there is no such thing as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny , or a honest and intelligent police officer I am more afraid of the police officers than I am of the criminals because the government hires retarded police officers I believe they recruit them from the Mafia or the zoo most people are afraid of the police because they are armed and retarded hurt you at any time we need to start defending ourselves from police the police are cowards police said that are cowards
No, the police recruit mainly from the military these days. Young kids who are promised futures of video games followed by white collar jobs get thrown into places where they are fighting for their lives against the "other" people who don't speak a language they understand and rightfully hate them. Many if the "others" try to kill them. So they are trained to kill the "others" to survive.
Then they come back and get hired by the police force only to project the "others" onto us.
@sdkee You're so wrong, they hire out of the police academy, not the military. Since most people join the military out of high school and come back and use their GI bill to go to a real college. The police hire community college people with 60 hours of a criminal justice classes behind them. and then put them into a police academy for 4-5 weeks. Then they work their new exciting 23,000 a year job for the next 30 years. 100% TRUE
> Since most people join the military ... use their GI bill
So the gangbangers the military is hiring now are *all* doing the GI bill thing? The military has kept reducing their standards on criminal record, tattoos, physical fitness to keep recruiting goals up.
Even so. You are aware that "criminal justice" is a major, and the the point of this major is to be a cop? And that they recruit from military? And cops here get high salary and early retirement.
@sdkee A criminal justice degree can be obtained at a trade school or community college, and in most cases the student doesn't even have to complete the classes they just need a certain amount of hours than the police hire them and put them through the academy.
The Supreme Court allows warrantless searches only when waiting for a warrant would cause irreparable harm (e.g., imminent serious bodily injury, imminent destruction of evidence) or the intrusion is minimal and society's need is great (e.g., sobriety checkpoints).
@WizzRacing: "Reasonable cause" is not a legal standard AT ALL. You are mixing the legal standard of "reasonable and articulable suspicion" (needed for a Terry stop) and the legal standard of "probable cause" (needed for a warrant or exigent circumstances).
MANY searches are considered reasonble and do not need a warrant. For example, agents may search your entire car at an international border, without your consent and without any suspicion of criminal activity.
@DavidForthoffer The reason they can search your car at the border, is the "Constitution free Zone" that the justice department started years ago. inside this 100 mile zone, you have no rights other then what Home land Security affords you. that includes residents who reside there as well.
Reasonable means anything that can be seen in plane site, nothing more. that includes traffic stops for the sole purpose to search someone or there things. you still need a warrant for that.
@WizzRacing: About the 100-mile "Constitution free zone", you are disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court, as in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, who concluded there that random roving-patrol stops could not be tolerated because they "would subject the residents of . . . [border] areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers".
@DavidForthoffer I understand that, but the fact is it still goes on under the home land security act. the U.S. Supreme court ruled under this act. you can search anybody or vehicle without a warrant. if the person fits the profile of a terrorist. which fits the description of every human on the planet. they know that the average person can not afford a battle though the courts. its simple economics. your guilty till proven innocent unless you have deep pockets and connected. Thats the way it is
@WizzRacing: You claim that the U.S. Supreme Court as ruled "you" can search anybody or vehicle without a warrant, under the home land security act.
I do not believe you. I challenge you to cite the U.S. Supreme Court that you claim says that. Google Scholar or supremecourt(dot)gov might be good places to look. I have looked there without success for anything remotely like what you claim.
@DavidForthoffer Just jump in your car and drive around the Mexican border. you will be stopped at least 4 times in a week and "they will search your car\truck without a warrant"
Under the Homeland Security Act, you do not need a warrant. try and board any airline, even domestic. you will be searched, your baggage will be searched, and this applies to Railroads, Busses, etc.. all these fall under the homeland Act. if you can't understand that then I'm sorry. happens everyday and you consent
@WizzRacing: Searches AT international borders are considered "reasonable" and constitutional.
Searches AWAY from international borders, even if within 100 miles, are subject to the usual Fourth Amendment constraints. I.e., they must be with consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances. Read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce.
@DavidForthoffer You don't get it. it happens everyday as I stated below. you seem to think that cause the courts have ruled they can't. How many videos on Youtube show that.
@WizzRacing: I fully realize that many people behave illegally, including border patrol agents.
My point, which you may actually agree with, is that AWAY FROM THE BORDER, border patrol agents, police, etc. OUGHT to not search your car or truck unless they have consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.
> Searches AT international borders are considered "reasonable" and constitutional.
They are considered "reasonable" by the US government (by way of the SCOTUS). The same US government that the 4th amendment is designed to stop from abusing us.
Suppose a gang hires a group of lawyers and vets them for loyalty. Then whenever the gang is accused of evil, they say "but the lawyers say it's good!". No different from the USAGOV and the SCOTUS.
What happens when the scotus says it is "reasonable" to lock you in Guantanamo for the rest of your life without trial?
Do you understand the point? When a gov routinely violates its own rules, how can you reasonably expect that you are not the next illegal target? When govs behave like this, acting on the basis of their *power* to do things rather than their *right* to do them, then they are behaving like a mafia.
@sdkee: If the SCOTUS says it is "reasonable" to lock you in Guantanamo for the rest of your life without trial, then I think you would be very unfairly treated by the Bush/Obama governments (or whomever decided to lock you up), although it is not clear they are violating their own rules.
Has SCOTUS actually ruled that a U.S. citizen remaining on U.S. soil and not fighting against the U.S. may be taken to Guantanamo and locked up for the rest of their life without trial?
Pretty much yes. But you miss the point. Suppose the SCOTUS came out with a ruling tomorow that said 1+1=4. Does the SCOTUS saying a thing follow with you believing it? Suppose they say that the word "unreasonable" now means "with bunny rabbits" so that any search/seizure not involving bunnies is therefore not against the 4th amendment?
If *you* read the constitution and disagree with the SCOTUS about what it says, what then?
That sound like essentially, "No." But can you cite the opinion so I can decide for myself. (I'm not going to wade through the 124 U.S. Supreme Court cases mentioning "Guantanamo".)
As for "missing the point", it sounds like we actually agree, but you don't like me settling for the get-out-of-jail standard rather than the morally-or-ethicallly-right standard.
@sdkee: If I disagree with the SCOTUS about their interpretation of some part of the U.S. Constitution, I'll either try to avoid the circumstances where it applies, or else live with the consequences.
Sure, I could instead go out and work toward a new SCOTUS ruling, but life is short for such a time-consuming iffy task and there's plenty of good elsewhere I can accomplish.
> I'll either try to avoid the circumstances where it applies, or else live with the consequences.
You answered the question about how you would *act*. How would you *choose* to live? If you were called to a jury, for instance, would you feel good about yourself if you punished a man who, by your own reckoning, should have been left alone by the gov? A man who may only have been you but for a shift in the tides?
Do you *believe* that the SCOTUS's decisions are gospel?
You exhibiting denial behavior. I asked you whether you would be comfortable using jury powers to enforce a SCOTUS-approved law you don't agree with and you respond with a non-sequitur about how your self-esteem is unaffected by self-evaluation. I'm OK you're OK and all that PC bullshit. You place yourself squarely in the camp of those who should be taking the red pill but are too doped up on soma and stupefied by government education to even realize a decision is involved.
@sdkee: Not so. You did NOT ask whether I "would be comfortable". You asked whether I would "feel good about" myself. I gave you a VERY pertinent, correct, and precise answer to the question you asked. Then, anticipating that you had poorly phrased what you meant to ask, I gave you a truthful response to the underlying issue.
As for "I'm OK you're OK", I'm currently tending toward "You're not so OK", even though you're a cut above the usual YouTube poster.
