Videoing an incident - Was: Double fatality - Tandem - Jonesville, NC - 13 Sept 2008

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

And once again we get sent to ................"moderator purgatory".

I think this is a record for me. I've been moved twice in the same thread............

That's okay. I got moved right along with you, and then I was banned from the Photography forum for 30 days because "it was generally agreed that you have no reason to be in the Photography forum."

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

And once again we get sent to ................"moderator purgatory".

I think this is a record for me. I've been moved twice in the same thread............

That's okay. I got moved right along with you, and then I was banned from the Photography forum for 30 days because "it was generally agreed that you have no reason to be in the Photography forum."

rl

WTF ?

Thats just

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And once again we get sent to ................"moderator purgatory".

I think this is a record for me. I've been moved twice in the same thread............

That's okay. I got moved right along with you, and then I was banned from the Photography forum for 30 days because "it was generally agreed that you have no reason to be in the Photography forum."

rl

WTF ?

Thats just

Oh well.

Nonetheless, the original question has gotten lost in all this: Is a videographer entitled to make a copy of a tape that might be evidence in a criminal (i.e., fatality) investigation prior to turning over that tape to law enforcement?

There has been a lot of argument by obfuscation and attribution of non-existent motive, not to mention a fair number of arguments by logical fallacy, but I'm still taking the "absolutely yes" position as to the original question. I say that as a paralegal with nearly 25 years experience, several of which I spent working in criminal practices, including a year working for an attorney who handled capital cases.

It would be nice to discuss this like reasonable adults, if at all possible.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[livendive 8]

Quote

If your copy in *any way* interferes, compromises, impacts, or influences a criminal investigation, you can, and may be charged.
The Fifth amendment may not be used in this instance.
A videographer that has video of a tandem fatality is not able to take the Fifth to protect himself. It's pretty simple. You have video of a potential crime scene (which is how these sorts of fatalites are classified) and you are required to hand over any evidence you have that may assist in the investigation. You're not at risk of being charged. Yes, you can hold on to the tape and say "Fuck you until I speak with an attorney." But why? Why would you hamper an investigation of a tandem fatality? Why would you bring down the hell your DZ is going to go thru in this event, and make it worse by being a dick to investigating officers? Why prolong the agony of the families involved?
It's real easy to be cavalier about what you would and wouldn't do when you've never had to do it. Go ahead, be an asshole. Make it harder on everyone at the DZ because you want a copy of the fatality so you can be the creep that puts it on YouTube to play to the macabre crowd. *(I mean "you" in the sense of third person, not aimed at anyone in particular).
I'll be glad that *you* don't work at my DZ, where vidiots sign a reiease that says the DZ owns your work product anyway. So in the event that this happens at *my* DZ, I'll take your tape/card from you and hand it over anyway.

Have you seen the level of incompetence exhibited by some "official" investigations? If I had video of an incident, I would most certainly keep either the original or a copy of that video. I might use it to shorten the time-frame in which the family didn't understand what happened, but I certainly wouldn't prolong it. At worst, neither I nor my peers would be able to conclude anything from the video, which wouldn't harm the timing of the official investigation in the least.

Also, I don't see anywhere in the original post anything creepy or suggesting the guy wants to air such a video on youtube. There may have been such an insinuation that you deleted, but without it, I'm not going to assume he's creepy like that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DSE 5]

With the rhetoric that's been added by ridiculous assertions...it's hard to see what is what, sorry for that.
However...
The videographer has a right to make a copy. The copy will not be what goes to the FAA or LEA. If the copy finds its way out of the videographers hands, then the responsibility lies directly with the videographer if the investigation is hampered, tampered with, interfered with, or compromised in any way by the release of the copy. The videographer is entitled to receive the original back from LEA once the investigation is closed and any legal aspects of the case are over.
If you carefully read my response, I wasn't directing my response to anyone in particular, the use of the world "you" is third person, not any person in specific.

