When I was in Boulder, CO last week I went for a walk in a city-owned "greenbelt" hiking trail. I saw this sign that read, "All bags and coolers subject to search. City of Boulder Rangers and Police Officers will be patrolling this area."
Are the police allowed to search your bags in a public park without a warrant? (I saw no police officers or rangers while hiking that day; in fact I saw no other hikers either.)
Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis. From Photoshop Disasters (thanks, Antinous!)... More.
A four pound hunk of metal crashed through the roof of Peter and Mair Welton's home in Hull, UK. The Royal Air Force first thought the debris fell off an airplane but now they say it came from space. From the BBC News: It was not known where the metal had come from but it seemed likely that it w... More.
Back in July, Dark Horse Comics relaunched the classic horror title Creepy, one of those titles that caused straight America to recoil in terror. Creepy's short stories veered between morality plays in which some awful person did some terrible deed and received his comeuppance to unabashed, straig... More.
Jason Brammer's hand-painted eyeball matrioshka, "The Watchers," is a fine addition to the genre of crazy-awesome stuff you can do with blank nested dolls. "The Watchers" (via Craft) Previously:Matrioshke phones -- Boing Boing Gadgets - Boing Boing Matryomin: a matrioshke with a theremin insid... More.
Jim Bumgardner has created a lovely sound project that brings to life the music of the spheres: "Wheel of Stars." I downloaded public data from Hipparcos, a satellite launched by the European Space Agency in 1989 that accurately measured over a hundred thousand stars. The data I downloaded cont... More.
Mark Frauenfelder, Cory Doctorow
David Pescovitz and Xeni Jardin
Editors
Rob Beschizza
Managing Editor
Lisa Katayama, Maggie Koerth-Baker
and Brandon Boyer
Contributing Editors
Sysadmin
Lead Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Finance
Legal
Legal
Insurance
Developer
Friend
Ken Snider
Antinous
Arkizzle
Avram
Terry Thurlow
Rob Rader/MS&K
Marc Mayer/MS&K
Ed Szylko/EJMS
Dean Putney
Jason Weisberger
John Battelle
Partner
Federated Media
Advertising
Disney gags on "Ho White" beer
This week's great games
RSS Feed
why, if you quietly let them search you, yes.
How long till we will see signs like this on the doors to our houses? 2 yrs, maybe 4 my guess.
It's an interesting legal point. I can see how private venues can insist on your opening your backpack for them, but a city park?
The sign is probably leftover from July 4th. I'm guessing that the park had been made unusable on previous Fourths by the drunk, stupid, and firework-wielding.
No glass-period? Glass bottles would be one thing, but I guess they really don't want anyone wearing cheap jewlery and are pushing to get visitors to switch to contact lenses or LASIK.
When you'll see their trained sniffing bears you'll allow them yourself.
Stefan, it looks like your saying that our right to be free from unreasonable searches changes depending on what day it is. I'm thinking that's not the case. On top of that, I find it rather ironic that the 4th would be the day that our rights are suspended.
Of course not! The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Going for a walk in a public park is not probable cause, and is therefore completely unreasonable. As a Boulderite, this is absurd and I will be contacting the City.
Isn't it just stating in plain English what is already law? If you are in a public park, and police suspect you've been drinking (via their magical spider sense) they can search you. The sign merely points out that they can search you.
I believe that is correct. When it comes to parks and state / federal forests, lawn enforcement seems to have more power in order to search compared to ordinary places. Quick find of a discussion on it here. http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-36041.html
It doesn't say you can't refuse. If you refuse, they'll mail you a summons at some point in the future. IANAL, but if the summons does go to court, they have the burden of proof to prove whatever they didn't see was in the cooler, was in fact illegal, and that it was yours. If you were clearly drunk when you were asked if they could search your cooler, that's a different story though.
Deckard's comment appeared as I logged in, but I was going to say:
They're just tactlessly saying what is probably law - if the park isn't a "dry zone" then all it would take is acting slightly intoxicated (in violation of public intoxication laws I'm sure everywhere has) for you to become a lawful target for search.
And just said it anyway. Cops, ay? Bastards!
yeah, right. A cop's opinion on if you were "drunk".