@sdkee: Your assertion that I place myself squarely in the camp of those who should be taking the red pill but are too doped up on soma and stupefied by government education to even realize a decision is involved is not based on any facts or rational thought.
I suggest that my willingness to defer decisions about vaguely-described hypothetical situations until all the facts are known more indicates a wisdom well-suited to helping people, rather than a naÏve cookie-cutter approach.
@sdkee: Do you understand the point? When a government is held strictly accountable to its own rules (sooner or later), then you can reasonably expect that if/when you are the next illegal target, you will probably get out sooner or later. That is clearly not as reassuring as all branches of government TRYING to stay clearly within the rules, but it is way better than not having an accountable system at all.
And try to separate the rules that ARE from the rules you WANT.
> When a government is held strictly accountable to its own rules (sooner or later), then you can reasonably expect...
No we are agreed on this. This is why the president being able to breach those rules and arbitrarily kill or indefinitely lock up anyone he wants without trial is so disturbing. If the president thought someone was his personal enemy, he could just disappear him and then say he did it to "fight terrorism" while being reasonably within the SCOTUS rulings.
Also agreed here. But I have this habit of actually reading the constitution, along with the debates wherein ratifiers made clear what they thought they were entering in to. And I discount the SCOTUS's interpretations of constitutional interpretations which disagree with this understanding.
The SCOTUS are essentially gov lawyers advocating the gov position and so they try and stretch the rule until it fits the desired action.
As for traffic stops, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States that vehicles may be searched with only probable cause of criminal involvement and without a warrant, because that is a "reasonable" search in that context.
Searches of a home without a warrant are legal when exigent circumstances make them legal, such as hot pursuit of a felon who knows he is pursued, or imminent destruction of evidence, or imminent danger of great bodily harm.
@DavidForthoffer I just said that. where a crime is being committed or has been committed is probable cause. you can't just search someone or his things if it does not meet this standard. that does not include traffic stops, if the person says no during a stop to search his car. you can't just go ahead and do it without probable cause. which means anything seen in the open without having to enter the vehicle.
@WizzRacing: Thanks for clarifying. I had interpreted "... traffic stops ... you still need a warrant for that" as meaning a warrant was needed for a search at a traffic stop. So I agree with you that probable cause is enough for a search at a traffic stop.
"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."
Apparently the "but upon probable cause" part was skipped when the General read the Constitution.. if he read it at all.
@saj19811981: Although you are absolutely correct that "but upon probable cause" is in the 4th Amendment, you apparently skipped the part of the conversation where they established they were arguing about the standard for a SEARCH, not the standard for a WARRANT.
The General is correct. The standard for a SEARCH is first whether the search is "reasonable". It is only when a search is unreasonable that probable cause and a warrant is needed.
@DavidForthoffer Actually your wrong, the person wanting to search your things needs "probable cause" first. they have to have a "reasonable cause" that a crime is being committed or been committed! if no reasonable cause is evident of a crime. they have to get a warrant stating what is to be searched, what it is they are looking for, the place to be searched and the time and date to be executed . these are the laws. also said that ignorance of the law is no excuse so letting them is enough!
@DavidForthoffer Also refusing to talk to anyone wanting to search, is not reasonable cause. no more then the color of your skin, your language, hair or the car you drive is relevant to a crime being committed or been committed. retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice said it in the 50's. you have the right to remain silent. and suggest you do it. cause law enforcement "Can And Will" use everything you say against you. even if you did nothing wrong!
@WizzRacing: I completely agree that refusing to talk with an officer is neither reasonable suspicion of criminal activity nor probable cause of criminal activity.
HOWEVER, the color of your skin, your language, hair, or the car you drive MAY provide reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement and therefore allow an officer to briefly detain and question you, even if you are in fact completely innocent of any criminal involvement. Hiibel v. Nevada (S.Ct. 542 US 177, 2004).
@DavidForthoffer "No warrent shall be issued but upon Probable Cause." No probable cause, no reasonable search. I'm sure the ruling you state has been challenged over and over again, since the criteria for reasonable has not been established.
The term "probably cause" is absolutely in the 4th amendment, and the protection is against unreasonable search and seizure. The narrator is right the General is wrong
@Bunnies4wool: The narrator is wrong and the General is right.
The General NEVER SAID anything like "'probable cause' is not mentioned in the 4th Amendment".
He SAID that the 4th Amendment says "probable cause".
The reporter is wrong; probable cause is NOT necessarily needed for a legal search; if the search is reasonable, neither a warrant nor probable cause is needed.
"The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness" United States v. Knights (2001)
"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."
@baadshepherd: "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."
Only AFTER a search is unreasonable does a warrant come into play.
If a search is reasonable, probable cause is not needed.
@DavidForthoffer I pasted in my comment because it occurred to me that you might have a problem reading, and I was trying to help you out.
"In general, I respost prior comments from time to time because people obviously do not understand the issue."
Reread these boards, people are sick of your ramble and have started to mark your comments as spam. You have repeated this same drivel at least 5 times on this page. Go argue in court, no one cares what you believe.
@clintonlies Oh, don't start down that path. I got a bunch of pasted comments and this idiot "arguing" with me because I said which one Olberman is. By virtue of that knowledge you have admitted that you have no idea what the fourth amendment is, ask DavidForthOffer, he just enlightened me.
If you are detained and the officer is issuing a citation, then you are required to give all information in order to positivily identify you. A citation is an arrest and release on P.R. If you refuse to give your license then you will be charged with "fail to present drivers license" and possibly "fail to identify". The TX CCP gives the officer the authority to remove a person from the vehicle for safety reasons. In some cases the officer can even cuff you till the detention is over.
These days, we can be detained for video recording a civil servant while in the process of his/her public duties; it's been deemed as obstructing the law... wtf? Yet, the NSA/DHS are wire-tapping the shit out of the Constitution and we are clueless about our rights. When will society wake up? When it's too late and we don't have rights to fight for?
sniper244 said: Be very careful how you "enact" you rights with law enforcement. If you are right, it will be vindicated in court. If not you may get in over your head, compounding your problems.
Probable cause, as written is the 4th Amendment, is required for the warrant. That's a separate statement. A warrant is not required in all cases. There are different levels of "searches and seizures" also. Some searches and seizures, such as an officer temporarily detaining someone for questioning and a patdown for weapons, only require a "reasonable suspicion", which is much less than probable cause.
People please get educated. We should not be seeking interpretations and/or definitions of the Bill of Rights from those who wish to subvert those protections.
What truly matters are individual interpretation of their rights. What this guy says means nothing to man who attempts to breech my door via a warrantless search, he should know that it is my interpretation of my rights, is the only one that counts. especially the second amendment protection. second amendment
@gmcmudder1 said: What truly matters are individual interpretation of their rights
Good luck with THAT. The Constitution gives us more-or-less effective means of controlling government agents through the judicial system. If you instead try your "second amendment" approach with those agents, you may find their gang is bigger than your gang.
Agreed, but my statement may have been somewhat "loose" if you will. My point being, the only rights I have are the ones that I'm willing to fight for.
BTW if taken literally, they would have to draw straws to determine what group of 9 would be the first to illegally break and enter.
@gmcmudder1 said: the only rights I have are the ones that I'm willing to fight for.
I agree. For example, during a typical traffic stop, people have several rights they could invoke, instead of sheepishly always obeying the officer. For example, they do not have to roll down the window (except to sign a citation, and even then just a crack). They do not have to get out of the vehicle, or submit to field sobriety tests, or consent to a search of their car.