I'm not a paralegal, never worked for an attorney. Myself, and my staff are court-certified forensic media specialists, and we assist in media replication, authenticating, verifying of media related to crimes (often specifically crimes against children) that include homicide, suicide, and other fatalities, accidental or otherwise. In other words, I'm quite familiar with the process here in the state of Utah. Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada all share the same codes as we do here, and I can't imagine most any state being different.
So to sum up from my perspective:
~A videographer is compelled to provide original video that pertains to an investigation. It's true, if he/she wants to be an ass about it, he/she can require/demand a subpoena, and that subpoena can usually be issued on the spot, but now the DZ, the videographer, and everyone surrounding the situation gets the privilege of being looked at askance for no reason at all. Perhaps, if the FAA wants to be particularly vindictive, they'll just shut down the operation to prove that they too, can be assholes.
~you can make a copy. It's not the copy that will get you in trouble, it's what you *do* with the copy that may get you in trouble.
~the Fifth Amendment doesn't remotely apply here, unless the videographer did something that couple specifically indict him in the fatality.

Do whatever you will. Paralegal or not, there is a difference between television law, Constitutionalist-conspiracy-theorist law, actual law, and the reality of the moment.
Be a dick if you wish. Make skydivers and your dropzone look like dicks. Embarass yourself for the 20 minutes or so that it takes to have a subpoena sent electronically to the officer in charge of the investigation. At the end of the day, you'll lose. Every time. Only problem is, everyone around you looks like a dick too. And for what reason? Because you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist that doesn't want the cause of death to be quickly determined?

[normiss 893]

Fully agreed.
Hmmmm....maybe you have more experience and knowledge of the issue than those that made this discussion so frustrating that we ended up here??!?!!!??!?!?!?!?

[Skydivesg 7]

(This is not directed at you, normiss). I just clicked reply to the last post.

I believe that there is only one person on this thread who has used and abused it. And led it to become the mess that it has.

I pay little attention to those who can not have a healthy, civil debate without the use of foul and profane language and name calling.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[normiss 893]

So someone paraphrasing a theoretical situation is considered foul and profane to you?

People ARE asses to law enforcement. Even more so when they don't need to be.

I'm all for personal rights, but when it comes to a death investigation, what purpose could it possibly serve? It WILL cast doubt on all involved.

Demand your rights all you want. The legal system WILL kick your ass and get what they deem necessary to fully investigate. Hence my initial comments on "no officer, he wasn't wearing a camera helmet" comments.

Those that have almost no experience in this sport or legal evidence and the collection thereof are the ones that led to this mess.

Have a nice evening.

[Skydivesg 7]

normiss, you responded at the very moment I was editing my post to let you know that I was not responding to you and that I was not directing my comment at you.

And I'm sorry if you took it that way. If so I apologize. Because I was not referring to you.

This originally started out as a question on the "double tandem fatality" thread.

I believe if you read through the thread you will find that my question was reasonable and straight forward.

I think you would also find that my follow up posts were reasonable.

I even held my tongue when some people incorrectly assumed I would post something to youtube.

I don't disagree with handing over anything helpful in determining a death to the authorities. I think I mentioned that in one of my posts as well as offering to help with determing what the investigators were watching.

Many posts were made with the inuendo that I would somehow refuse to help the authorities. I am not that guy.

My previous post about language and civil debate still stands.

But know this: I am not talking about you.
Your posts and responses added greatly to the discussion.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Does anyone know the rules on the ownership of the video footage during this type of incident?

If I were the videographer, I would dub the video to a DVD to give to the investigators and keep the original.
Anyone have first hand knowledge on if that would suffice?

Those issues can vary by state. Contact a lawyer in your state and ask. Unless someone here is a lawyer in North Carolina, they cannot give you advice you can rely on.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Those that have almost no experience in this sport or legal evidence and the collection thereof are the ones that led to this mess.

You might want to rephrase that considering that the only short-time jumper in this thread is the person with whom you seem to agree. Nearly everyone else posting has at least five years in the sport, and several are old-timers on any scale you might choose to define.