Lots of the beaches in New Jersey, public beaches that you have to pay an access fee for, have prohibitions on alcohol and glass. Local beach cops, kids with summer jobs, walk up and down the beaches looking in coolers and making sure everyone has beach passes and then issuing tickets for noncompliance. I don't see this as any different.
Anywhere where there's fish or wildlife, etc., park rangers etc. have, I think (check me on this) broad powers to search for poaching. At least, that's what my friends who fish tell me. But this weird bag-search BS for alkyhol is something new.
"Are the police allowed to search your bags in a public park without a warrant?"
Only a terrorist would be concerned about having their bags searched.
[/police state apologist]
At what point having some wine with your picnic go from a basic part of life to a crime?
...and what did the orange sheet on the right say?
the rot spreads
http://statismwatch.ca/2009/06/24/illegal-victoria-transit-bag-searches-reinstated-under-new-policy-for-canada-day/
I live in Boulder and I believe this was just for the July 4th holiday, where rangers are always concerned about wildfires. Many people go up to Dakota Ridge/Red Rocks/Mt Sanitas trails to watch the firework from the CU Football stadium. And they bring fireworks.
Still, if a ranger/cop asked to search my bag, I'd ask where their warrant is, or what's their probable cause?
Oh, well if there's a sign it must be ok.
@#10
I think the summons is for violations of the glass, etc., not for refusing to comply. Of course that is my damn uppity, civil lib. interpretation that unfortunately seems to have no basis in reality.
I'd recommend carrying around your handy EFF Bill of Rights -- Security Edition (the metal card with the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution printed on it). I have mine right here.
If you are ever stopped by a police officer who asks if he/she can search you or your possessions, it is the first thing I'd hand them. Ask them to read it over, paragraph by paragraph, and remind them that it is the Supreme Law of the Land that they are supposed to have taken a sworn oath to defend and protect.
Then try to find out how they could have ever forgotten that sacred oath.
the orange sheet on the right looks like no cell phones..
If there's sufficient concern that a violation of the no glass/alcohol/fireworks rule would cause serious trouble, and the searches are conducted across the board rather than singling out the long-hairs, then it might pass muster.
DUI checkpoints are constitutional for analogous reasons.
This sign may be a sneaky attempt at eliminating your "expectation of privacy." If you have no expectation of privacy, then it's not a search under the 4th Amendment. Or so they would argue.
The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures.
'Unreasonable' is a weasel word. Literally any cause could be construed as reasonable. If the Founding Fathers made one huge mistake, it was the assumption that reason is static and definable.
@17 - I live in Victoria. I just placed my bottle under the seat last year. This year I took a taxi downtown... They're searching those too, apparently. Straight fucked.
Also, there's the capital region district parks people who go around the lakes here, and everyone seems to think that they have the right to search bags if they suspect you of drinking up. Four magic words: "I do not consent", and they'll give you a pissed off look and screw off. If they catch you with open liquor it's a different story, though, I think. In any case going to thetis lake's sunnyside climbing out of the water around broken bottles is really lame, and I definitely relate to why they do it with that cause alone.
As a Boulder resident, I'd point out that this sign is not a permanent thing, and while booze may be verboten, it's really all about the fireworks, not the drinking.
I'm not saying it's legal or right, and I too appreciate the irony of doing this on the Fourth.
But they are fighting an uphill battle against fireworks. They can't be purchased here, but Wyoming has big stores just across the state line, 50 miles away.
I hope you enjoyed your visit!
The orange smaller sign is a reiteration of the bigger one about no fireworks.
They're allowed to if they have probable cause. If someone doesn't think there was "cause" to be searched, they'd bring a lawsuit against the city. Then a judge interprets the law. If the judge sides with the city and it's really not fair, it can be taken to a higher court--all the way to the supreme court if it is unconstitional. Alternatively, vote the mayor or congressmen out of office. All three branches of government can be taken to task if they make laws you feel are unfair.