@DavidForthoffer Here is where you are wrong. If you are stopped for a valid traffic violation you have been leagally detained. You are REQUIRED to give your identification to the officer in order to process the dentention. In Tx. you are required to exit the vehicle of ordered, by state law. If the officer has probable cause to investigate a DWI you are required to exit in order to investigate a crime. And all I need is a cracked window to detect marijuana, which is enough to pull you out.
@sniper244: In Texas, a driver does NOT have to "give your identification to the officer in order to process the dentention."
Texas Code 525.025(a)(2) says that a driver shall "DISPLAY the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer." (emphasis added)
What Texas Code says the driver has to exit the vehicle if ordered?
@DavidForthoffer Look up "Who are peace officers" in the TX. CCP. and look up TX Penal Codes 38.02 and 38.15. I believe you quoted Texas Traffic Code 525.025(a)(2). There is no "Texas Code". If you are stopped, only crack your window, and refuse to give the officer your information on a valid traffic stop in TX, you will be removed from the vehicle, by force, arrested for driving without a license, fail to I.D. and Obstructing. And the jury will prpbably not care about your "sovereignty" plea.
@DavidForthoffer You are correct about the search and field sobriety testing. But...if you are involved in an accident, with injuries, and you are suspected of DWI and there is probable cause to support that you will be arrested and a warrant WILL be issued to draw blood, with our without your consent. Be very careful how you "enact" you rights with law enforcement. If you are right, it will be vindicated in court. If not you may get in over your head, compounding your problems.
that is as dangerous as quoting the bible "spare the rod and spoil the child" interpreted as go ahead and spoil your child and never give corporal correction even under extreme disobedience.
@davidscurlock1 then you will get a reporter going to Lybia and getting punched in the face...and never having known gettin your butt kicked..we are losing our edge America...
@wreck721: No, that is NOT what the Elastic Clause is for. The Elastic Clause allows Congress to pass laws to enforce other powers granted by the Constitution.
Since the Constitution does NOT allow unreasonable searches without a warrant, the Elastic Clause does not allow Congress to change that.
I found Olberman entertaining, but this is classic skewed reporting. The standard for obtaining a WARRANT is probable cause - NOT for conducting all searches and all seizures. There are numerous warrantless searches/seizures that are held REASONABLE (and thus consistent) with the 4th Amendment based on LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE. For example, 'reasonable suspicion' suffices for Terry stops/detentions. Why? Because the Court has deemed them REASONABLE.
@jpsartrean this is true, Courts have decided that your Constitutional rights are not really enforcable. That said reasonable suspicion is a step below probable cause and as such any search from reasonable suspicion is limited.. in comparisson to a probable cause search. This clip is referring to wiretaps and other massive invasions of privacy where "probable cause" in my estimation(and most peoples? I hope) should be the standard. If not what is the point of the 4th amendment?
@jackhandy00 The Courts have adopted a reasonableness standard for warrantless searches/seizures - trying to balance the state's interest of protecting law enforcement officers and preventing/prosecuting crime with individual privacy interests that society recognizes as reasonable. Because the privacy interest in - say - your home is a socially recognized as among the highest interests, a warrant is (typically) required to search it. Likewise, monitoring the content of a phone call...
(cont) will typically require a warrant. However, the number you dial and/or when you dial it, does not receive the same amount of protection (no legitimate expectation of privacy). See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Congress responded by passing the ECPA in 1986. But as a matter of Constitutional law (as opposed to statutory), a warrant is not necessary. Same with mailing a letter - the contents of the envelope are protected, but the address/info written on the front is not.
@jpsartrean It could be loosely called Constitutional "LAW", but all it consists of is an often flawed interpretation by a few old law professors whos opinion can change on its own whim and thus change the "law". they often miss the mark in the estimation of the people as evidenced by their representatives passing laws like ECPA to extend protection that "we the people" thought was already there.
4th 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.
General Hayden NEVER SAID that "probable cause" was not mentioned in the 4th Amendment.
He SAID that the 4th Amendment says "unreasonable searches and seizure".
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the General. The FIRST question is whether the search is reasonable. If the search is reasonable, neither probable cause nor a warrant is needed. United States v. Knights
probable cause alone doesn't mean shit unless you have a warrant that is issued WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. You gotta have a probable cause warrant to search someone's stuff, its that simple. Otherwise you cant search shit but cops think they can lie and say "Oh is that marijuana I smell? I now have probable cause to search your vehicle, get down on your knees."
@houndeye: You misunderstand the 4th Amendment. A government agent only needs probable cause and a warrant if the search is UNREASONABLE.
In United States v. Carroll, the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause of criminal activity within a vehicle makes it reasonable to search that vehicle, and therefore a warrant is not required.
@DavidForthoffer Maybe I should move out of this country if that is probable cause. A cop could spit out any bs thing that he thinks you might be doing illegally and then he has the right to search your car? God have mercy!
@houndeye: Sure, cops can break the law. In my personal experience, they do it often. But at least people who spend the time and money to fight back through the judicial system can and have held such law-breaking cops accountable. And aside from suing under 42 USC 1983, criminal charges can also be sought through the Grand Jury.
The chief federal district court judge in San Francisco has ordered the federal government to pay more than $2.5 million, primarily in attorney's fees, concerning its warrantless wiretap, under an executive surveillance program authorized by President George W. Bush, of two Washington, D.C., lawyers for a now-shuttered Islamic charity in Oregon, on 12/22/2010.
He's having a debate over what constitutes "reasonable". Indeed, the 4th amendment technically doesn't say "no searches w/o a warrant", it says "no unreasonable searches...". So, what is reasonable? That would be at the discretion of the officer or agent who is searching, pending approval by a court of law. However, Hayden is trying to protect himself from accusation by basically saying that the NSA decides what is "reasonable", without a court intervening. That's bull, and the NSA sucks.
@RincewindsHat66: No, Hayden is not saying the NSA decides what is "reasonable". He SAID the Attorney General told the NSA that warrantless FISA wiretaps are reasonable. That is very logical on his part, to rely on the Attorney General of the United States for such an opinion, absent a court ruling.
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.
Is your point that you did not carefully listen to the conversation in this video, did not realize that Hayden did not actually say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th, and are refuting your mistaken assumption?
Or is your point that searches must be supported by probable cause? If that is your point, please realize that the FIRST criterion is whether a search is REASONABLE; read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Knights (2001).
I made no point, I looked at the text of the 4th amendment and posted it. Gen Hayden in the video at 0:32 says clearly "no" that the 4th amendment does not contain "probable cause".
@bbossin ... probable cause is required for a search, while Hayden continues saying that the amendment says "unreasonable search and seizures".
It would take a person more interested in libel than truth to say that the reporter was first saying probable cause was needed for a legal search, then that by saying "prob" he actually meant that 'probable cause' is mentioned in the 4th Amendment, then that he went back to arguing that probable cause was needed for a legal search.
@bbossin: You can listen to the meaning of what they are saying, and realize that the reporter is repeatedly arguing that probable cause is needed for a legal search while Hayden is saying that the amendment says "reasonable search and seizure".
OR you can look at the literal words that were spoken an claim that Hayden's No meant that the 4th Amendment does not say 'prob'
OR you can fabricate whatever you want to tell whatever you feel like.
The TRUTH is that the 4th Amendment DOES protect against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures without a warrant. If a search is reasonable, neither probable cause nor a warrant is needed. That is Michael Hayden's point, which I agree with.
As you can easily read from older posts, I do not agree with the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S claim that warrantless wiretaps are "reasonable". The Attorney General should be criticized, not Michael Hayden.
Why is a military person even having this conversation? The military doesn't have any control over the American people unless martial law is declared.
