



Personally, I would be 100% on-board with the airlines searching my stuff, based on agreement between me and them, for them to do the search. Not so much for the government doing it.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Chris0nllyn said:
I get that, but where does that argument end? Cars can run down and kill people, as we've seen. I don't believe TSA is out on the roads patting down people, yet.



I'm a believer that the free market would take care of that. If people are scared to fly and believe the TSA will stop something, they sure as hell wouldn't fly with an airline who didn't have security. It's quite obvious we're way too far down that rabbit hole to go back.
Click to expand...


They would say that the argument ends where the ability to kill thousands with a single vehicle does.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
Chris0nllyn said:
I'm a believer that the free market would take care of that. If people are scared to fly and believe the TSA will stop something, they sure as hell wouldn't fly with an airline who didn't have security. It's quite obvious we're way too far down that rabbit hole to go back.
Click to expand...

I think the logistics of each airline running there own security would be difficult. X number of airlines at each airport. Each with their own security. As it exists, there's a regular TSA line and a TSA-Pre line. If each airline did there own security, there wouldn't be room to accommodate all of the security lines.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
awpitt said:
I think the logistics of each airline running there own security would be difficult. X number of airlines at each airport. Each with their own security. As it exists, there's a regular TSA line and a TSA-Pre line. If each airline did there own security, there wouldn't be room to accommodate all of the security lines.
Click to expand...

Probably. Depends on the size of the airport. Of course, nothing would theoretically stop them from conducting their security check off site and bussing them in. Sort of like what happens at multipel airports around the country.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
glhs837 said:
They would say that the argument ends where the ability to kill thousands with a single vehicle does.
Click to expand...

glhs837 said:
Which injured less than 1,000, and killed less than 200. Not to diminish the loss and suffering of those involved, but it pales in comparison to even one of the Towers.
Click to expand...

To which that argument ends when someone asks why it matters how many can be killed at one time. I'm not down with the idea that the severity of a problem (and the govt.'s subsequent reaction) is based on the number of people killed. That gave us warrantless spying by our own govt., the TSA, and a number of questionally constitutional practices by our own govt. in the pursuit of limiting large scale attacks.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
glhs837 said:
Which injured less than 1,000, and killed less than 200. Not to diminish the loss and suffering of those involved, but it pales in comparison to even one of the Towers.
Click to expand...

Bigger building, bigger bomb, more deaths? Same size truck, though. Should we do checks of every truck entering every city, down to how many ounces of shampoo and deodorant the driver can carry? No bringing in your own water bottle, for goodness sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top