And too, at least one of those with whom you seem to disagree rather vehemently (that would be me) has worked on three dropzones in two states as a manifestor/adminstrative assistant (including a short stint in Sebastian for the '99 US Nationals). Luckily enough, there were no fatalities at the Nationals or at the smaller of the dropzones, but at the larger, there were several fatalities, not to mention serious injuries (which also brought out law enforcement), during the years I worked there.

In the end, though, Nightingale is correct. I should've considered that "ask a lawyer licensed in your state" is a far better answer than the erroneous nonsense that has been generated by this thread.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Be a dick if you wish. Make skydivers and your dropzone look like dicks. Embarass yourself for the 20 minutes or so that it takes to have a subpoena sent electronically to the officer in charge of the investigation. At the end of the day, you'll lose. Every time. Only problem is, everyone around you looks like a dick too.

Ever hear the phrase "circle the wagons"? Some of us could care less what the general public thinks about skydiving or skydivers. We're going to do whatever we think it takes to protect those who are important to us, regardless of what Joe Public (or Joe Cop, or Joe Lawyer, or Joe Tourist) thinks.

Cuz at the end of the day, it's Joe DZO who makes it possible for us to jump out of airplanes, and protecting his ass is far more important than the twenty minutes we may "waste" insisting that the cops talk to a judge before insisting that we hand over something that could very well end up leaving us without a place to skydive.

[DSE 5]

~How many fatalities do *you* have video of, that you have captured yourself?
~Are you a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist/expert?
~Is your employer a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist?
~How many instances have *you* been personally involved in where the FAA and/or local law enforcement requested you hand over surveillance tapes, DVD RW's, or HDD's that contain evidence related to a fatal accident of any kind?
~How many instances have you had the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with the FAA, NASCAR, AMA, BRO, or local authorities regarding audio or video equipment and/or recordings related to a fatality or serious injury?

The law varies very little on this topic from state to state. Thank you for causing me to take a little time to research this to bolster or debunk my position. I couldn't find one state with a different set of rules.
If you have evidence related to a fatality, you may be required to not only turn over the recording, but they may also confiscate the device used to record it. In one case I was told about from the State of Wyoming, they confiscated the camera, as it was a proprietary format without which, they could not view the evidence of a rodeo death. Once the state made dubs of the evidence, the evidence was returned in full to the television station from whom they confiscated the media and camera. Exactly as expected and referred to up-thread.

Please, Ms. Paralegal who worked manifest for years, tell us of how you've had video and taken the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with officials investigating the death of a skydiver or anyone else. I'd like to hear how you've thwarted the legal system. I'd *love* to hear how you took the Fifth to preserve your right to prevent self-incrimination.

Skybytch...Circling the wagons to buy 20 mins only serves to piss off law enforcement or the investigating body. They're gonna get what they want anyway, and they're likely going to be nasty once they do get what they want. If they're gonna shut you down, IMO, they'll more likely shut you down for refusing to cooperate than for handing over a tape. Since I've never been of a mind to refuse to cooperate, and have generally had dubs of what I'm handing over, and make it a point to be as cooperative as possible...I've yet to have a problem.
But...maybe things are different in your neck of the woods. Maybe I'm just "naive" but no event I've been involved with has ever been shut down. My employees are under standing orders to call me or my co-producer in the event of law enforcement intervention, at which point we'll work with them however they best see fit and we can accomodate.

Either way, I'll end my participation in this discussion here; both my company and I have encountered several similar situations where fatalities are part of what we've captured with our cameras. We also examine on a regular basis, media from the Attorney General's office and other law enforcement agencies for the state of Utah. You can choose to believe the "never been there/never done it" or you can choose to follow the logic and experience that myself and a couple of others have posted. Me, I'll take the easy road, cuz no matter what...the investigators win, "wagons circled" or not.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

~How many fatalities do *you* have video of, that you have captured yourself?

Irrelevant to the question that was asked.

Quote

~Are you a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist/expert?