@palehorseridder: You are right in that the military as an organization does not have control over the American people unless martial law is declared.
However, a particular military PERSON is allowed to serve in non-military organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and (here) as Deputy Director of National Intelligence (an organization created by George W. Bush whose Director is a member of the President's cabinet).
Michael Hayden, RC, further enabling his 'faith's' ongoing Requirimiento against the uSa...having been in place since its inception.
In Romes view, you have no rights and Mikee likes that.
BTW, IMF and World Banks are only a small part of the Roman Money Cartel. The international system of fiat money and 'federal' banks of all countries are part of said cartel. Theft of production and excessive taxation, such that you fund your own enslavement to Rome.
heres the problem i see going on all over America cops seem to be searching cars all the time,so if they are violating the 4th theres is no punishment for violating it so whats to stop them!!!
@jewls323 A warrant must be issued upon probable cause. The probable cause has to be stated under oath or affirmation. Can a cop search your car based on probable cause? Not unless you let him! He would have to testify under oath or affirmation and have a judge issue the warrant based on that testimony. Otherwise he cannot search! If he does he is in big trouble if you know the law and how to hold him accountable. The solution is learn the law and apply it. Private message me for more info
@jewls323 A warrant must be issued upon probable cause. The probable cause has to be stated under oath or affirmation. Can a cop search your car based on probable cause? Not unless you let him! He would have to testify under oath or affirmation and have a judge issue the warrant based on that testimony. Otherwise he cannot search! If he does he is in big trouble if you know the law and how to hold him accountable. The solution is learn the law and apply it. Private message me for more info
@SimplyThinkDreams: Well, yes, an officer CAN search your car based only on probable cause. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court said in United States v. Carroll.
@DavidForthoffer The only reason they allowed the evidence to stand in that case was because the defendents had previously agreed to sell undercover agents liquor, which was contraband at the time. That is the whole key to the case. The Court makes it clear that without that interation, the officers would not have had cause to search and seize That is completely different than getting pulled over and an officer searching your car because he believes you might have contraband on you.
the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon PROBABLE CAUSE [that the vehicle contains contraband], the search and seizure are valid.
So it sounds like we agree that your car can be searched based only on probable cause, but not merely on reasonable suspicion or a belief.
@DavidForthoffer Yes, that is what they ruled. It is more complicated though considering the United States had no authority to enact prohibition in the first place. The government does not have the authority to tell you what property you can and cannot possess. The reason being is that government's authority is granted from the people; and, the people do not possess the authority to tell another person what they can and cannot own as property. The people cannot grant which they do not possess.
@DavidForthoffer Its not a government. Corp. U.S. is a private corporation formed in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. In that Act, the original jurisdiction (oj) government formed a private corporation owned by the oj government. Later on, Corp. U.S. was quitclaimed to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the Bretton Woods Agreements. This is easily proven by the record. If anyone wants more information please private message me.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
@fallfly1: Why do you think General Hayden needs to be shot?
He stated the correct interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, unlike Jonathan Landay. Sure, the warrantless FISA wiretaps are probably illegal, but I see nothing unethical or illegal for General Hayden to believe the Attorney General when the AG says such wiretaps are "reasonable" and therefore constitutional. I blame the AG, not General Hayden.
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America."
(The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit) The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."
@jrhd00d84: The title of this video is a falsehood.
The reporter NEVER SAID anything to the effect that "probable cause" is in the Fourth Amendment. So the General's "No" was obviously denying THAT.
The reporter was arguing that the legal standard is "probable cause". The General disagreed, saying the amendment says "UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the General: The FIRST question is whether a search is reasonable. Only if not does probable cause come in.
@jrhd00d84: I sympathize. I do not excuse our government. But I would like to put blame where blame is due.
General Hayden conducted warrantless FISA wiretaps because the U.S. Attorney General told him it was "reasonable" and therefore constitutional.
But the U.S. Supreme Court only considers searches "reasonable" to protect lives, property, or evidence and there is no time to obtain a warrant, or the public need is great and intrusion is minimal. Not so for FISA taps.
@DavidForthoffer I agree. Hey check out this from the whitehouse web site. Just Google "Executive order order of succession within the" and click on the top link. I wonder if Obama believes people in the military, CIA, FBI might take action.
@DavidForthoffer the supreme court is handcuffed by the patriot act. The forth amendment is clear. you search with your eyes not with your hands. Anything beyond that should need a warrant. Unfortunately the Patriot Act is in direct conflict with the 4th so the Supreme Court has it's hands tied. How can the supreme court find something unconstitutional when the constitution is in conflict with itself.
@luckyhubbie: I disagree with your assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court is handcuffed by the "Patriot" Act. The "Patriot" Act is not an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is an act of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court is not shy about striking down those parts of an act that conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, they have already struck down some parts, such as an attempt to extend warrantless border searches inland from the border.
that has to be a first on youtube. instead of calling names and arguing for days on end.
Still think the act in unconstitutional though. Even though the Supreme court upheld it. Suspicion isn't probable cause and presuming people are guilty isn't reasonable.
@luckyhubbie: One problem is that it can take several years from the time Congress passes an unconstitutional act until the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to repudiate (part of) it. Another problem is that someone has to start the ball rolling by suing in a lower court, and people may not be AWARE of warrantless FISA wiretaps for quite some time, or even be in a position to sue when they do become aware.
@neoconsnightmare3: OK, you say probable cause is the legal standard. Your buddy says it. Olbermann said it. Fine.
But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness". Furthermore, in that case, the officers DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. Yet the search was still ruled legal BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
I'll believe the U.S. Supreme Court. You can believe whomever you want.
There is SOME argument that probable cause is needed for a warrantless nonconsensual search, but not because the 4th Amendment says so. Some courts have held that "reasonable" means "probable cause of certain narrowly-defined exigencies (such as imminent bodily harm, severe property damage or destruction of evidence, or hot pursuit of a felon who knows he is being pursued)."
Still, the General's response that the Fourth Amendment protects us against 'unreasonable' searches is correct.
1) The Fourth Amendment DOES NOT SAY that probable cause is needed for a search. The General's assertion that the Fourth Amendment protects all of us against UNREASONABLE searches is correct.
2) The man DID NOT SAY "the Fourth Amendment says 'probable cause'". He said, "but does it not say probab", at which the General interrupted and said, "No".
@DavidForthoffer "'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"
actually, the 4th DOES say 'probably cause' is necessary ALONG WITH 'reasonable search'. you cant have the search without the probablecause.
@DavidForthoffer splitting hairs on the 'probab' is ridiculous. he already said, twice 'probaBLE cause' and the time he said 'probab-' it was because the general INTERUPPTED him.
the general was wrong twice. no way around it. LUCKILY i have a constitutional lawyer at my job and he agrees with me and yes keith olberman.
no matter what you say, the general was wrong. period. you'll not convince me, the constitutional lawyer or keith otherwise.
Another point is that Michael Hayden is not to blame about the unconstitutional FISA wiretaps. The Attorney General told him that such "terrorist" wiretaps are "reasonable" and therefore constitutional, despite a long history of U.S. Supreme Court cases on what is "reasonable".
The Attorney General is the traitor, not Michael Hayden.
@DavidForthoffer actually, no its not. at :20 and then at :29, he was 'right' ONLY by omission (he kept quoting the amendment and not answering the 'probable cause' statement).
he did the same at :38 .
however, at :31 he said 'no' when the reported asked him if it wasn't based upon 'probable cause'.
at :38 he went on to say again it was 'reasonable', without addressing 'probable cause'.
at 1:26, first line, the amendment says 'probable cause'.
