Pat down searches
Wayne
and Blues Rendezvous". After parking the car, I decided to leave the
hardware locked in the trunk. Several blocks of downtown were fenced off,
with controlled access. Bikes were searched and people were patted down by
Berdoo cops before being allowed to enter the Rendezvous area. I heard that
some people wouldn't enter because of the security setup, but a couple of
hundred members of the Vago "club" didn't seem to mind.
Is the pat down getting popular everywhere, or just around here?
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> Is the pat down getting popular everywhere, or just around here?
The last time I was patted down was in 1976 when I arrived in London on a flight
from Dublin. Of course, they even patted down the nuns on that flight. I guess
they thought we were all IRA terrorists. Certainly I could understand their
suspicion of the sisters... they were scary!
So to answer your question, no... I think it's just in your neck of the woods.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Mr. Albritton
It's California. It's all you bro. (Unless there's another San Bernadino
somewhere other than California .... but again it's still all you.)
Wayne
"Mr. Albritton" <albri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvqm25$p0l$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
about a year (no counting TSA). The other three pat downs were to gain
admittance to concerts at the National Orange Show and at the San Manuel
Indian Casino.
Jim Yanik
news:da2Uj.5525$0L.2176@trnddc07:
happens at many sporting or civic events.
Sometimes they use metal detector wands,do bag searches.
(they find out who's got piercings in odd places,too....)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
JoeSpareBedroom
news:da2Uj.5525$0L.2176@trnddc07...
Booze + guns + bikers. Sure.
I play music at a bar here (Rochester NY) where the owner knows who carries.
Twice, I've seen guys get much too drunk to walk, and the owner escorts them
to the kitchen & stashes their guns until they leave. Not such a bad idea.
It takes a clear head to know where your gun is at all times.
Benj
Wayne wrote:
> > It's California. It's all you bro. (Unless there's another San Bernadino
> > somewhere other than California .... but again it's still all you.)
> Yep, its Kalifornia. This past weekend makes the 4th pat down I've had in
> about a year (no counting TSA). The other three pat downs were to gain
> admittance to concerts at the National Orange Show and at the San Manuel
> Indian Casino.
It is the United States, bro (with Kalifornia leading the way).
Perhaps we can say that PRIVATE outfits can set any conditions they
wish to entry into a convert or show, And even in the case of flying
there is a "gotcha" whereby many airports are run as private
corporations rather than public property. But we all know that these
days illegal searches and seizures of people entering PUBLIC property
is commonplace. You'd think that the ONE place where the Bill of
Rights would be upheld would be Federal property, when in fact it
seems to be the target area for the usurpation of all rights. Not only
strip searches on entering and the prohibition of the right to keep
and bear arms, but also prohibition of even SILENT prayer or free
speech of ANY kind. But then many people find the Bill of Rights to
be a LIVING document from History where the time has come to chuck
it.
Benj
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> Booze + guns + bikers. Sure.
>
> I play music at a bar here (Rochester NY) where the owner knows who carries.
> Twice, I've seen guys get much too drunk to walk, and the owner escorts them
> to the kitchen & stashes their guns until they leave. Not such a bad idea.
> It takes a clear head to know where your gun is at all times.
In Ohio only the bar OWNER (and employees) are permitted to be armed!
Not that it matters much in a biker bar. Still operating ANY
dangerous machinery under the influence (guns, chainsaws, automobiles,
motorcycles etc.) is a BAD idea sure to lead to trouble. Don't know
the law in NY but I'll bet it's MORE strict than here. That bar owner
was probably sticking his neck out for his "good" customers!
JoeSpareBedroom
news:d2c2be26-dd98-41d4...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Oh yeah. She only does it with people she knows would never pull a gun in
her bar for evil reasons. They let her get away with it because she runs the
place like a strict mother. :-)
Actually, I don't know if it's legal to carry in a bar here. I'm going to
dial up a cop I know right now. My permit came with an outline of other
rules, but there was no mention made of this.