I don't understand why this comes as such a shock, or carries such ominous undertones. I've seen signs in practically every public park and trail I've visited across the US that state rules peculiar to a city or state. No alcohol, no fireworks, no smoking, no glass bottles, please stay off the grass in this area, no swimming in fountains, please don't feed the animals, etc. If a park has a ranger or police patrol, and you're behaving strangely, or in direct violation of park rules, they'll stop, search, or fine you. No one always adheres to the rules--I've gotten drunk on alcohol I obtained from glass bottles and lit off fireworks in more than a few parks--but I wouldn't be the least surprised if I'd been ticketed or, if I'd been particularly belligerent, arrested. Everyone has a tale of an apparently sober, belligerent ranger or cop who makes you pack up your campsite or dump out your tequila, but why take assholes personally?
I digress. The "reserve the right to search" notification seems a bit odd at first glance. The Boulder Revised Code, however, provides the city manager with the power to institute rules to the following ends without limitation:
(1) Preservation of property, vegetation, wildlife, signs, markers, buildings or other structures, and any object of scientific or historic value or interest;
(2) Restriction on or limitation of the use of any area or trail according to time, type, and manner of activities;
(3) Prohibition of conduct that may reasonably be expected to interfere substantially with the use and enjoyment of parks, parkways, recreation areas, and open space by the general public or that constitutes a nuisance...
The list contains eight areas over which the city manager has control, and item (c) of 8-3-3 states that even if the rules are not posted, a peace officer may still enforce them after ordering an individual or group to "cease conduct violative of the rule."
So it appears, Mark, that at the time you visited that park, the city manager had decided to grant officers the right to search bags. This probably had something to do with the sorts of arrestable things people (including me) do on the Fourth of July, and perhaps a general tightening of rules during the biggest vacation month in the lives of most Americans. Or maybe they just have goofy park rules. How upsetting.
Whether it infringes on our rights or not, some people are stupid. The sign is posted next to a "No Fireworks" sign, and I imagine, the police/park rangers were concerned about fireworks.
It being dry season, and the propensity for people to get drunk and throw explosive devices on or around the 4th as high as it is, I figure they are perfectly welcome to check my bags.
A lot of these comments are making me laugh. Barring exceptional circumstances (circumstances which are NOT there a good margin of the time when the police coerce people into conceding a privacy right) the police need reasonable probable cause to search your belongings without consent.
The real question worth debating here is why it's even illegal to drink in the park to begin with.
That's one of the best places to do it.
What is interesting about SCOTUS' definition of "reasonableness," Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967), is how flexible it is. The test for reasonableness is two-pronged. 1) The person must have a subjective belief that they have a privacy interest, and 2) it must be an interest that society recognizes as reasonable.
There is a feedback problem with this. On day 1 you have a subjective expectation of privacy regarding your bags in the park. on day 2 a sign goes up saying that your bags are subject to search. Even if this sign is bogus, if you believe it you no longer have the necessary subjective mind-state to assert a privacy violation. On day 3, people become acclimated that they do not have an expectation of privacy and it morphs into an objective principle that society does not recognize this as a privacy protected area.
No real surprise here. SCOTUS pretty much hates the 4th Amdt. because it is "soft on crime."
Or, you know, just politely refuse and only whip out the card and waste their time grandstanding your point if they actually start pressuring you to do it anyway, necessitating that response.
They may not have the authority to do it without consent but don't treat them as though it's wrong of them to ask permission to. They're usually even pretty polite in their request.
@2: "Put your hands inside the yellow circles!"
Takuan@12: "yeah, right. A cop's opinion on if you were "drunk"."
Well, if your judgment is so impaired that you'd defy our authority, you must be drunk. Plus, your nose looks a little red.
It's not privacy, but the expectation of it that prevents officials from searching your bags. Therefore, why not print signs that give you no hope of expecting privacy, so they can just get on with the search?
the rot spreads
http://statismwatch.ca/2009/06/24/illegal-victoria-transit-bag-searches-reinstated-under-new-policy-for-canada-day/
My Canada Day experience in Victoria has never been ruined by drunks, but the illegal searches sure have made it unpleasant. It would have been nice to have the bus as an option if one was choosing to drink, as then you wouldn't be considering taking your car and driving, which would be risky if you were intoxicated.
How stupid is it that people were endangered by this policy? Think how many people were going to take the bus, but chose to take their car instead?