@neoconsnightmare3: The entire conversation was an argument between Landay saying that the 4th Amendment says you must have probable cause do a legal search or seizure and General Hayden saying that the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches.
The critical portion is Landay saying, "but does it not say probab..." and General Hayden interrupting him saying, "No."
NOWHERE does Landay say, "The 4th Amendment mentions probable cause" to which the General says, "No."
@neoconsnightmare3 said "THERE he is wrong, because it DOES say 'probable cause'."
But it does not say "probab"!
And, even assuming Landay and Hayden instantaneously went from arguing the legal standard for a search to momentarily arguing what words were in the 4th Amendment, and back to the original argument, it is just as incorrect to assume that "probab" means "probable cause PERIOD" as it is to assume that "probab" means "probable cause is the legal standard."
@DavidForthoffer how can he be right IF when the guy said 'isnt probab...', continuing with what he said before ('probable cause IS in the 4th amendment', which it IS), was interrupted.
at the VERY LEAST, beyond being wrong (since 'probable cause IS in the 4th amendment), he was incorrect:
1) because he inturrupted the guy;
2) because he kept insisting it wasn't in the 4th amendment even BEFORE inturrpting.
2) The issue BEFORE AND AFTER the interruption was NOT whether "probable cause" was mentioned in the 4th Amendment. The issue, as stated by Landay, was whether probable cause was needed for a legal search. Landay said it was needed. Hayden disagreed, saying we are protected against UNREASONABLE searches.
"'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."
this means BOTH 'secure...against unreasonable searches' AND "...but upon probably cause'. (when a warrent can be issue, oath, etc.)
A police officer searching your house with your permission is considered a "reasonable search".
So your interpretation says that a police officer is not allowed to search your house unless he has a warrant. Your interpretation also says you can refuse him entry even if he does have a warrant.
Sorry, but that is not how the courts interpret the 4th Amendment.
@neoconsnightmare3: Seriously, you need to better understand the Fourth Amendment. Mentioning both 'reasonable search' and 'probable cause' does not mean both are needed to conduct a legal search.
The General did not say 'No' to 'probable cause'. He said 'No' to 'probab'. He is correct that 'probab' is not in the 4th Amendment. He is also correct that the legal standard is reasonableness, not probable cause.
@DavidForthoffer i understand the 4th well enough. and i understand what the general said to the man's question about 'probable cause' being in the 4th amendment.
the general said 'no' and THAT is where he was wrong.
he said 'no' to 'probaba' because he interrupted the other guy constantly. but he KNEW that the rest of the statement was 'probable cause'.
i also know THAT. no way around it...YOU said nowhere was the general wrong, and i showed PRECISELY where he was.
@neoconsnightmare3 said, "i understand what the general said to the man's question about 'probable cause' being in the 4th amendment."
THE MAN NEVER SAID THAT.
The man said, "My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a a a search that does not violate an Ame
THIS LAND WAS YOUR FATHER'S LAND. iT AIN'T YOUS ANYMORE CAUSE YOU A PUNK!
plalelal 5 months ago
there is no such thing as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny , or a honest and intelligent police officer I am more afraid of the police officers than I am of the criminals because the government hires retarded police officers I believe they recruit them from the Mafia or the zoo most people are afraid of the police because they are armed and retarded hurt you at any time we need to start defending ourselves from police the police are cowards police said that are cowards
KYKIN44 7 months ago
@KYKIN44
No, the police recruit mainly from the military these days. Young kids who are promised futures of video games followed by white collar jobs get thrown into places where they are fighting for their lives against the "other" people who don't speak a language they understand and rightfully hate them. Many if the "others" try to kill them. So they are trained to kill the "others" to survive.
Then they come back and get hired by the police force only to project the "others" onto us.
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee You're so wrong, they hire out of the police academy, not the military. Since most people join the military out of high school and come back and use their GI bill to go to a real college. The police hire community college people with 60 hours of a criminal justice classes behind them. and then put them into a police academy for 4-5 weeks. Then they work their new exciting 23,000 a year job for the next 30 years. 100% TRUE
tampabayismyhome 6 months ago
@tampabayismyhome
> Since most people join the military ... use their GI bill
So the gangbangers the military is hiring now are *all* doing the GI bill thing? The military has kept reducing their standards on criminal record, tattoos, physical fitness to keep recruiting goals up.
Even so. You are aware that "criminal justice" is a major, and the the point of this major is to be a cop? And that they recruit from military? And cops here get high salary and early retirement.
sdkee 6 months ago
@sdkee A criminal justice degree can be obtained at a trade school or community college, and in most cases the student doesn't even have to complete the classes they just need a certain amount of hours than the police hire them and put them through the academy.
tampabayismyhome 6 months ago
Warrantless FISA wiretaps are clearly illegal.
The Supreme Court allows warrantless searches only when waiting for a warrant would cause irreparable harm (e.g., imminent serious bodily injury, imminent destruction of evidence) or the intrusion is minimal and society's need is great (e.g., sobriety checkpoints).
Warrantless FISA wiretaps are neither.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: "Reasonable cause" is not a legal standard AT ALL. You are mixing the legal standard of "reasonable and articulable suspicion" (needed for a Terry stop) and the legal standard of "probable cause" (needed for a warrant or exigent circumstances).
MANY searches are considered reasonble and do not need a warrant. For example, agents may search your entire car at an international border, without your consent and without any suspicion of criminal activity.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer The reason they can search your car at the border, is the "Constitution free Zone" that the justice department started years ago. inside this 100 mile zone, you have no rights other then what Home land Security affords you. that includes residents who reside there as well.
Reasonable means anything that can be seen in plane site, nothing more. that includes traffic stops for the sole purpose to search someone or there things. you still need a warrant for that.
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: About the 100-mile "Constitution free zone", you are disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court, as in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, who concluded there that random roving-patrol stops could not be tolerated because they "would subject the residents of . . . [border] areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers".
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I understand that, but the fact is it still goes on under the home land security act. the U.S. Supreme court ruled under this act. you can search anybody or vehicle without a warrant. if the person fits the profile of a terrorist. which fits the description of every human on the planet. they know that the average person can not afford a battle though the courts. its simple economics. your guilty till proven innocent unless you have deep pockets and connected. Thats the way it is
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: You claim that the U.S. Supreme Court as ruled "you" can search anybody or vehicle without a warrant, under the home land security act.
I do not believe you. I challenge you to cite the U.S. Supreme Court that you claim says that. Google Scholar or supremecourt(dot)gov might be good places to look. I have looked there without success for anything remotely like what you claim.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Just jump in your car and drive around the Mexican border. you will be stopped at least 4 times in a week and "they will search your car\truck without a warrant"
Under the Homeland Security Act, you do not need a warrant. try and board any airline, even domestic. you will be searched, your baggage will be searched, and this applies to Railroads, Busses, etc.. all these fall under the homeland Act. if you can't understand that then I'm sorry. happens everyday and you consent
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: Searches AT international borders are considered "reasonable" and constitutional.
Searches AWAY from international borders, even if within 100 miles, are subject to the usual Fourth Amendment constraints. I.e., they must be with consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances. Read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer You don't get it. it happens everyday as I stated below. you seem to think that cause the courts have ruled they can't. How many videos on Youtube show that.
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: I fully realize that many people behave illegally, including border patrol agents.
My point, which you may actually agree with, is that AWAY FROM THE BORDER, border patrol agents, police, etc. OUGHT to not search your car or truck unless they have consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
> Searches AT international borders are considered "reasonable" and constitutional.
They are considered "reasonable" by the US government (by way of the SCOTUS). The same US government that the 4th amendment is designed to stop from abusing us.