Bama Brian
Palace in San Francisco. It was the last time, also.
I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on everyone.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Buck Mulligan
>I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
>down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on everyone.
Where is it unconstitutional?
Benj
> In talk.politics.guns Bama Brian <eddyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
> >down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on everyone.
>
> Where is it unconstitutional?
It is unconstitutional when done by law enforcement authorities if you
are not under arrest and there is no "probable cause" (warrant). If
you are under arrest SC has determined that police may search you for
their own protection.
However, search is also constitutional if done as an agreement in a
private contract. Guard may search you at guard shack as condition of
employment, you might agree to be patted down as a condition of entry
onto a private concert. That is a CONTRACT between you and another
party. But the constitution limits what authorities can do. OF course
even if regular police are doing the pat-downs, it does matter if they
are being paid off-duty or if the city is covering their salary.
Of course post-PATRIOT act, one only needs ONE judge in the entire
country to agree to sign a search warrant to make it "legal".
I'm sure all police have their favorite "tame" judge.
Buck Mulligan
>On May 7, 10:23 am, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Bama Brian <eddyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
>> >down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on everyone.
>>
>> Where is it unconstitutional?
>
>It is unconstitutional when done by law enforcement authorities if you
>are not under arrest and there is no "probable cause" (warrant).
I saw a case where the judge said if the government entity can show
good cause, it's not unreasonable and therefore not unconstitutional.
Jim Yanik
news:reKdnUbJhtQPJLzV...@earthlink.com:
> Wayne wrote:
>> I went over to San Bernardino on Saturday to the first annual "Berdoo
>> Bikes and Blues Rendezvous". After parking the car, I decided to
>> leave the hardware locked in the trunk. Several blocks of downtown
>> were fenced off, with controlled access. Bikes were searched and
>> people were patted down by Berdoo cops before being allowed to enter
>> the Rendezvous area. I heard that some people wouldn't enter because
>> of the security setup, but a couple of hundred members of the Vago
>> "club" didn't seem to mind.
>>
>> Is the pat down getting popular everywhere, or just around here?
>>
>>
> Last time I got patted down was at a Chicago rock concert at the Cow
> Palace in San Francisco. It was the last time, also.
>
> I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
> down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on
> everyone.
>
now they use metal detector wands;you can even buy them at Harbor Freight.
(good for finding nails in boardstock!)
and they search bags;purses,handbags,backpacks,coolers,etc.
I suspect Disney,Universal,Busch Gardens,Sea World have metal detectors
built into the turnstiles you have to pass through to gain entry to the
theme parks. Maybe other,worse "detectors",too.
Buck Mulligan
So the question remains- is that an unconstitutional search, just
because they're using an electronic gizmo instead of hands?
nick hull
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> I suspect Disney,Universal,Busch Gardens,Sea World have metal detectors
> built into the turnstiles you have to pass through to gain entry to the
> theme parks. Maybe other,worse "detectors",too.
I usually carry a 'gun detector detector' when I go to such places,
usually a couple short pieces of rebar taped together. It never set off
any alarms ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Bama Brian
Fourth Amendment - unreasonable search and seizures. In the concert I
went to, security was patting down everyone for drugs, weapons, and
booze. Now you can say that since it's a private security force, and
not a gummint one, that the 4th doesn't apply. If that's the case, then
you don't have a right of free speech, except as it applies to the
government. And just what gives a private co. the right to seize your
property?
Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to violate
them. Landlords, for another example, cannot discriminate. Nobody can
tell you how to worship. But some security co. has the right to search
me, indiscriminately? Then we don't need the cops - just hire private
security to patrol the streets...
Topp@Work
> On May 7, 10:23 am, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In talk.politics.guns Bama Brian <eddyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'll never go to another public anything where I have to get patted
> > >down; it's an unconstitutional and illegal search, even if done on
everyone.
> >
> > Where is it unconstitutional?