This stupid rule actually puts more drunks on the road. Way to fail, Victoria Transit!
one exception to warrant-less searches (in addition to probable cause or reasonable suspicion) is consent. These signs give you notice of impending searches. You consent to the search by entering on the premise. I would think this passes muster based on the notice and on the state's arguments for public safety.
This is probably similar to enforcement of city ordinances on the beach; the officers will supposedly target everyone ... not just 'long hairs' (lol)
Ian70@32: "Put your hands inside the yellow circles!"
Ha!
"Are you classified as human?"
"Negative. I am a meat popsicle."
The point isn't that there shouldn't be rules against certain things like glass bottles on a beach or fireworks in a park, it's that some park ranger has the been granted the right to search WHOMEVER he may choose at any time regardless of suspicion.
I live in New York City and take the subway. There are always announcements blasting that bags are subject to search. You can bet if some cop decided to randomly search me on the subway, I would say as loud as I could "I do not consent to this search!"
And the police do have 'random' search stations set up at certain subway stations. These search stations are relatively few. Supposedly you could if they asked to search you and you didn't want to be searched, you could just leave and enter at another station nearby. Ridiculous.
For millions of people in New York, the subways are not a luxury but an absolute necessity for them to continue working and live their lives. That means these unwarranted searches are violating our rights.
Where are the signs placed?
If they are promenantly at every entrance to the park then that'd help the case for searching being legal. It depends if the park is really public too, rather than owned by a trust or something.
If it's owned by a trust, they can put whatever conditions on you they want, as long as you're aware of them before coming in.
If you can drive into the park then the signs should be bigger, otherwise you could drive right past.
Or there could just be a local law that says they can search you in the park, but that does seem a big violation of the 4th.
Melanarchy wrote --
I can't even tell if you're joking, but people don't have a problem with this?
I'm also wondering what New Jersians do for fun in the evening. Do they pay to have 'interns' come round to their houses, kick in their front doors and administer cavity searches? Or is that kind of service only going to become available a couple years down the line?
All this back and forth and still no definitive answer...
BB needs an official ConLaw expert to answer such questions. Of course, you never really know until it goes through the courts, but having a recognized authority on the subject would be cool, particularly given the regular nature of the topic.
Oh, and regardless of what the law actually is - this is still fucking bullshit.
No. Police can not search your bags without PC, under any circumstances. (A stop and frisk is just that, and can never get into your bags, and is only based on suspicion you're armed and dangerous.)
They would have to have PC to arrest you to search your bags, and then they can search your bags without a warrant. But they would still have PC.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if they have "probable cause" to search you. They need a warrant. There are very, very few times when you can search without a warrant. Automobile, exigent circumstances. Someone's bags that might have booze or fireworks is definitely not one of them.
Someone is wrong on the internet!
The police may not search you without a warrant or an exception the warrant requirement.
Posting a sign at the entrance to a park is not an exception to the warrant requirement.
Thinking you are drunk is not an exception to the warrant requirement.
Being in a park is not an exception to the warrant requirement.
Probable cause is not, in and of itself, an exception to the warrant requirement. In certain instances an officer who suspects you of a crime, based on specific and articulable facts, may perform a limited "pat down" search.
The police arresting you does not give them broad authority to search, but may allow them to search your person and certain closed containers, with many and complicated factors going into that determination. The police may not arrest you unless they posses probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime.
Giving consent to search is an exception to the warrant requirement.
If the police in Boulder believe that they are able to search all coolers, they are incorrect. This is unconstitutional.
A local law or ordinance that purports to give such authority carries no meaning -- a lesser governmental entity can not trump the constitution.
@43 - I want to believe you. I really do! But on such important matters I really need credentials or the knowledge I am reading the opinion of an individual qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject... Can we get a resident expert for these CivLib posts?
Oh, and more like "Boulder, Commierado"
Boulder is a police state with good PR.
expert advice is moot when dealing with people that can beat the shit out of you and then charge you with resisting arrest. If they don't just kill you outright. And they know it.
I'm studying for the Bar Exam. I just finished reviewing Constitutional Law for the last 12 hours.
Believe me, they cannot compel you to submit to a search absent a warrant or probable cause. If they did have the audacity to issue a summons, a judge would laugh it out of court. And I'm pro-prosecution. Go Team America!