Suppose a gang hires a group of lawyers and vets them for loyalty. Then whenever the gang is accused of evil, they say "but the lawyers say it's good!". No different from the USAGOV and the SCOTUS.
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee: The difference is that you get out of jail when SCOTUS says it is "reasonable" but not just because the gang's lawyers say it's good.
You may well be right according to some moral or ethical standard, but I'll stick to the "get out of jail" standard.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
What happens when the scotus says it is "reasonable" to lock you in Guantanamo for the rest of your life without trial?
Do you understand the point? When a gov routinely violates its own rules, how can you reasonably expect that you are not the next illegal target? When govs behave like this, acting on the basis of their *power* to do things rather than their *right* to do them, then they are behaving like a mafia.
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee: If the SCOTUS says it is "reasonable" to lock you in Guantanamo for the rest of your life without trial, then I think you would be very unfairly treated by the Bush/Obama governments (or whomever decided to lock you up), although it is not clear they are violating their own rules.
Has SCOTUS actually ruled that a U.S. citizen remaining on U.S. soil and not fighting against the U.S. may be taken to Guantanamo and locked up for the rest of their life without trial?
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
> Has SCOTUS actually ruled
Pretty much yes. But you miss the point. Suppose the SCOTUS came out with a ruling tomorow that said 1+1=4. Does the SCOTUS saying a thing follow with you believing it? Suppose they say that the word "unreasonable" now means "with bunny rabbits" so that any search/seizure not involving bunnies is therefore not against the 4th amendment?
If *you* read the constitution and disagree with the SCOTUS about what it says, what then?
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee replied, "Pretty much yes".
That sound like essentially, "No." But can you cite the opinion so I can decide for myself. (I'm not going to wade through the 124 U.S. Supreme Court cases mentioning "Guantanamo".)
As for "missing the point", it sounds like we actually agree, but you don't like me settling for the get-out-of-jail standard rather than the morally-or-ethicallly-right standard.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@sdkee: If I disagree with the SCOTUS about their interpretation of some part of the U.S. Constitution, I'll either try to avoid the circumstances where it applies, or else live with the consequences.
Sure, I could instead go out and work toward a new SCOTUS ruling, but life is short for such a time-consuming iffy task and there's plenty of good elsewhere I can accomplish.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
> I'll either try to avoid the circumstances where it applies, or else live with the consequences.
You answered the question about how you would *act*. How would you *choose* to live? If you were called to a jury, for instance, would you feel good about yourself if you punished a man who, by your own reckoning, should have been left alone by the gov? A man who may only have been you but for a shift in the tides?
Do you *believe* that the SCOTUS's decisions are gospel?
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee: I see no significant difference between "acting" and "choosing to live".
If I were called to a jury, I WOULD feel good about myself, because I ALWAYS feel good about myself.
As to how I would decide a particular case, that would depend on the case.
As for whether I believe the SCOTUS's decisions are gospel, I've already told you the answer.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
You exhibiting denial behavior. I asked you whether you would be comfortable using jury powers to enforce a SCOTUS-approved law you don't agree with and you respond with a non-sequitur about how your self-esteem is unaffected by self-evaluation. I'm OK you're OK and all that PC bullshit. You place yourself squarely in the camp of those who should be taking the red pill but are too doped up on soma and stupefied by government education to even realize a decision is involved.
sdkee 7 months ago
@sdkee: Not so. You did NOT ask whether I "would be comfortable". You asked whether I would "feel good about" myself. I gave you a VERY pertinent, correct, and precise answer to the question you asked. Then, anticipating that you had poorly phrased what you meant to ask, I gave you a truthful response to the underlying issue.
As for "I'm OK you're OK", I'm currently tending toward "You're not so OK", even though you're a cut above the usual YouTube poster.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@sdkee: Your assertion that I place myself squarely in the camp of those who should be taking the red pill but are too doped up on soma and stupefied by government education to even realize a decision is involved is not based on any facts or rational thought.
I suggest that my willingness to defer decisions about vaguely-described hypothetical situations until all the facts are known more indicates a wisdom well-suited to helping people, rather than a naÏve cookie-cutter approach.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@sdkee: Do you understand the point? When a government is held strictly accountable to its own rules (sooner or later), then you can reasonably expect that if/when you are the next illegal target, you will probably get out sooner or later. That is clearly not as reassuring as all branches of government TRYING to stay clearly within the rules, but it is way better than not having an accountable system at all.
And try to separate the rules that ARE from the rules you WANT.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
> When a government is held strictly accountable to its own rules (sooner or later), then you can reasonably expect...
No we are agreed on this. This is why the president being able to breach those rules and arbitrarily kill or indefinitely lock up anyone he wants without trial is so disturbing. If the president thought someone was his personal enemy, he could just disappear him and then say he did it to "fight terrorism" while being reasonably within the SCOTUS rulings.
sdkee 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
> rules that ARE from the rules you WANT.
Also agreed here. But I have this habit of actually reading the constitution, along with the debates wherein ratifiers made clear what they thought they were entering in to. And I discount the SCOTUS's interpretations of constitutional interpretations which disagree with this understanding.
The SCOTUS are essentially gov lawyers advocating the gov position and so they try and stretch the rule until it fits the desired action.
sdkee 7 months ago
As for traffic stops, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States that vehicles may be searched with only probable cause of criminal involvement and without a warrant, because that is a "reasonable" search in that context.
Searches of a home without a warrant are legal when exigent circumstances make them legal, such as hot pursuit of a felon who knows he is pursued, or imminent destruction of evidence, or imminent danger of great bodily harm.
The FIRST standard is "reasonable".
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I just said that. where a crime is being committed or has been committed is probable cause. you can't just search someone or his things if it does not meet this standard. that does not include traffic stops, if the person says no during a stop to search his car. you can't just go ahead and do it without probable cause. which means anything seen in the open without having to enter the vehicle.
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: Thanks for clarifying. I had interpreted "... traffic stops ... you still need a warrant for that" as meaning a warrant was needed for a search at a traffic stop. So I agree with you that probable cause is enough for a search at a traffic stop.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
Direct quote of 4th 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."
Apparently the "but upon probable cause" part was skipped when the General read the Constitution.. if he read it at all.
saj19811981 7 months ago
@saj19811981: Although you are absolutely correct that "but upon probable cause" is in the 4th Amendment, you apparently skipped the part of the conversation where they established they were arguing about the standard for a SEARCH, not the standard for a WARRANT.
The General is correct. The standard for a SEARCH is first whether the search is "reasonable". It is only when a search is unreasonable that probable cause and a warrant is needed.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Actually your wrong, the person wanting to search your things needs "probable cause" first. they have to have a "reasonable cause" that a crime is being committed or been committed! if no reasonable cause is evident of a crime. they have to get a warrant stating what is to be searched, what it is they are looking for, the place to be searched and the time and date to be executed . these are the laws. also said that ignorance of the law is no excuse so letting them is enough!
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Also refusing to talk to anyone wanting to search, is not reasonable cause. no more then the color of your skin, your language, hair or the car you drive is relevant to a crime being committed or been committed. retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice said it in the 50's. you have the right to remain silent. and suggest you do it. cause law enforcement "Can And Will" use everything you say against you. even if you did nothing wrong!
WizzRacing 7 months ago
@WizzRacing: I completely agree that refusing to talk with an officer is neither reasonable suspicion of criminal activity nor probable cause of criminal activity.
HOWEVER, the color of your skin, your language, hair, or the car you drive MAY provide reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement and therefore allow an officer to briefly detain and question you, even if you are in fact completely innocent of any criminal involvement. Hiibel v. Nevada (S.Ct. 542 US 177, 2004).