>
> It is unconstitutional when done by law enforcement authorities if you
> are not under arrest and there is no "probable cause" (warrant). If
> you are under arrest SC has determined that police may search you for
> their own protection.
I agree...
>
> However, search is also constitutional if done as an agreement in a
> private contract. Guard may search you at guard shack as condition of
> employment, you might agree to be patted down as a condition of entry
> onto a private concert. That is a CONTRACT between you and another
> party. But the constitution limits what authorities can do.
Read the back of your tickets...There is a contract on there...
> Of course post-PATRIOT act, one only needs ONE judge in the entire
> country to agree to sign a search warrant to make it "legal".
> I'm sure all police have their favorite "tame" judge.
You've obviously never read the patriot act...it does nothing of the
sort....
Benj
> In article <Xns9A97E32915457jyanikkua...@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
> > I suspect Disney,Universal,Busch Gardens,Sea World have metal detectors
> > built into the turnstiles you have to pass through to gain entry to the
> > theme parks. Maybe other,worse "detectors",too.
>
> I usually carry a 'gun detector detector' when I go to such places,
> usually a couple short pieces of rebar taped together. It never set off
> any alarms ;)
Actually I seem to set off the alarms all the time when passing INTO
stores especially Walmart. It goes Beep-beep-beep and the guards yawn
and ignore me. Nobody has ever questioned me about it. Sometimes it
beeps on the way out too. I just keep on going and nobody ever runs
after me. Who knows what sets it off? Old RFID tag in my coat? Keys?
Who knows.
But I'd point out that setting off an audible alarm with your rebar is
probably not too likely. The smart money would be a silent alarm.
Then the give away would be strange dudes following you around all
over the place. Of course a better "secret search" would be the new
"stripped naked" scanner being tried in airports. You walk in and the
"security" team behind the wall checks you for "contraband". If you
are carrying CCW, but the store has the "no guns" sign displayed, then
the off duty cops can immediately arrest you for a violation of the
law! Sweet! Lessee. Being stripped naked in public places. I think
we just discussed that and decided it was no violation of
constitutional rights, right?
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> Read the back of your tickets...There is a contract on there...
In my experience, what is back there is usually a confession and an
admission of guilt (carefully worded to not sound like one). A local
lawyer refused to sign the ticket for that reason and they hauled her
off to jail (roughly I might add) in handcuffs. Her case got nowhere.
Welcome to modern America.
> > Of course post-PATRIOT act, one only needs ONE judge in the entire
> > country to agree to sign a search warrant to make it "legal".
> > I'm sure all police have their favorite "tame" judge.
>
> You've obviously never read the patriot act...it does nothing of the
> sort....
Sorry there Topp, but it is YOU who have "obviously" not read the so-
called PATRIOT act. I'm not going to do your research for you, but I
can assure you that the provisions are in there that where previously
a warrant was required to be issued by a judge in the jurisdiction,
this bill changed that to be ANY judge. Hence it clearly follows that
one "tame" judge sitting in Washington D. C. could sign ALL the
warrants for the ENTIRE country. Go look it up! Report back to us. We
don't accept "proof by assertion" as a valid argument here.
Benj
> Buck Mulligan wrote:
> > In talk.politics.guns Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >>news:reKdnUbJhtQPJLzV...@earthlink.com:
> I heard that some people wouldn't enter because
> >>>> of the security setup, but a couple of hundred members of the Vago
> >>>> "club" didn't seem to mind.
> > So the question remains- is that an unconstitutional search, just
> > because they're using an electronic gizmo instead of hands?
I don't think the courts have fully answered this one. For example is
the scanner that views you naked through your clothes a "search" I
think most people would agree it clearly is! On the other hand is the
scanner for clothing tags at the exit door a "search" given that it
ONLY searches for stolen stuff. Or is it against the 5th amendment
and "self-incrimination"? There are some questions of degree here.