@48, Takuan.
Indeed, I agree that the Constitution is almost always likely to be moot when a citizen questions a police officer's authority and asserts their constitutional rights.
In fact, whipping out a clever little metal card with the constitution written on it is more likely to get you charged with "threatening a police officer" than to successfully prove your point. (This is something a cop once told me he was going to charge me with "for raising my arms above my waist," keep in mind my palms were at belly level, open and facing upward in a :::huh?,WTF?::: gesture).
Non-scientific imperial evidence from my life suggests you are better off asserting yourself in a polite and almost submissive fashion to make it clear you're not challenging them, but just challenging 'policy'.
Nevertheless, I think knowing your rights and how they relate to our complex legal system is important, even if they are unlikley to come in handy on-the-spot.
@48
Well, it is and it isn't. If an aggro cop demands to see inside your cooler, a good response is to politely, but firmly tell them that you do not consent to a search. Then you let them in the cooler to avoid the aforementioned having the shit beaten out of you and subsequent resiting charge. That way, if they come across something incriminating, it would be subject to a motion to suppress -- The Exclusionary Rule (TM), enjoy it while it lasts. It may not be around for long.
@49
The Constitution is far from moot, and there is much to be gained from asserting your rights. There's no need to whip out a card, just memorize the following magic words:
"I do not consent to a search."
The officer doesn't care about a card. If their mind is made up to search, they're going to search. They are armed. They do not like having their authority questioned. That said, they can not search you without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. Consent is one such exception. It is the big exception. It is the grand daddy of all exceptions. You do not have to consent to a search. If you are not being arrested or being shown a warrant, you probably can not be searched unless you consent.
Fun fact to know: Many people think "If I say I consent, the officer will assume I don't have anything and not search me." They're on to this one!
@ #38 - I really hope that's not true. Otherwise the police would just put up a billboard that says "Hey we're going to search you without probable cause today if you're on city streets!"
Posting a sign somewhere doesn't take away your rights.
@50 Danb- But what if you just don't want to consent to the search because it is an illegal invasion of your privacy, not because you have something to hide?
Your cooler could be filled with soda-pop and chips; not an AK-47, moonshine, and M-80s.
What then... spend thousands of dollars and countless hours suing the agency for a violation of your constitutional rights, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court?! We don't all have that kind of means available at our disposal... which is why the little guy always gets screwed.
If you can't afford a good lawyer, good-luck!
@53
No question. That's a major flaw in our system. Not to mention the fact that such suits are very, very difficult to win.
The fact of the matter is that most of these cases come up in the criminal context. This is true for a couple of reasons:
1. If you are caught with something illegal (drugs, guns, etc), you have a lot to lose (your freedom) and a strong incentive to fight the issue.
2. Many people facing criminal charges are afforded a public defender (like me!) and, therefore, cost is much less of a constraint on litigating the issue.
That said, the cases fought and won in the criminal world do make a difference for our law-abiding friends. If police officers know that they will not be able to use evidence obtained from an illegal search, they will, in theory, be deterred from using those tactics. In fact, it is this "deterrence" rationale which provides the theoretical support for the exclusionary rule.
@ 51, Danb -
I agree, we should all know the mantra "I do not consent to a search. I do not consent to a search. I do not consent to a search."
That being said, this phrase and the constitution may very well be a moot point and completely ignored by the cop who is tired of smart-alecks who think they can tell him what to do!
POW! You're eating concrete, tasered, cuffed with a knee in your back (potentially killing you) and if in Oakland, then shot to death in the back. Or if in Maryland, you're the mayor and get a package mistakenly delivered to your house they storm your abode (out of uniform) and kill your dogs... Try to refuse a search of your vehicle by border agents well after you've crossed the border - BAM there goes your Escalade's windows! Try to record the injustice? They'll seize you camera and protect themselves under the law! Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and the is no mistaking police are generally given absolute power. Only in rare and extreme cases does the law retroactively condemn their abuses.