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer "No warrent shall be issued but upon Probable Cause." No probable cause, no reasonable search. I'm sure the ruling you state has been challenged over and over again, since the criteria for reasonable has not been established.
Bunnies4wool 7 months ago
@Bunnies4wool: I am glad we agree that no warrant shall be issued but upon Probable Cause.
But the ISSUE in this video was the standard needed for a LEGAL SEARCH, not the standard for a warrant.
The standard for a legal search IS reasonableness. If a search is reasonable, neither a warrant nor probable cause is needed.
The title for this video is misleading.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
The term "probably cause" is absolutely in the 4th amendment, and the protection is against unreasonable search and seizure. The narrator is right the General is wrong
Bunnies4wool 7 months ago
@Bunnies4wool: The narrator is wrong and the General is right.
The General NEVER SAID anything like "'probable cause' is not mentioned in the 4th Amendment".
He SAID that the 4th Amendment says "probable cause".
The reporter is wrong; probable cause is NOT necessarily needed for a legal search; if the search is reasonable, neither a warrant nor probable cause is needed.
"The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness" United States v. Knights (2001)
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
In other words, the standard for SEARCHES is reasonableness, while the standard for WARRANTS is probable cause.
The issue in this video concerned SEARCHES, and so General Hayden correctly stated the standard for SEARCHES.
The issue was NOT whether the phrase "probable cause" is in the 4th Amendment. The title of this video is misleading.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
"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."
shavefan12 8 months ago 2
Keith is right on this one
clintonlies 8 months ago
@clintonlies: Who is Keith?
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Olberman, the guy who wasn't the general on the screen. He used to be on MSNBC.
baadshepherd 8 months ago
@baadshepherd: "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."
Only AFTER a search is unreasonable does a warrant come into play.
If a search is reasonable, probable cause is not needed.
Keith Olberman was wrong.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Did you read my comment? It seems someone thinks they are smarter than everyone else....
Seriously though, did you read my comment? Let me repost the back and forth there:
Clintonlies: Keith is right on this one.
You: Who is Keith?
Me: Olberman, the guy who wasn't the general on the screen. He used to be on MSNBC.
Where in that did you feel a need to repost your prior comments? Did your confusion as to who Olberman is equate to me arguing with you in your head?
baadshepherd 8 months ago
@baadshepherd: OK, so I should have responded to clintonlies or shavefan12 instead of you.
Still, why do YOU feel a need to repeat your comments, even in a single post?
In general, I respost prior comments from time to time because people obviously do not understand the issue.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I pasted in my comment because it occurred to me that you might have a problem reading, and I was trying to help you out.
"In general, I respost prior comments from time to time because people obviously do not understand the issue."
Reread these boards, people are sick of your ramble and have started to mark your comments as spam. You have repeated this same drivel at least 5 times on this page. Go argue in court, no one cares what you believe.
baadshepherd 8 months ago
@baadshepherd: YOU obviously care what I believe.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Not so much what you believe as what you plaster across this entire message board.
baadshepherd 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Keith Olbermann is the guy asking the questions in this video
clintonlies 8 months ago
@clintonlies Oh, don't start down that path. I got a bunch of pasted comments and this idiot "arguing" with me because I said which one Olberman is. By virtue of that knowledge you have admitted that you have no idea what the fourth amendment is, ask DavidForthOffer, he just enlightened me.
baadshepherd 8 months ago
If you are detained and the officer is issuing a citation, then you are required to give all information in order to positivily identify you. A citation is an arrest and release on P.R. If you refuse to give your license then you will be charged with "fail to present drivers license" and possibly "fail to identify". The TX CCP gives the officer the authority to remove a person from the vehicle for safety reasons. In some cases the officer can even cuff you till the detention is over.
sniper244 8 months ago
These days, we can be detained for video recording a civil servant while in the process of his/her public duties; it's been deemed as obstructing the law... wtf? Yet, the NSA/DHS are wire-tapping the shit out of the Constitution and we are clueless about our rights. When will society wake up? When it's too late and we don't have rights to fight for?
threepercenter03 8 months ago
sniper244 said: Be very careful how you "enact" you rights with law enforcement. If you are right, it will be vindicated in court. If not you may get in over your head, compounding your problems.
I agree.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
Probable cause, as written is the 4th Amendment, is required for the warrant. That's a separate statement. A warrant is not required in all cases. There are different levels of "searches and seizures" also. Some searches and seizures, such as an officer temporarily detaining someone for questioning and a patdown for weapons, only require a "reasonable suspicion", which is much less than probable cause.
Bravotango71 9 months ago
People please get educated. We should not be seeking interpretations and/or definitions of the Bill of Rights from those who wish to subvert those protections.
What truly matters are individual interpretation of their rights. What this guy says means nothing to man who attempts to breech my door via a warrantless search, he should know that it is my interpretation of my rights, is the only one that counts. especially the second amendment protection. second amendment
gmcmudder1 9 months ago
@gmcmudder1 said: What truly matters are individual interpretation of their rights
Good luck with THAT. The Constitution gives us more-or-less effective means of controlling government agents through the judicial system. If you instead try your "second amendment" approach with those agents, you may find their gang is bigger than your gang.
DavidForthoffer 9 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
Agreed, but my statement may have been somewhat "loose" if you will. My point being, the only rights I have are the ones that I'm willing to fight for.
BTW if taken literally, they would have to draw straws to determine what group of 9 would be the first to illegally break and enter.
gmcmudder1 9 months ago
@gmcmudder1 said: the only rights I have are the ones that I'm willing to fight for.
I agree. For example, during a typical traffic stop, people have several rights they could invoke, instead of sheepishly always obeying the officer. For example, they do not have to roll down the window (except to sign a citation, and even then just a crack). They do not have to get out of the vehicle, or submit to field sobriety tests, or consent to a search of their car.
DavidForthoffer 9 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Here is where you are wrong. If you are stopped for a valid traffic violation you have been leagally detained. You are REQUIRED to give your identification to the officer in order to process the dentention. In Tx. you are required to exit the vehicle of ordered, by state law. If the officer has probable cause to investigate a DWI you are required to exit in order to investigate a crime. And all I need is a cracked window to detect marijuana, which is enough to pull you out.
sniper244 8 months ago
@sniper244: In Texas, a driver does NOT have to "give your identification to the officer in order to process the dentention."
Texas Code 525.025(a)(2) says that a driver shall "DISPLAY the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer." (emphasis added)
What Texas Code says the driver has to exit the vehicle if ordered?
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Look up "Who are peace officers" in the TX. CCP. and look up TX Penal Codes 38.02 and 38.15. I believe you quoted Texas Traffic Code 525.025(a)(2). There is no "Texas Code". If you are stopped, only crack your window, and refuse to give the officer your information on a valid traffic stop in TX, you will be removed from the vehicle, by force, arrested for driving without a license, fail to I.D. and Obstructing. And the jury will prpbably not care about your "sovereignty" plea.
sniper244 8 months ago
@sniper244: I stand corrected; I should have said "Texas Traffic Code 525.025(a)".
I have no idea where you came up with "sovereignty plea"; certainly not from me.
Other than that, I am glad you are not disagreeing with me.
