If giving someone a ride in California, better verify the parole status

[lawrocket 3]

Because if the person is a parolee, then you should know that the police can search the entirety of the interior of your car without any suspicion of wrongdoing at all.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S186707.PDF

More wisdom from Cali, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JerryBaumchen 1,473]

Hi rocket,

Quote

More wisdom from Cali, eh?

Quit complaining; think of all of the work it will bring your way.



JerryBaumchen

PS) Every cloud has a silver lining; or something like that.

[BIGUN 1,505]

Am I reading page 12 correctly.... If he had been a Parolee instead of a Probationer; they would have held for the defense?

How would you have argued it differently?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't think so. It looks like probationers must accept it (contractually) as a basis for probation. Parolees don't contract it. They're just put out there.

THis opinion just seems an affront to me. Imagine some cabbie getting searched.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

I don't think so. It looks like probationers must accept it (contractually) as a basis for probation. Parolees don't contract it. They're just put out there.

THis opinion just seems an affront to me. Imagine some cabbie getting searched.

Or bus, or airplane.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

THis opinion just seems an affront to me. Imagine some cabbie getting searched.

The back seat of the cab could be searched under this ruling, but unless the cabbie gives passengers control of the front seat I don't see how a search of the cabbie would be justified.

The ruling is uncomfortable for sure, but how would you have decided it? If probationers agree contractually to be searched, should that agreement be limited in practice to those circumstances where only the probationer has access to the area being searched? If they share a house with other people, would you argue no part of the house can be searched? Wouldn't that make the consent to search virtually meaningless? I thought the courts have long held that if the police are in your house for legitimate purposes, if they happen to see evidence of a crime while they are there that evidence is admissible in court. For example, if a member of the household invites the police in to investigate a burglary, and while there the police see evidence that another member of the household is dealing drugs, that evidence is admissible even though it was obtained without a warrant. Am I wrong? Would that also be an affront?

Note that I am not disagreeing with you that it is scary to think that my property could be searched just because someone who is a probationer (and who I might not even know is a probationer) has visited my property. I am just wondering how you would argue a different ruling from what the court found. Would you throw out the whole contractual consent to be searched, or would you limit it in some way? How could you limit it without making it meaningless?


Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The ruling is uncomfortable for sure, but how would you have decided it?

That the driver has not waived a right to privacy.

Quote

If probationers agree contractually to be searched, should that agreement be limited in practice to those circumstances where only the probationer has access to the area being searched?

Yes. Just because a probationer has contracted away a right doesn't mean that I have.

Quote

I thought the courts have long held that if the police are in your house for legitimate purposes, if they happen to see evidence of a crime while they are there that evidence is admissible in court.

This case says that police need no probable cause - not even a suspicion - to search a private vehicle if there's a parolee on board. Nothing. Zip. Can be searched.

I think my right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is independent of another person's rights. That's all.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think my right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is independent of another person's rights. That's all.

And it still is, cause in this case they ruled the search to be reasonable.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Sorry to be so obtuse, but what are your thoughts on these questions I asked before?

"Would you throw out the whole contractual consent to be searched, or would you limit it in some way? How could you limit it without making it meaningless? "

Probationers agree to give up certain rights for a period of time rather than go to jail. Law enforcement is expected to keep a close watch on probationers, to ensure they can stay out of trouble at least for the duration of their probation. This seems to me to create an inherent conflict: how can you closely supervise probationers without any impact on other people who are associated with them? Law enforcement is in a no-win situation here: either they carry out their assigned responsibilities and in the process trample privacy rights of associates of the probationer (as is the case here), or they don't supervise probationers except perhaps when they are alone in a place that no-one else has any possibility of accessing. We are all aware, though, that if the probationer commits some crime then law enforcement will be criticized for failing to supervise them adequately. Is there a reasonable resolution to the dilemma, or is the concept of supervised probation unworkable in practice, such that it should be abolished?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Would you throw out the whole contractual consent to be searched, or would you limit it in some way? How could you limit it without making it meaningless? "

If a person signs a contract that allows that person to be searched, and the person happens to be on the same bus as you, do you think you lose your right to be free of unwarranted search and seizure? Without even some articulable suspicion?

I think that they can take the guy out and search him but unless they have some suspicion about my car then I don't see why I can be patted down without cause. That's the point - without any showing of cause.

Quote

Probationers agree to give up certain rights for a period of time rather than go to jail.

I'm not on probation. So I did not give up my right.

Quote

Law enforcement is in a no-win situation here: either they carry out their assigned responsibilities and in the process trample privacy rights of associates of the probationer (as is the case here), or they don't supervise probationers except perhaps when they are alone in a place that no-one else has any possibility of accessing

So you suggest that law enforcement win and presumptively innocent people lose?

I think you hit the nail on the head - we are chosing police over the individual.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

So you suggest that law enforcement win and presumptively innocent people lose?

Not really, just curious how you would resolve the conflict.

Quote

I think you hit the nail on the head - we are chosing police over the individual.

I think it's pretty obvious that is just what the courts did here, and it's not the first time (nor will it be the last). Much of what I find objectionable in the Patriot Act involves unnecessarily casting away rights to make it easier for "Homeland Security" to carry out surveillance and to imprison people without inconvenient details like charges and trials.

I think a big part of the problem in the case you bring up is the notion of searching even probationers without any probable cause. If they have a history of drug issues then I suppose there is probable cause to drug-test them when they check in with their probation officer, but that's not adequate in and of itself to randomly search their property in my opinion. Of course, my opinion is also that it isn't the responsibility of the law to protect people from themselves. If someone chooses to fry their own brain, that's their business. The "war on drugs" has probably been used to justify even more intrusions on personal liberty than the "war on terrorism" has.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

just curious how you would resolve the conflict

I tend to err on the side of individuals over the government. I'd resolve the conflict in favor of the presumptively innocent person. I favor the potential criminal over the cop. I favor a free society over an orderly one.

Quote

Much of what I find objectionable in the Patriot Act involves unnecessarily casting away rights to make it easier for "Homeland Security" to carry out surveillance and to imprison people without inconvenient details like charges and trials

Indeed. And it happens all the time on a local level.

Quote

the notion of searching even probationers without any probable cause

I don't have a problem with it, if that's what they agreed to as a term of probation. It's the other people around the probationer who did NOT agree to waive their rights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

I think this should be very much fact dependent. I can see situations where a third party search could be reasonable. However, in the vast majority of circumstances, searching a third party or their property due to proximity to someone who has abrogated their rights is clearly 'unreasonable'. I would expect the government to prove the third party knew or should have known that the second party's presence bore such consequences. That would be quite difficult.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.