> Fourth Amendment - unreasonable search and seizures. In the concert I
> went to, security was patting down everyone for drugs, weapons, and
> booze. Now you can say that since it's a private security force, and
> not a gummint one, that the 4th doesn't apply. If that's the case, then
> you don't have a right of free speech, except as it applies to the
> government. And just what gives a private co. the right to seize your
> property?
In my experience private searches don't seize property EXCEPT as a
condition of entry (your contract with them). Generally as in the
biker thing about people can just turn around and walk away. Cops on
the other hand can seize the property and even arrest the person if
the property is illegal to possess. The gray area is when the
security is "off-duty" cops. Can they just allow law breakers to walk
away? I'm not sure they can even off duty.
And yes, private outfits CAN ban free speech even in a public place!
Example, the local Gay Rights outfit holds a "gay pride" parade and
festival after the parade. The City informed the promoters that when
they sign up to lease the park from the city it in effect becomes
their private domain. They can search people. Ban free speech. Eject
people without cause and all the rest even though it is city
property. And they DID do some of these things! And that is pretty
much what you can do with your front yard. You don't have to allow
unauthorized political speeches on your lawn.
> Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to violate
> them. Landlords, for another example, cannot discriminate. Nobody can
> tell you how to worship. But some security co. has the right to search
> me, indiscriminately? Then we don't need the cops - just hire private
> security to patrol the streets...
You CAN tell people not to worship on your lawn! But there is an issue
of public vs private. For example people CAN worship or give speeches
on the SIDEWALK in front of your house even if you can keep them off
the lawn. It's a matter of the sidewalk being a PUBLIC place (even
though you in theory own it and the city only has an easement on it).
I raised this issue before with guns in a car at work. If the lot is
accessible by the PUBLIC, then I doubt that rights can be banned in it
even if it is privately owned. This is the same idea that landlords
cannot discriminate. They are supposed to be giving equal access to
rent their properties to all members of the public. A private club is
a different thing. Sure you may take heat in the press, but nobody is
saying the Klan is required by law to take black members.
Bert Hyman
news:fd39fc22-df40-4e02...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On May 8, 2:02 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
>> Read the back of your tickets...There is a contract on there...
>
> In my experience, what is back there is usually a confession and an
> admission of guilt (carefully worded to not sound like one). A local
> lawyer refused to sign the ticket for that reason and they hauled
> her off to jail (roughly I might add) in handcuffs.
A ticket to a concert? You seem to have lost the thread.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Peter Franks
Amendment IV applies to the government.
You don't have a right to free speech because of an amendment. You have
the right, period. A certain amendment protects that from (Federal)
government infringement; another certain amendment applies that
protection to the (all encompassing) government level.
> Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to violate
> them. Landlords, for another example, cannot discriminate.
Landlords can discriminate.
> Nobody can
> tell you how to worship. But some security co. has the right to search
> me, indiscriminately?
If you are entering private property, the property owner can set the
conditions. If you don't agree with the conditions, you are free leave
and take your business elsewhere.
> Then we don't need the cops - just hire private
> security to patrol the streets...
?
Buck Mulligan
They have the right to take everything you own. Everything. Your
choice is to stay home and off their private property.
>Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to violate
>them.
You're confused. You want to come onto private property. You obey
their rules. If not, you go home. No Constitutional issues involved.
Topp@Work
> On May 8, 2:02 pm, "Topp@Work" <toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> > Read the back of your tickets...There is a contract on there...
>
> In my experience, what is back there is usually a confession and an
> admission of guilt (carefully worded to not sound like one). A local
> lawyer refused to sign the ticket for that reason and they hauled her
> off to jail (roughly I might add) in handcuffs. Her case got nowhere.
> Welcome to modern America.
Read the back of a baseball ticket, or any sporting event...
Read the back of any concert ticket...
Most stipulate you agree by purchasing and using the ticket you agree to
Searches of your possesions
for security, absolve the venue from Liability, etc. etc...