Irrelevant to the question that was asked.

Quote

~Is your employer a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist?

No, but my former employer was retained by Adrian Nicholas to probate Patrick de Gayardon's estate in the State of Florida. I can assure you that just because that old darling (my boss) couldn't fly a wingsuit if his life depended on it, he was and is still quite capable of giving good legal counsel to the estate of a wingsuit pioneer.

I'm sure you'll miss the point, so let's just skip it, and get to the meat of the matter:

Your question is irrelevant to the question that was asked. The duties of a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist have no relation to the duties of an independent-contractor videographer or any other private individual who happens to capture potential evidence on tape.

People do this all the time, you know. Do you suppose, for example, that the original videos of the Rodney King beating should've been turned over to the police with no copies made?

Would you like more real-life examples of the consequences of what you're advocating here?

Quote

~How many instances have *you* been personally involved in where the FAA and/or local law enforcement requested you hand over surveillance tapes, DVD RW's, or HDD's that contain evidence related to a fatal accident of any kind?

Requested me? None. Requested those with whom I worked or whom I knew personally? Enough.

But this too is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

Quote

~How many instances have you had the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with the FAA, NASCAR, AMA, BRO, or local authorities regarding audio or video equipment and/or recordings related to a fatality or serious injury?

I'm not sure you've brought NASCAR et al. into it, but let's turn it around, and you can tell us all how many skydiving fatalities you've videoed in the last two years since you started jumping. And then you can answer all your own questions for the rest of us. Thanks.

Quote

The law varies very little on this topic from state to state. Thank you for causing me to take a little time to research this to bolster or debunk my position. I couldn't find one state with a different set of rules.
If you have evidence related to a fatality, you may be required to not only turn over the recording, but they may also confiscate the device used to record it.

No one has disputed that you may be required to turn over the recording. No one. That is not and has never been the issue.

The issues are a) whether a copy can be made and b) the manner in which it is turned over (in response to an oral request or in response to a warrant or subpoena).

But keep moving those goal posts, eh?

Quote

In one case I was told about from the State of Wyoming, they confiscated the camera, as it was a proprietary format without which, they could not view the evidence of a rodeo death. Once the state made dubs of the evidence, the evidence was returned in full to the television station from whom they confiscated the media and camera. Exactly as expected and referred to up-thread.

So? This is something that others have said, including me, I believe, but it is still not the issue...the issue you continue to obfuscate.

Quote

Please, Ms. Paralegal who worked manifest for years, tell us of how you've had video and taken the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with officials investigating the death of a skydiver or anyone else. I'd like to hear how you've thwarted the legal system. I'd *love* to hear how you took the Fifth to preserve your right to prevent self-incrimination.

Perhaps you should review my replies for what I actually wrote, before engaging in sarcasm that leaves you with egg on your face.

Quote

Skybytch...Circling the wagons to buy 20 mins only serves to piss off law enforcement or the investigating body. They're gonna get what they want anyway, and they're likely going to be nasty once they do get what they want. If they're gonna shut you down, IMO, they'll more likely shut you down for refusing to cooperate than for handing over a tape. Since I've never been of a mind to refuse to cooperate, and have generally had dubs of what I'm handing over, and make it a point to be as cooperative as possible...I've yet to have a problem.

Aren't you the guy who said "no copies." I'm sure you were.

Quote

But...maybe things are different in your neck of the woods. Maybe I'm just "naive" but no event I've been involved with has ever been shut down. My employees are under standing orders to call me or my co-producer in the event of law enforcement intervention, at which point we'll work with them however they best see fit and we can accomodate.

Either way, I'll end my participation in this discussion here; both my company and I have encountered several similar situations where fatalities are part of what we've captured with our cameras. We also examine on a regular basis, media from the Attorney General's office and other law enforcement agencies for the state of Utah. You can choose to believe the "never been there/never done it" or you can choose to follow the logic and experience that myself and a couple of others have posted. Me, I'll take the easy road, cuz no matter what...the investigators win, "wagons circled" or not.

