Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Preemptive Police-State Tactics

Chilek9 · 12-06-2005, 02:55 PM

I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches.
There is a difference. Blanket or random searches require no suspicion. Suspicion means that you are depending on facts that you can clearly articulate to justify a Fourth Amendment seizure of someone (a detention) and to require them to identify themselves. The articulable facts can include suspicious behavior, manner of dress, not matching the environment you are in ("that guy just doesn't look like he lives in this area"), and so on. A seizure of a person can require that the officer, if something develops later on like a complaint or an arrest of the seized person, that he justify his actions in seizing the person to identify that person. If a random or blanket contact is used, there is some kind of justification or authority that is far above the individual officer to make such a stop and would be articulated in documents.

I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check.
Okay, whenever a government agent, with authority to do so, stops someone, it is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They are using their government authority to seize your person. If there is justification for the "seizure," then it is not "unreasonable" as stated in the Constitution. There has to be a lawful, empowering regulation or law to allow the seizure, immigration checkpoints, for instance. When there is a reasonable expectation that public safety is jeopardized, the random or blanket contact can be used to identify individuals, during that contact the officer/agent of the government is allowed to develop MORE suspicion that would allow an enforced detention to investigate criminal activity as long as the detention stays REASONABLE within the facts that he can articulate that justify the detention. There are court cases that give police strong guidelines to follow under these circumstances. So, to answer the question, depending on the risk to public safety and the possibility of an attack, a blanket or random contact system is justifiable. On the bus, after McVeigh and the two WTC attacks ('93 and 9/11) and the attack on the Pentagon in 9/11, government buildings are a high risk target and blanket and/or random searches are permitted as being REASONABLE by the courts because of the higher, inherent risk.

So, the two ideas of throwing out the drift net and seeing what we catch and a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person kind of closely interact if not overlap. The blanket search is still a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person when the demand for identification is made. But just chatting about who you are might be construed, by the courts, as a consensual encounter that you are free to walk away from, even if it gets around to a REQUEST to see your ID during that consensual encounter, and, therefore NOT a Fourth Amendment seizure of your person.

12-06-2005, 02:55 PM	#56 (permalink)
Chilek9 Upright	I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches. There is a difference. Blanket or random searches require no suspicion. Suspicion means that you are depending on facts that you can clearly articulate to justify a Fourth Amendment seizure of someone (a detention) and to require them to identify themselves. The articulable facts can include suspicious behavior, manner of dress, not matching the environment you are in ("that guy just doesn't look like he lives in this area"), and so on. A seizure of a person can require that the officer, if something develops later on like a complaint or an arrest of the seized person, that he justify his actions in seizing the person to identify that person. If a random or blanket contact is used, there is some kind of justification or authority that is far above the individual officer to make such a stop and would be articulated in documents. I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check. Okay, whenever a government agent, with authority to do so, stops someone, it is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They are using their government authority to seize your person. If there is justification for the "seizure," then it is not "unreasonable" as stated in the Constitution. There has to be a lawful, empowering regulation or law to allow the seizure, immigration checkpoints, for instance. When there is a reasonable expectation that public safety is jeopardized, the random or blanket contact can be used to identify individuals, during that contact the officer/agent of the government is allowed to develop MORE suspicion that would allow an enforced detention to investigate criminal activity as long as the detention stays REASONABLE within the facts that he can articulate that justify the detention. There are court cases that give police strong guidelines to follow under these circumstances. So, to answer the question, depending on the risk to public safety and the possibility of an attack, a blanket or random contact system is justifiable. On the bus, after McVeigh and the two WTC attacks ('93 and 9/11) and the attack on the Pentagon in 9/11, government buildings are a high risk target and blanket and/or random searches are permitted as being REASONABLE by the courts because of the higher, inherent risk. So, the two ideas of throwing out the drift net and seeing what we catch and a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person kind of closely interact if not overlap. The blanket search is still a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person when the demand for identification is made. But just chatting about who you are might be construed, by the courts, as a consensual encounter that you are free to walk away from, even if it gets around to a REQUEST to see your ID during that consensual encounter, and, therefore NOT a Fourth Amendment seizure of your person.