-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Question for legal scholars - Oregon shooting searching of students
- Thread starter uvholic
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,413
- Likes
- 1,215
Good question, sorta like everyone who gave up there's in Watertown a couple of years ago.
Dean
Dean
pretty much yup. gotta make sure everyone's safe! just like watertown. everyone is instantly a suspect. point guns at everyone, enter their homes. what you're not okay with that? well, maybe you're a ****ing terrorist.
I'm not familiar with Oregon search and seizure law.
My guess is that if the cops found drugs on one of the kids, the lawyer would have reasonable grounds for a motion to suppress. The police (prosecutor) would argue exigent circumstances.
Also not sure where the kids were going when they were searched. It's probably perfectly OK to require them to submit to a search to go back inside the building. Not so much going home.
My guess is that if the cops found drugs on one of the kids, the lawyer would have reasonable grounds for a motion to suppress. The police (prosecutor) would argue exigent circumstances.
Also not sure where the kids were going when they were searched. It's probably perfectly OK to require them to submit to a search to go back inside the building. Not so much going home.
Congrats on winning the sept gun.
The kids were leaving campus, probably on buses. I saw the pic yesterday too and I would not have agreed to the search. They need probable cause, they cannot blanket search everyone. At least they cannot legally do it.
Thanks. The day was starting off pretty shitty until I saw that. The clerk is pissed at me so calls my cases last. I spent the time trying to figure out exactly what I won. Looks like a cool toy.
They can make it a condition of boarding the bus.
The 4th Amendment does not protect you against all searches and seizures, only unreasonable searches and seizures. There is case law close to the facts here that would lend support to the conclusion that these searches are not unreasonable under the circumstances. I don't see a constitutional violation here.
And they took their phones. ****ed up...
well, they could all be guns. so, yeah, better safe than sorry you know?
Last edited by a moderator:
It's call exigency. The police have a compelling governmental interest in trying to ensure that a gunman is not trying to flee by mixing into the crowd. As swatgig stated, I also suspect that anything if unrelated charges were brought against a student as a result of these searches, that the results of the search would be suppressed. And also, they don't have a right to get on the bus.
Smart , if you want to control how the story gets told.
If that 10/22 ends up morphed into a high capacity assault AR47 with 1 million round drum clips, then that's what you'll be told.
They'll get the phones back, wiped clean.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
An urgent need does not trump the constitution or the Bill of rights. Just my thoughts not arguing with you or anyone.
Someone needs directions to the back to the bridge they live under.......or perhaps certain areas of Chicago, NYC or Detroit to deliver that message in person.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,409
- Likes
- 17,595
Safety.
at all costs.
at all costs.
The 4th was not being trumped, the 4th allows for reasonable actions under certain circumstances. I don't know about taking cell phones but a cursory pat down looking for weapons on people coming directly from the crime scene is certainly reasonable. The cops had no way of knowing if this shooter was the only person involved. One has to be trying real hard to bash the cops on this one.
Given that multiple Federal Courts have found that given the technology of the day, we are all "Press" this may be the larger Constitutional story (violation) here.
In certain circumstances, exigency is an allowable exception. Think about a police officer hearing blood-curdling screams or gun shots coming from within a house. The officer does not have to wait for a warrant to enter that house. I'd think the same would apply here because of the uncertainty and the possibly that a shooter might be trying to escape with the crowd. However, I believe that the exigency only extends to the immediate danger.
I'm not arguing either, I'm just stating where I think the case law comes down on this. Someone escaping from a situation like this has two choices. They can refuse to comply and risk getting cuffed, etc. or worse yet, getting shot. Or they can comply and seek remedial action from the court. That won't go anywhere if the person isn't charged with a crime.
I'd agree. Taking the phones of the students would be be a completely different situation than making sure that an armed shooter was not working his way onto an escape bus.
I have no issue with searches for illicit weapons under the circumstances. Anything else is constitutionally suspect and likely unlawful.
And you're probably right; I certainly hope so. However, the doctrine of 'oh my god it's a gun!' always muddies the waters.
Like it or not, In a situation like that it's going to happen consent or not. They're looking for weapons. The searches will not hold up, and anything else found will probably be ignored. I wouldn't get too twisted up about it.
I am twisted up over the confiscation of phones. That was patently illegal.
And you're probably right. The question is : "What to do about it?" If the phones are all returned and nothing comes of it, there's not much the folks can do. If some how the confiscation of the phones ends up in charges for say 'sexting' pictures of underage HS girlfriends, there's a good case for suppression. If the ACLU wants to make an issue out of it, that might be different. But I'm not holding my breath.
I agree. My issue stems from the fact that no one will make a stink about it. Just like we saw in the lockdown and search for almost dead terrorist after the Marathon Bombing.
The Constitution gets tossed aside so often in the name of "Public Safety" that the rights enshrined in it lose all meaning.
And therein lies the problem. The .gov will get away with as much as they possibly can. When given an inch, they take a foot. And that is what upsets me and so many other folks.
- - - Updated - - -
I think what Knuckles is saying is, go ahead and make a stink. Nothing will come of it. No harm no foul in the court system. If you can even get it into court
If the phones are locked, how are they going to know who to return them to?
Are they going to try to "break" the phones to learn who owns them by searching them? Getting a warrant (the legal way) to search 100 phones just because there may be some evidence on them is going to be quite a feat unless the judge is really in the tank with the PD!
Are they going to try to "break" the phones to learn who owns them by searching them? Getting a warrant (the legal way) to search 100 phones just because there may be some evidence on them is going to be quite a feat unless the judge is really in the tank with the PD!
Similar threads