I did not say ticket from police....
>
> > > Of course post-PATRIOT act, one only needs ONE judge in the entire
> > > country to agree to sign a search warrant to make it "legal".
> > > I'm sure all police have their favorite "tame" judge.
> >
> > You've obviously never read the patriot act...it does nothing of the
> > sort....
>
> Sorry there Topp, but it is YOU who have "obviously" not read the so-
> called PATRIOT act. I'm not going to do your research for you, but I
> can assure you that the provisions are in there that where previously
> a warrant was required to be issued by a judge in the jurisdiction,
> this bill changed that to be ANY judge. Hence it clearly follows that
> one "tame" judge sitting in Washington D. C. could sign ALL the
> warrants for the ENTIRE country. Go look it up! Report back to us. We
> don't accept "proof by assertion" as a valid argument here.
It amends a previous set of laws and changes Terms...
They could already do 99% of what you think the patriot act.
It is a series of AMENDMENTS....to existing code and laws.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107mMGoI5::
I have done plenty of research on it...
Bama Brian
So anyone has the right to detain and search you?
> You don't have a right to free speech because of an amendment. You have
> the right, period. A certain amendment protects that from (Federal)
> government infringement; another certain amendment applies that
> protection to the (all encompassing) government level.
Yes, the Bill of Rights was intended to keep the fedgov from infringing
upon the rights of Americans. Later, the 14th Amendment was added to
extend the BoR to the states - for most amendments.
But if we follow your logic, then our fellow citizens have the right to
invade our homes, search us, and dictate to us what we may or may not
say, how we should worship and for whom we should vote.
>> Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to
>> violate them. Landlords, for another example, cannot discriminate.
>
> Landlords can discriminate.
Not by race, religion, or political affiliation, they can't.
>> Nobody can tell you how to worship. But some security co. has the
>> right to search me, indiscriminately?
>
> If you are entering private property, the property owner can set the
> conditions. If you don't agree with the conditions, you are free leave
> and take your business elsewhere.
>
>> Then we don't need the cops - just hire private security to patrol the
>> streets...
>
> ?
Private security isn't bound by the BoR, is it? Only the government is.
So we can go directly after those nasty gang-bangers and not have to
worry about their civil rights.
Bama Brian
They had no right whatsoever to take anything from anyone. The only
right they had was to refuse entry.
>
>> Civil rights are civil rights - no matter what entity chooses to violate
>> them.
>
> You're confused. You want to come onto private property. You obey
> their rules. If not, you go home. No Constitutional issues involved.
I don't surrender my civil rights to anyone, for any reason. The law
has made that quite clear. Yet "free" Americans willingly submit to
illegal searches literally every minute of every day now.
As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do you
think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its customers
for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
Topp@Work
"Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OMednW_QYYHl_rnV...@earthlink.com...
> As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
> Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do you
> think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its customers
> for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
Absolutely nothing from a legal stand point.
You are on their porperty, in their store...
They have every right to search you for weapons, as do I if you come to my
house.
Herb Martin
"Topp@Work" <topp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:faydnVT8s-BN-LnV...@giganews.com...
No, you don't -- you can let me in, or not.
You can ask to do such things, but you have no rights on MY property
which starts (at a minimum) at my clothing.
Topp@Work
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:48246d82$0$5706$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >> As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
> >> Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do you
> >> think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its customers
> >> for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
> >
> > Absolutely nothing from a legal stand point.
> > You are on their porperty, in their store...
> > They have every right to search you for weapons, as do I if you come to
my
> > house.
>
> No, you don't -- you can let me in, or not.
If I let you in, I have the RIGHT to ensure you are follwoing my Rules,
hence search you with a wand,
Metal detector or pat you down.
If you do not wish to be searched you can leave, and I can also deny you
entry if you do not comply
with my request to search you.
It doesn't mean once yer there, and decide to leave I have the right to
search you for being there..