Links, in case you missed any of these darling gems that sprung to my mind with very little thought:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/may966.txt
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6647338&page=1
http://boingboing.net/2008/08/07/swat-team-raids-mayo.html
http://boingboing.net/2009/04/16/border-patrol-beat-u.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2008/09/_by_aimee_green_after.html
I like the signs we have in Toronto better.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rezavaziri/586407732/
I have seen this same kind of actions while heading out to the beach in santa cruz for 4th of july. except there are NO signs at all. just a temp plastic fence that funnels into about 10 cops searching every single cooler.
i even asked, "how is this legal?"
the cop replied; "do you want on the beach or not?"
my girlfriend was standing there giving me that look like 'are you going to ruin our whole day to go off one one of your tirades?' normally i would respond with yes, i was a member of the armed forces, i enlisted to protect these rights and while i might havent served in nearly 10 years, its still my obligation as a citizen to challenge these standards.
but alas, i placed my cooler and backpack on the ground and simply stated "i do not give consent to search, its your choice to go through my belongings." which he did...
I think that is correct. Speaking of parks and national / federal forests, grasslands law enforcement seems to have more powers to search a place compared to the ordinary.
[quote]
That said, the cases fought and won in the criminal world do make a difference for our law-abiding friends. If police officers know that they will not be able to use evidence obtained from an illegal search, they will, in theory, be deterred from using those tactics. In fact, it is this "deterrence" rationale which provides the theoretical support for the exclusionary rule.
[/quote]
@56
see, the problem i think is that the sign is misleading. they wont actually right a ticket or issue a summons. they will only confiscate any item they are looking for. this keeps the court out of the issue. does anyone plan on filing charges against the state/city/county that an officer took your illegal fireworks by illegal search?
What most people don't realize is that in the US the standards for probable cause are basically the same for searching you and detaining you. So if you don't want to be searched just ask "Am I free to leave?" If they say yes, then just walk away with your cooler. If they say no, then you're already in deep doo doo, and a search can only make things worse for you. Either way consenting to a search buys you nothing.
I practice exercising my rights as often as possible, and I usually have nothing to hide. I'm rewarded with cheap entertainment as I watch the local police do their good cop bad cop routine to try and convince me to give up my rights, and get a bonus civics lesson on how fragile our rights are.
The difference, I think, is that it is a voluntary transaction. You don't 'need' to enter the park, but if you do you need to consent to being searched. We have a similar system in place at airports and other sensitive government facilities.
Perhaps the potential solution to this systemic abuse of the 4th amendment is a law that requires officers to have people sign a form agreeing that they are submitting to a search without probable cause (OR NOT!!!).
I know, I know, there are plenty of ways to abuse that too but hey, if @59 Neverender coulda checked a "HELL NO, I FOUGHT FOR THESE RIGHTS" box, he could of gotten on the beach with his girl, his rights, his pride, and most importantly, a Sam Adams or two.
the rich have always been free of the insolence of their private security guards (ie: the police), perhaps it is time to take a page from their methods. Police abuse was traditionally reserved for the poor and powerless, it just lately that they have started to treat society as one vast prison and to see themselves as jailers. Working and middle class ought to band together and create their own gated communities. Just close each end of your block or amalgamate the next apartment building.
@46 is correct.
I live in Boulder, regardless of fire danger (I'm a wildland firefighter, there was none on the 4th, too wet), I will not consent to illegal searches. I urge you all to grow a pair, assert your 4th amendment rights, regardless of how 'easy' it is to comply.
I urge you all to grow a pair
Of breasts? Isn't Rosa Parks our archetype for refusing to give away our rights?
the rangers and police officers should be required to search you twice (PACK IT IN, PACK IT OUT, and prove it). I'd rather subject myself to this search than see the litter desecration of our public parks lately.
It's creepy when you see "hikers" in flip-flops packing in ammonia, drain-o, propane cylinders, and all of the other makings of a meth lab.
Well, well, well. If old DamagedBadTZMaru doesn't know the recipe to Meth.
Guess we'll have to pick him up and waterboard him for info; Constitution, Litter-awarness, and "America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass" be damned...
"I'm proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm not free".....................
"The Public Park Flip-Flop Meth Chemist Epidemic. Warrantless Searches Are Necessary."
