Austin tech company makes software to detect concealed guns

kvue ^ | June 16, 2021 | Bryce Newberry

[9422WMR]

What they need to do is make cell phone scramblers legal in-certain places. Work places need this now. It is ridiculous how any people are working distracted. You can’t police the phones everywhere. They are a constant distraction!

[bdfromlv]

the body scanners have been available in prisons since 2000, they are just tuning them for distances, and they stopped using them in airports due to operators sharing pics of hot honeys and faces. the movie “total recall” showed the uses of weapon scanners. its coming

[bdfromlv]

doesn’t have too, then it becomes probable cause.

[DesertRhino]

“That’s all been addressed in decades of case law.”

About all that settled case law, you might not have noticed, but DC is in the hands of a revolutionary socialist coup government. You need to stop thinking in terms of what is in “case law”, and what is simply technologically possible. Because THAT is what they will do.

It’s also not legal to lock you in your house for a year and forbid travel.

[precisionshootist]

" That’s simply not the law. You might wish it to be the case and might advocate for the change in the law, but it isn’t the settled law as of the moment nor of the past 200 years. See eg; United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984); The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government . . .” Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649, 662 (1980). See also: See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 932-35 (W.D. Tex. 1998); Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 2007 PA Super. 369, 939 A.2d 363, 368; People v. Phillips, 805 N.E.2d 667, 673-74 (Ill. App. 2004); United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); State v. Horton, 962 So.2d 459, 463-464 (La. App. 2007). "

Like I said lawyers will be along any second citing court cases to the contrary and the reality is these cases prove very little if anything.

United States v. Jacobsen has virtually no bearing on this discussion at all and determined only that in this particular case the private party did not violate the fourth amendment. That has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about and the case simply isn't relevant and the decision does not apply.

The question is can a private entity perform the acts of and conduct itself with the authority of government and the answer to that question is absolutely not. A private entity cannot levy taxes, cannot arrest someone, cannot prosecute someone, cannot jail someone and the can't search anyone or anyone's property. Those are all the functions of government and government in the US must be ratified by the people and then must conduct itself in a Constitutional manner which makes random arbitrary searches illegal. The question that must be asked to determine if searches by private businesses are legal is simple. Is this entity government or not government. If the answer is not government then they cannot conduct themselves as such. This is where the line is drawn.

This can be seen by my extreme test where a private entity decides they are going to do strip searches for patrons who have paid to enter the venue. Anyone can see that would not fly. Then one would ask what about electronic searches? We have technology today that can see right through peoples clothes as used at airports on a limited basis. Could Home depot use this technology? Of course not. So where is the line? The answer is Home Depot can't do any searches because they are not part of our ratified government.

[precisionshootist]

"That’s how it works. Read the cases I cited."

The cases you cited are not relevant all all.

[TexasGurl24]

1. The initial claim put forth in the thread was that it was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

2. Various Statutes DO in fact authorize private individuals to arrest or detain individuals, and the shopkeeper’s privilege has long been recognized in common law and statutory law. I would like you to cite specific authority for your novel version of the “government/private” distinction that you seek to create.

3. There may be in fact various civil remedies for various breaches of privacy, but these have to be looked at on a State by State basis.

[TexasGurl24]

They are very relevant. Look at the question that was asked.

I understand that you aren’t a lawyer, but you should be able to read.

[precisionshootist]

" They are very relevant. Look at the question that was asked. I understand that you aren’t a lawyer, but you should be able to read. "

I'm not a lawyer, but being a lawyer does not mean you understand the law on any level. One can easily graduate law school today and totally suck at litigating. You forget half the time lawyers like yourself LOSE your arguments. I think you need to brush up on reading skills because if you cited those cases in support of actual litigation on invasive electronic searches you would end up looking like a fool.

[precisionshootist]

And by the way. I'm not convinced you are a lawyer either. Are you?

Have you litigated any test cases?

What is your record litigating civil cases in the area?

[TexasGurl24]

You are playing the game that lay people typically play when they can’t cite to any authority for their position other than what they wish the law would be.

I noticed that you completely dodged what I posted to you. (That’s not arguing by the way.)

So again, please cite a specific case in support of your novel position. Just one.

I’ll be waiting.