Again, you are speaking from an irrelevant perspective. You work with law enforcement and you willingly follow certain rules and procedures in order to continue to procure employment from those who pay your bills. You have a vested interest in cooperating with law enforcement entities because such cooperation facilitates your livelihood.

We're not talking about you. We're talking videographers who got the last minutes of friends, mothers and sons on tape. (Those last are not hyperbole--both happened. I didn't know the guy who filmed his mother's fatality, but I did know the father who videoed his son--a friend of mine--all the way into the ground.) These are the the folks to whom the police are going to come for information. No matter what you say, they have legal rights as to their video, and all your foamage, insults, personal attacks and ridicule cannot change the fact of those rights.

I don't care about your uneducated interpretation of some or another state code, because there is no state code that will ever trump the Constitution of the United States and the rights given to each citizen by that Constitution.

My daughter lost five months of her life, because I so believed in the justice system that I said, "Just go and talk to the police. Tell them the truth. It'll all be okay." They wanted to examine the computer and my email account, and I said, "Sure, have at it." They found nothing, but I've never been able to get the hold on that email account released.

And my daughter? Well, she was 18 years old, and she went to jail, even though she hadn't done anything wrong and was not guilty of the accusation made against her. Better skydivers than you wrote to her and sent her reading matter to help her pass the time, btw.

So don't listen to me, don't listen to the legal experts (i.e., the law professor, the chief of police and the Supreme Court Justice), don't listen to anyone but yourself. But when you find your rights gone because you gave them up once too often, Mr. Spotted Eagle, please know that I will not cry for you.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Andy9o8 2]

This is now the second time in about a week that I've read a thread that should have been nothing more racy than perspectives on specific and rather technical skydiving issues, where I've found myself disappointed, and a bit surprised, at the level of some of the discourse. This isn't Speaker's Corner (where, I freely admit, I myself am certainly no angel [or even a genie] ). In threads like this, we need to comport, and control, ourselves accordingly.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Far as I'm concerned, ..., have his ass kicked, and then take the tape/card from him anyway.

...and here's where you get yourself into a tub of shit. You may find yourself unhappy with the results of that attempt, both criminal AND civil. I won't mention the possible physical outcome.


Over the line, dude.

Let's keep this on-topic and leave the bully-boy out of it, eh?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Far as I'm concerned, ..., have his ass kicked, and then take the tape/card from him anyway.

...and here's where you get yourself into a tub of shit. You may find yourself unhappy with the results of that attempt, both criminal AND civil. I won't mention the possible physical outcome.


Over the line, dude.

Let's keep this on-topic and leave the bully-boy out of it, eh?

You're right, of course. And for that line, I apologize. once in a while the stupidity and abject get me off balance. You're absolutely right and that statement does cross a line

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But...maybe things are different in your neck of the woods. Maybe I'm just "naive" but no event I've been involved with has ever been shut down.

And you've put on how many skydiving events?

Ask Spence about how law enforcement dealt with the fatalities at Dublin.

Perhaps once you've got more time in sport you'll be more concerned with protecting skydivers rather than looking good to whuffo law enforcement...

[DSE 5]

Doesn't matter if it's a skydiving event or any o the events mentioned upthread. You think skydiving is any different than rodeo, motocross, horse endurance, mountain climbing?
A fatality occurs. Fatalities at any event are considered crime scenes.
It's not about "looking good."
It's about cooperating vs creating more diifficulty in an already difficult situation.

If you wish to make a copy of the video, you must be prepared to deal with the responsibilities that accompany making a copy of the video. If you're a responsible person, then this is no big thing, but you'd best let law enforcement know a copy has been made. If it's DV, HDV, AVCHD, it's easy enough to know a copy of the content was made anyway, due to header flags in the original. If you're shooting VHS, Hi8, or VHS-C, then there is no header information to indicate copy flags.

Same question to you as to RhondaLea. How many fatalities have you filmed and then stood up to law enforcement telling them they can't have it, and been able to keep the tape, never turning anything over?