#23
The Founding Fathers had it right by using the "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause. It allows for intervention by the judicial branch, and for review by a jury of your peers. The Constitution cannot prevent violations of its principles, but it does allow for recourse when its principles are violated. There are times when searches and seizures may be deemed reasonable that, at other times, would not be allowed.
A search in a public park on an average day would be, in the opinion of this potential juror, unreasonable. A search in a public park at an event when there have been problems with public drunkeness and broken bottles, in the opinion of this potential juror, might be reasonable. It would all depend on the reasoning made by the agency that initiated the search.
Ummm---why is there this confusion between park rangers and the police---they are not the same. I seriously doubt that they same laws apply. As an individual I can search a neighbors house for evidence and it will be legally admitted into a court of law although my search is most likely illegal(due to B and E), but if the cops did it without a warrant or probable cause then it won't go in. These laws stop things from getting into court they don't stop the searches from happening. The park rangers just want to make sure there is no trouble they don't care about taking you to court, they just don't want their park to catch on fire resulting in their own job loss. There is no law that stops one person from looking into another persons bag---the law just stops these things from being admitted as evidence.
Anonymous @40: The NYC subway searches have already been validated in the courts: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Court_finds_random_bag_searches_in_NYC_subway_constitutional
I'm lucky that I've only ever been searched once (and the cop didn't demand that I boot the laptop). It helps, of course, that I'm not walking while dark-skinned.
@71, While I agree with your overall idea, just want to point out that whether a search is reasonable is a question of law decided by a judge (and her uber-powerful clerk) and would not be before a jury.
As already mentioned, this is likely more about fireworks, and I would think potential forest fires. Its all fine and dandy to catch someone after the fact, but in the meantime, forest, property, and potentially lives are at risk.
As for the search, as with anything I think they would have to have just cause. However one might argue that attendance in a park during 4th of July may be "just cause" enough.
This was left over from the 4th of july.
And no, they can't search your bag without a warrant, but if you don't consent to a search, they can not let you in/escort you out.
I've been in several situations where cops stopped us, and I was 'holding' or genuinely guilty of something, but the cops dragged off some smart-ass because he insisted on telling the cops what they can and cannot do.
Cops don't want to drag you off- it's a lot of paperwork for them. Let them do their job and go away.
And don't take glass bottles to public places. They cut people and start fires.
@42 - People have come to expect it. I'm sure that there are signs up at the booths where you buy the beach passes that say something like "all bags and coolers are subject to search." So by buying a beach pass and setting foot on the beach you're consenting to being searched. Just like when you go to an airport you consent to being searched as a condition of flying. Just because Boulder doesn't charge access fees to enter the park doesn't mean that they can't make consent to be search a condition of entering.
I would hate to see a condition like this enforced in National Parks but it seems to me a pretty reasonable condition. New Yorkers consent to be searched all the time, at the entrances to sky scrapers, at any of the tourist attractions (statue of liberty, empire state, some museums), and on entrance to the Subway. (Which you can say no to, I often do, but you MUST leave that station if you do.)
I can understand people being upset if the sign said "It's the 4th so police can search your bags anywhere in the City Limits" but you're only consenting to a bag search by entering the park. If you don't want to be searched you don't have to go into the park. Access to a park isn't some unalienable right granted by the constitution here and IANAL but I believe the city is perfectly within its bounds to require such consent as a condition for entering the park.
and today they look for bottles of liquor and tomorrow they look for books.
There is a reason everyone in Colorado refers to Boulder as "The Peoples Republic of Boulder" - they are a bunch of socialists there. This doesn't surprise me in the least!
I believe any type of abridgment of a constitutional right in a public place would be declared unconstitutional. Though they will try to search your bags, any actual legal trouble you get in you will be found not guilty by the courts.
Wow, Boulder has really turned into a downer.
I guess no Rainbow Gathering in THAT field then.
Troofseeker @#77 said:
"And don't take glass bottles to public places. They cut people and start fires."
Assuming the "they" here is referring to the glass bottles and not the public places, I can see where they can cut people when broken (the bottles again, not the people).
I'm still having trouble picturing the bottles starting fires, though.
hot enough sun, tinder dry brush, clear bottle fragment or bottom lensing...