>
> You can ask to do such things, but you have no rights on MY property
> which starts (at a minimum) at my clothing.
No one mentioned your property....
We were talking you going to walmart
Herb Martin
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48246d82$0$5706$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> >> As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
>> >> Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do
>> >> you
>> >> think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its customers
>> >> for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
>> >
>> > Absolutely nothing from a legal stand point.
>> > You are on their porperty, in their store...
>> > They have every right to search you for weapons, as do I if you come to
> my
>> > house.
>>
>> No, you don't -- you can let me in, or not.
>
> If I let you in, I have the RIGHT to ensure you are follwoing my Rules,
> hence search you with a wand,
Nope. You can run whatever electrical equipment you wish (as long as
it is safe) but you cannot TOUCH me without my consent.
Your rules are just that, YOUR rules, not mine.
> Metal detector or pat you down.
You cannot touch me or approach too close with that wand without MY
consent.
You consented to let me in -- if I don't consent to the "search" you can
ask me to leave.
> If you do not wish to be searched you can leave, and I can also deny you
No, you may ASK me to leave. You let me in, now YOU have revoke the
permission to be there.
> entry if you do not comply
> with my request to search you.
Wrong. You may revoke the entry permission and ask me to leave.
> It doesn't mean once yer there, and decide to leave I have the right to
> search you for being there..
You never did have 'the right'. You can ask. I can refuse. You can
tell me to leave.
You cannot touch me without my permission, even if I knew you objected
to something.
>> You can ask to do such things, but you have no rights on MY property
>> which starts (at a minimum) at my clothing.
>
> No one mentioned your property...
Sure you did. MY CLOTHES and MY PERSON are MY PROPERTY.
Your rights end where my nose and property begin.
.
> We were talking you going to walmart
No, we were talking about YOUR HOUSE.
Jim Yanik
AFAIK,Wal-Mart does NOT have any "no guns" policy.
This came up several years ago,W-M affirmed their corporate policy of not
restricting legal gun carriage in their stores,and 'corrected' stores that
were reported to them as violating corporate policy.Those stores that had
posted took down the signs.
BTW,if you walk through the entrance security detectors with a magnet in
your pocket,the anti-theft alarm will go off.Even a refrigerator magnet.
RD (The Sandman)
> As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
> Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do you
> think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its customers
> for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
>
Why would they do that? Open carry is done all the time at our local
WalMarts.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Topp@Work" <topp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:faydnVT8s-BN-LnV...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMednW_QYYHl_rnV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>> As the threads have gone, we have discussed CCW in Wal-Mart and how
>>> Wal-Mart's No Guns policy is violated literally every day. What do
>>> you think would happen if Wal-Mart started searching all of its
>>> customers for illegal drugs and guns before allowing them entry?
>>
>> Absolutely nothing from a legal stand point.
>> You are on their porperty, in their store...
>> They have every right to search you for weapons, as do I if you come
>> to my house.
>
> No, you don't -- you can let me in, or not.
That's true or if you are already in, I can ask you to leave. If you
don't you are guilty of trespass.
> You can ask to do such things, but you have no rights on MY property
> which starts (at a minimum) at my clothing.
>
>
>
>
--
Topp@Work
> > We were talking you going to walmart
>
> No, we were talking about YOUR HOUSE.
No
Re-read:
Peter Franks
Nope, that isn't a right.
>> You don't have a right to free speech because of an amendment. You
>> have the right, period. A certain amendment protects that from
>> (Federal) government infringement; another certain amendment applies
>> that protection to the (all encompassing) government level.
>
> Yes, the Bill of Rights was intended to keep the fedgov from infringing
> upon the rights of Americans. Later, the 14th Amendment was added to
> extend the BoR to the states - for most amendments.
For all amendments. The Judicial Branch fabricated the doctrine of
incorporation.
> But if we follow your logic, then our fellow citizens have the right to
> invade our homes, search us, and dictate to us what we may or may not
> say, how we should worship and for whom we should vote.
