Supreme Court Rules on Bus Searches

AP via iWon.com ^ | June 17, 2002 | Gina Holland

[Pern]

The Supreme Court rubber stamps the Fed's 'new interpretation' of the Constitution.

"It is beyond question that had this encounter occurred on the street, it would be constitutional.

Not without probable cause. Wait...they don't even need that anymore. Nevermind.

[Lexington Green]

All your body-cavities are belong to us.

[FreeTally]

Ah, just like the saying goes, Scalia has never seen a search he didn't agree with. And we call him the "most conservative" judge on the SCOTUS. HA!

[FreeTally]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the passengers did not have to be told that they didn't have to cooperate.

I suppose that if the two men would have said "No!", the cops would have just said "Alrighty", left the bus and never bothered the two men again.

[B Knotts]

I'm a little confused by the term "public transportation" which is used here. Greyhound is a private company. I assume they mean "public" in the same light as "public accomodation."

[steve50]

Or as public sidewalk. Not to many places that aren't considered public under this ruling

[UnBlinkingEye]

Unbelievable. The Constitution is dead, I think we need a public burning of the original document with the 'Supreme' Court collectively lighting the match.

[FreeTally]

But this case is not about probable cause; it is about whether consent to a search is free or coerced.

Exactly the point of my post. The defense basically argued that the two men didn't know they could refuse the search, although they could have. If they had known, and refused the search, it wouldn't have matterd. The cops would have probably just placed them under arrest for God knows what.

[harrowup]

I recommend everyone carry one of these at all times...

ACLU Police Encounter Pocket Card

[steve50]

I was checking out a place that did printing on toilet paper a while back. If it wasn't so expensive, $7 a roll, I'd pick up a few gift items for our leaders.

[Redbob]

"Unbelievable. The Constitution is dead, I think we need a public burning of the original document with the 'Supreme' Court collectively lighting the match."

I find it hard to agree with you. Consider:
The perps DID agree to the search, thinking they'd get away with it;
They WERE in possession of illegal drugs, and were caught red-panted, as it were.

Or do you think it's automatically un-Constitutional when a thug gets thrown in the slammer?

[UnBlinkingEye]

I don't want America to be a police state.

[Henrietta]

I'm really disturbed by this ruling. I think the issue of "consent" is illusory here. When a citizen is confronted by an armed, uniformed agent of the government and "asked" things like, "will you open your trunk please" in a voice that sounds like an order, it's hard to argue that the citizen knew he could refuse the search, and so his consent was freely given.

If the ACLU (of whom I am normally not a big fan) ran an information campaign telling people what their rights to refuse a search really are, they would be doing our society a big favor.

[Wolfie]

Without probable cause for a search (or reasonable suspicion for a frisk), the officer may go no farther.

LOL! Now THAT's funny! Try that in the real world and see what happens.

[Sandy]

a case with renewed interest as officers seek out possible terrorists on public transportation.

What a stupid comment. As if terrorists won't know that they can just say No.

[steve-b]

I was checking out a place that did printing on toilet paper a while back. If it wasn't so expensive, $7 a roll, I'd pick up a few gift items for our leaders.

They've already got plenty -- of the Constitution edition.