I'll wager quite a bit that the answer to that question is "none times."

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Doesn't matter if it's a skydiving event or any o the events mentioned upthread. You think skydiving is any different than rodeo, motocross, horse endurance, mountain climbing?
A fatality occurs. Fatalities at any event are considered crime scenes.
It's not about "looking good."
It's about cooperating vs creating more diifficulty in an already difficult situation.

Same question to you as to RhondaLea. How many fatalities have you filmed and then stood up to law enforcement telling them they can't have it, and been able to keep the tape, never turning anything over?

I'll wager quite a bit that the answer to that question is "none times."

Why would you ask me that question when, in my very first post, I wrote:

"If the police want my video, I can make them issue a subpoena to get it. I don't just have to hand it over because they say so."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3336511#3336511

In no post that I've written have I talked about anything resembling the scenario you posit above.

As it happens, the one time I was asked to turn over evidence, I did. I should not have, and it was a lawyer who told me after the fact that it was a mistake to have done so. I believe I alluded to this earlier also.

I guess this means you're not done with this thread after all, eh?

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[1888 0]

This exact thing came up at a DZ I was working at except it wasn't in a contract. I went to a lawyer friend who explained that the DZ owner would be guilty of spoilage of evidence and could be charged criminally. Furthermore you have the situation that almost all videos come out but unfortuinately the one the cops are interested in didn't. Additionally, to support the DZ owners claim I would have to lie to the cops and say the video didn't come out, something I wouldn't do. I gave him the above in writing, end of issue.

If I were in your situation, I would simply do my work and if the issue came up, tell whoever asks what happened and that the boss has the evidence. He can then choose if he wants his nuts in a vise or not and you have simply told the truth. If you are really friends with the S&TA who enforces the rules, show him this. Of course you will be looking for a new job, but it's better than being tied up in a legal mess.

[RhondaLea 4]

Spoliation is defined as "the intentional destruction of evidence that is presumed to be unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction." See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 F.3d 801, 804 (6th Cir. 1999)

What I'm getting from your story (that I do not entirely understand without a context) is a situation in which spoiliation might apply.

Fortunately, in the context of the original question asked in this thread, the idea of spoiliation does not apply.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Braz933 0]

Well, I will start with the disclaimer that I AM A COP! I am sad to hear that so many of you think so poorly of the police. We have a job to do. If somebody dies, their family deserves to know why... and if you want to screw that up because you want to protect your "rights" then go ahead....but remember, as the saying goes...you mess with the bull...you'll get the horns!

Furthermore, I don't care if the investigation shuts down your DZ. DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEGRITY? ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT THE TRUTH IS TOLD, NO MATTER WHO IT HURTS!!!!

I am a staunch believer in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. However, obstructing an investigation simply because you don't trust the police is sad indeed. The police are not your enemy. Yet, as in any profession, some are better at their job than others. No need to paint us all with the same brush.

[popsjumper 2]

Well, Braz..you're somewhat right of course but I wonder...

What have YOU done to weed out those that cause all that negative perception of your profession?

The fact is, those bad apples are there and continue to be there even after their rottenness is exposed.

The Thin Blue Line and all that.

Your comment, "...remember, as the saying goes...you mess with the bull...you'll get the horns!", tells me that you are one of them.

Until your leaders stand up for integrity, that negative perception will continue.


In direct reply to your post:
In THIS case, the family CAN know why even though someone wants to protect their rights. Indeed, that's the way it should be. Why is it that you think that excercising one's "rights" would prevent the family from knowing why? Insisting on protecting one's "rights" does NOT obstruct justice.

DSE's arguement is basically, "Why be an asshole by insisting on your "rights" when you could be a nice guy and just hand over the tape".

The flaw in that thinking is that if you insist on your rights, then you are an asshole, hand it over and you're a nice guy.
Wrong.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

You say, "I am a staunch believer in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights."...yet you would deny the Fourth and Fifth mendments?

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239