Nope, those aren't rights.
Rights don't come from the amendments.
>>> Nobody can tell you how to worship. But some security co. has the
>>> right to search me, indiscriminately?
>>
>> If you are entering private property, the property owner can set the
>> conditions. If you don't agree with the conditions, you are free
>> leave and take your business elsewhere.
>>
>>> Then we don't need the cops - just hire private security to patrol
>>> the streets...
>>
>> ?
>
> Private security isn't bound by the BoR, is it? Only the government is.
> So we can go directly after those nasty gang-bangers and not have to
> worry about their civil rights.
Private security doesn't not have the right or authority to violate the
rights of others involuntarily.
Scout
Actually they don't and I've read of businesses that have been successfully
sued for doing so.
Benj
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote innews:48246d82$0$5706$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >> Absolutely nothing from a legal stand point.
> >> You are on their porperty, in their store...
> >> They have every right to search you for weapons, as do I if you come
> >> to my house.
>
> > No, you don't -- you can let me in, or not.
>
> That's true or if you are already in, I can ask you to leave. If you
> don't you are guilty of trespass.
>
> > You can ask to do such things, but you have no rights on MY property
> > which starts (at a minimum) at my clothing.
Both of you are correct. Being on someone's property does NOT permit
anyone to perform a search especially a pat-down. And that is because
the searchee has rights beginning at their clothing. This is why when
searches are done, it has to be done with the agreement of the
searchee. In other words the person searched has to agree to the
search and give permission for it. This is usually done in the form of
a contract: You permit a search, we permit entry into our house/
property/show. Private contracts are quite broad as to what people can
agree to. Cops or government officials on the other hand are
restricted to only perform searches once the person is under arrest
(for their own safety) or if they have a warrant with "probable cause"
for the search. This is why cops ALSO try to get you to agree to the
search. "would you just pop the trunk?" is a common command. Often if
you ask for a warrant they then often abuse their office with threats
of holding you in jail (or wherever you are) for hours or even days on
end while the warrant arrives. They usually can hold you for a while
until you invoke habeas corpus. The beauty of the PATRIOT act is that
it eliminates both representation by a lawyer and habeas corpus,
meaning that you can be held without charges forever. In hell-hole
dictatorships we used to call that "political prisoners". Anyone
remember when America didn't hold political prisoners, so long as they
weren't Indians or other minorities?
Jim Yanik
news:3k3Vj.40$lQ1.17@trnddc02:
IANAL,but....
the only people legally able to perform searches are the police,after
probable cause has been established;by their observation,or oath or
affirmation by a complainant,whether on private property or public.
a private person trying to do that would be guilty of assault/battery.
Topp@Work
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3k3Vj.40$lQ1.17@trnddc02...
Never been held by security now have you....
They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
Even before the police arrive.
Scout
Why should I be? Would that change the facts any?
> They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
Actually, no they can't and doing so would not only get the case thrown out
of court, but I would be filing a civil suit for violation of my rights.
> Even before the police arrive.
Nope, sorry.
However, feel free to try it, I could use the extra income.
Scout
Sorry, but there isn't a state in the country that allows store security to
do a pat down search. California, the most liberal of states, only allows a
limited search of handbags, shopping bags, and stuff like that, but a search
of a person's clothing (including a pat down) has to be preformed by sworn
police officers and then only after they get consent or a warrant.
comp...@hotmail.com
> I went over to San Bernardino on Saturday to the first annual "Berdoo Bikes
> and Blues Rendezvous". After parking the car, I decided to leave the
> hardware locked in the trunk. Several blocks of downtown were fenced off,
> with controlled access. Bikes were searched and people were patted down by
> Berdoo cops before being allowed to enter the Rendezvous area. I heard that
> some people wouldn't enter because of the security setup, but a couple of
> hundred members of the Vago "club" didn't seem to mind.
>
> Is the pat down getting popular everywhere, or just around here?
