[OneWingedShark]

What's most frustrating about this case is that David Eckert, the probee, didn't win because of the anal probes; he won because he was anally probed outside the jurisdiction of a warrant. Law enforcement had a search warrant to search the guy's body (I'd like to see the probable cause affidavit for that), but it was good only in Luna County.
[…]
If the anal probes had been performed in Luna County, this may have been considered perfectly legal. That's distressing.

The Fourth Amendment:

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.

vs. Justice Alito in Kentucky v. King:

The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.
[…]
The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.

IOW, while the court acknowledges the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the superior understanding of the Supreme Court repudiates the implicit requirement of a warrant to be required to effect the search or seizure of person or property.

IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT. [Direct Link]
The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy [Direct Link]	The Modern Democratic Party & You [Direct Link]

[jocon307]

What also very much disturbs me about this (and other) cases, and I don’t understand it, is, it seems, the guy was not under arrest.

Please anybody correct me if I’m wrong, because I’ve been wondering about this for quite some time.

Had he been under arrest he’d have been entitled to (immediately, no?) get counsel from an attorney, correct?

And if he wasn’t under arrest, what right did they have to detain him or transport him in any way, to any where, for any purpose?

Now, I can understand doing a pat-down, turn out your pockets, that kind of thing even without placing someone under arrest, but this stuff?

Maybe I’m dumb to rely on what I’ve seen on TV, but I’ve seen a lot of “suspects” on TV say: either arrest me or I’m leaving. And then they leave and the cop or whoever says: OK, but don’t leave town.

I’m just not getting this stuff at all.

[Ken H]

I’ve had a number of drug war supporters tell me that we are not a moral people, so the Constitution no longer applies.