Moderators:
Something that always confuses the discussion when reading some of these posts and their comments is people point their replies at other comments listed by number... however, if comments are made which need to be deleted by the moderation team the whole thing is left rather confused.
Might it not be better to leave a placeholder comment in place to preserve the comment numbers? Perhaps edit the post with text that says "(comment deleted by moderator)"?
There have been cases where the comment-number mixup has made a comment thread very confusing if several comments have required deletion.
Just offering a constructive idea :)
Numbering changes because anonymous comments fall into queue when I approve them. You have to address people by name or pull quotes if you want to make sense.
Little John: "I'm still having trouble picturing the bottles starting fires, though."
Like Tak says, sunrays can be focused thru broken glass onto very dry brush and start a fire. It happens.
http://www.straight.com/article-240554/profs-say-cops-olympic-plans-illegal
There has been a lot of debate in Oakland CA over whether the cops can seize cell phones as they tried when passengers on BART recorded the shooting of Oscar Grant on New Years.cops ran around trying to take cell phones away.
What's missing from this discussion is just how insidious the Exclusionary Rule is. The Exclusionary Rule means that if the police find something incriminating after an illegal search, it should be excluded from evidence. That seems fair enough.
But here's the practical result: the only time the exclusionary rule comes before a judge is when a) there's an illegal search; b) the trial judge allows the illegally obtained evidence (through one of an ever-growing number of exceptions); AND c) the defendant is convicted.
In other words, the only time an appellate judge comes across an illegal search, by definition, it's a guilty criminal who's complaining about the search. Nobody wants to let a criminal get away with it, so we find exceptions. Exigent circumstances, inevitable discovery, harmless error . . . the list grows longer.
That's it--there is no other enforcement mechanism for the 4th amendment. Police have qualified immunity from lawsuit (and the circumstances have to be very extreme to lose that immunity). So when fine upstanding (innocent) citizens of Boulder are illegally searched, they have no recourse. No matter how much money they have, any lawsuit they file will be dismissed. It's only the criminals who can challenge a search, and hey, if you're carrying a cooler full of contraband, you don't really have an expectation of privacy do you?
Unfortunately, in the US, the 4th Amendment is a right without a remedy--according to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, the Exclusionary Rule's purpose is only to act as a deterrent to future bad conduct by the police, and it "is not a personal constitutional right." The innocent who are searched without cause can't sue, and the guilty have no right to have illegal evidence excluded.
A right without a remedy is no right at all.
though the sign says you are subject to search, the law and our constitution forbid it. all you have to do is say no. know your rights
Oh, okay, my bad. I totally failed to understand what was causing that. Sorry 'bout that.
"...though the sign says you are subject to search, the law and our constitution forbid it. all you have to do is say no."
Every night, back in the fish tank, there's some guy yelling stuff like that. You tell 'em, Anony.
Takuan @84, Troof @87:
Okay, thanks, I'll believe it, even if I'd probably never think of that explanation myself.
And I think if I saw the close-up of the broken glass in a movie on TV, with the sun rays starting to cause a little bit of smoke on dry grass, while the ominous music plays in the background, before the rest of the movie featuring heroic firefighting and rescue attempts, I'd just say, "Oh, yeah, right. Oh, please."
IYSWIM.
Let’s take this to another, more insidious, if not absurd level. Everyone seems to think that the “public” park thing makes this an exceptional case under the 4th amendment. Let’s test that.
Streets are “public”, but our homes are “private”. The cops decide to roadblock both ends of my street. Coming home from work I am stopped by a trooper who asks to search me, my car and my bags. I refuse, citing my 4th amendment right. Now, objectively I have the right to enter my own home. But, many of you think that if I refuse the search the cop has the right to turn me back from the street leading to my home, in essence, barring me from entering my own property. I think we all will admit that is simply wrong and would never hold up in any court. (OK, maybe in Texas) ;)
How is this different from the park? Many of you believe the cop can’t legally search entrants to the park, but can legally bar entry to anyone not consenting to the search. You see, the one precipitates and modifies the other. If the search is unconstitutional, then barring people from entering the park on refusal must be unconstitutional also.
To me, you have both the right to refuse to be searched AND a right to enter a public park regardless of your refusal of the search.