Chicago Bears football games.
Morton Davis
CITE the STATUTE.
Scout
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:py8Wj.107463$TT4.5887@attbi_s22...
He can't because there is no such statute. Doing such a search would most
likely get their key piece of evidence, if any, thrown out due to wrongful
search as well as open up the personal, the management, the store and the
corporation to massive liability in lawsuits.
Bama Brian
Fry's Electronics has a serious problem with shoplifting. They
typically put a person or two at the exit door who searches your Fry's
shopping bag for stuff that's not on the receipt.
I got to the point where I got tired of being accused of shoplifting, so
I'd walk right past these employees. You'd be surprised how adamant
they are about searching the bags, though they will not stop you at the
door if you just keep walking.
Scout
They better not, or their asses would be out a legal mile and just waiting
for civil suits
Check out
"Are Door Bag Searches Legal?
Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is
involuntary or coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is
subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives
the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a
shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my
web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details
A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door
past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know
that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This
is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag
contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an
aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who
refused to comply with the voluntary search"
http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm
Please note, however, that the above may NOT apply to "membership clubs" as
they usually have such a condition in the fine print of their membership
conditions.
Topp@Work
> > Never been held by security now have you....
> > They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
> > Even before the police arrive.
> >
>
> CITE the STATUTE.
Go to walmart and put something up your shirt then try to leave...
There is no "statute"...It is the businesses in house discretion to search
you when
you obviously are shoplifting...
Scout
So despite being unable to back up your assertion you stick to it.
Morton Davis
>
> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:py8Wj.107463$TT4.5887@attbi_s22...
>
>> > Never been held by security now have you....
>> > They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
>> > Even before the police arrive.
>> >
>>
>> CITE the STATUTE.
>
> Go to walmart and put something up your shirt then try to leave...
>
>
Topp@Work
Dickhead, I never said it was a LAW...
Go to walmart, put something up your shirt, then try to leave...See how fast
you get searched.
BEFORE the cops arrive.
Topp@Work
I never said it was a law....But you will get searched...Whether you think
so or not...
Scout
>
> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:K9_Wj.111053$TT4.27127@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Topp@Work" <topp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:juCdnevGP96t1rbV...@giganews.com...
>> >
>> > "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
>> > news:py8Wj.107463$TT4.5887@attbi_s22...
>> >
>> >> > Never been held by security now have you....
>> >> > They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
>> >> > Even before the police arrive.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> CITE the STATUTE.
>> >
>> > Go to walmart and put something up your shirt then try to leave...
>> >
>> >
>> CITE THE STATUTE.
>
> Dickhead, I never said it was a LAW...
If the law doesn't give them permission to do so, then it would be a civil
offense, would make their evidence inadmissable, and open them up to massive
legal liability.
>
> Go to walmart, put something up your shirt, then try to leave...See how
> fast
> you get searched.
> BEFORE the cops arrive.
Sorry, I don't have to commit a crime to know that what you suggest would be
illegal. Without consent or a warrant they can't search you. Even in
California, the most liberal of states, they can only search your packages,
they can't search your clothing.
Scout
They won't because unlike you the security at my local Wal-Mart knows the
law and it doesn't permit them to search me without my consent or a warrant.
Morton Davis
>
> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:K9_Wj.111053$TT4.27127@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Topp@Work" <topp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:juCdnevGP96t1rbV...@giganews.com...
>> >
>> > "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
>> > news:py8Wj.107463$TT4.5887@attbi_s22...
>> >
>> >> > Never been held by security now have you....
>> >> > They can search you if they think you have shoplifted....
>> >> > Even before the police arrive.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> CITE the STATUTE.
>> >
>> > Go to walmart and put something up your shirt then try to leave...
>> >
>> >
>> CITE THE STATUTE.
>
> Dickhead, I never said it was a LAW...
>
CITE the STATUTE. NO ONE - I do not give a fuck who - has the right to
search you.