DavidForthoffer 8 months ago
@DavidForthoffer You are correct about the search and field sobriety testing. But...if you are involved in an accident, with injuries, and you are suspected of DWI and there is probable cause to support that you will be arrested and a warrant WILL be issued to draw blood, with our without your consent. Be very careful how you "enact" you rights with law enforcement. If you are right, it will be vindicated in court. If not you may get in over your head, compounding your problems.
sniper244 8 months ago
that is as dangerous as quoting the bible "spare the rod and spoil the child" interpreted as go ahead and spoil your child and never give corporal correction even under extreme disobedience.
davidscurlock1 9 months ago
@davidscurlock1 then you will get a reporter going to Lybia and getting punched in the face...and never having known gettin your butt kicked..we are losing our edge America...
davidscurlock1 9 months ago
even if it didn't say "probable cause" thats what the elastic clause is for... look it up
wreck721 9 months ago
@wreck721: No, that is NOT what the Elastic Clause is for. The Elastic Clause allows Congress to pass laws to enforce other powers granted by the Constitution.
Since the Constitution does NOT allow unreasonable searches without a warrant, the Elastic Clause does not allow Congress to change that.
DavidForthoffer 9 months ago
@ DavidFourthoffer
Okay the search is considered reasonable or unreasonable through probable cause
TheParkourBegginer 10 months ago
I found Olberman entertaining, but this is classic skewed reporting. The standard for obtaining a WARRANT is probable cause - NOT for conducting all searches and all seizures. There are numerous warrantless searches/seizures that are held REASONABLE (and thus consistent) with the 4th Amendment based on LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE. For example, 'reasonable suspicion' suffices for Terry stops/detentions. Why? Because the Court has deemed them REASONABLE.
jpsartrean 10 months ago
@jpsartrean this is true, Courts have decided that your Constitutional rights are not really enforcable. That said reasonable suspicion is a step below probable cause and as such any search from reasonable suspicion is limited.. in comparisson to a probable cause search. This clip is referring to wiretaps and other massive invasions of privacy where "probable cause" in my estimation(and most peoples? I hope) should be the standard. If not what is the point of the 4th amendment?
jackhandy00 10 months ago
@jackhandy00 The Courts have adopted a reasonableness standard for warrantless searches/seizures - trying to balance the state's interest of protecting law enforcement officers and preventing/prosecuting crime with individual privacy interests that society recognizes as reasonable. Because the privacy interest in - say - your home is a socially recognized as among the highest interests, a warrant is (typically) required to search it. Likewise, monitoring the content of a phone call...
jpsartrean 10 months ago
(cont) will typically require a warrant. However, the number you dial and/or when you dial it, does not receive the same amount of protection (no legitimate expectation of privacy). See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Congress responded by passing the ECPA in 1986. But as a matter of Constitutional law (as opposed to statutory), a warrant is not necessary. Same with mailing a letter - the contents of the envelope are protected, but the address/info written on the front is not.
jpsartrean 10 months ago
@jpsartrean It could be loosely called Constitutional "LAW", but all it consists of is an often flawed interpretation by a few old law professors whos opinion can change on its own whim and thus change the "law". they often miss the mark in the estimation of the people as evidenced by their representatives passing laws like ECPA to extend protection that "we the people" thought was already there.
jackhandy00 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jpsartrean said: The Courts have adopted a reasonableness standard for warrantless searches/seizures
No. the CONSTITUTION specifies a reasonableness standard.
DavidForthoffer 10 months ago
4th 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.
faulconandsnowjob 10 months ago
@faulconandsnowjob: What is your point?
General Hayden NEVER SAID that "probable cause" was not mentioned in the 4th Amendment.
He SAID that the 4th Amendment says "unreasonable searches and seizure".
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the General. The FIRST question is whether the search is reasonable. If the search is reasonable, neither probable cause nor a warrant is needed. United States v. Knights
DavidForthoffer 10 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Acording to your logic then --- probable cause and warrants are reserved for "unreasonable searches".
MrBullfrog9876 7 months ago
@MrBullfrog9876: More precisely, probable cause and warrants convert would would otherwise be an unreasonable search into a reasonable search.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
probable cause alone doesn't mean shit unless you have a warrant that is issued WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. You gotta have a probable cause warrant to search someone's stuff, its that simple. Otherwise you cant search shit but cops think they can lie and say "Oh is that marijuana I smell? I now have probable cause to search your vehicle, get down on your knees."
houndeye 11 months ago
@houndeye: You misunderstand the 4th Amendment. A government agent only needs probable cause and a warrant if the search is UNREASONABLE.
In United States v. Carroll, the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause of criminal activity within a vehicle makes it reasonable to search that vehicle, and therefore a warrant is not required.
DavidForthoffer 11 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Maybe I should move out of this country if that is probable cause. A cop could spit out any bs thing that he thinks you might be doing illegally and then he has the right to search your car? God have mercy!
houndeye 11 months ago
@houndeye: Sure, cops can break the law. In my personal experience, they do it often. But at least people who spend the time and money to fight back through the judicial system can and have held such law-breaking cops accountable. And aside from suing under 42 USC 1983, criminal charges can also be sought through the Grand Jury.
DavidForthoffer 11 months ago
The chief federal district court judge in San Francisco has ordered the federal government to pay more than $2.5 million, primarily in attorney's fees, concerning its warrantless wiretap, under an executive surveillance program authorized by President George W. Bush, of two Washington, D.C., lawyers for a now-shuttered Islamic charity in Oregon, on 12/22/2010.
DavidForthoffer 11 months ago
He's having a debate over what constitutes "reasonable". Indeed, the 4th amendment technically doesn't say "no searches w/o a warrant", it says "no unreasonable searches...". So, what is reasonable? That would be at the discretion of the officer or agent who is searching, pending approval by a court of law. However, Hayden is trying to protect himself from accusation by basically saying that the NSA decides what is "reasonable", without a court intervening. That's bull, and the NSA sucks.
RincewindsHat66 11 months ago
@RincewindsHat66: No, Hayden is not saying the NSA decides what is "reasonable". He SAID the Attorney General told the NSA that warrantless FISA wiretaps are reasonable. That is very logical on his part, to rely on the Attorney General of the United States for such an opinion, absent a court ruling.
It is the ATTORNEY GENERAL who sucks.
DavidForthoffer 11 months ago
the text of the 4th 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.
bbossin 1 year ago
@bbossin: So what is your point?
Is your point that you did not carefully listen to the conversation in this video, did not realize that Hayden did not actually say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th, and are refuting your mistaken assumption?
Or is your point that searches must be supported by probable cause? If that is your point, please realize that the FIRST criterion is whether a search is REASONABLE; read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Knights (2001).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer
I made no point, I looked at the text of the 4th amendment and posted it. Gen Hayden in the video at 0:32 says clearly "no" that the 4th amendment does not contain "probable cause".
Goya: The sleep of reason produces monsters.
bbossin 1 year ago
@bbossin: Listen more carefully. The reporter starts off claiming " that you must have probable cause to be able to do a [legal] search".
Hayden counters that it protects us against unreasonable searches.
The reporter says, "But the measure is probable cause, I believe."
Hayden says, "The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."
The reporter says, "But does it not say prob" and at THAT point Hayden interrupts and says, "No."
And they continue arguing, the reporter insisting that ...
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Comment removed
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@bbossin ... probable cause is required for a search, while Hayden continues saying that the amendment says "unreasonable search and seizures".
It would take a person more interested in libel than truth to say that the reporter was first saying probable cause was needed for a legal search, then that by saying "prob" he actually meant that 'probable cause' is mentioned in the 4th Amendment, then that he went back to arguing that probable cause was needed for a legal search.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@bbossin: You can listen to the meaning of what they are saying, and realize that the reporter is repeatedly arguing that probable cause is needed for a legal search while Hayden is saying that the amendment says "reasonable search and seizure".
OR you can look at the literal words that were spoken an claim that Hayden's No meant that the 4th Amendment does not say 'prob'
OR you can fabricate whatever you want to tell whatever you feel like.
I believe the first scenario.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer
The context of this video appears to be the controversy over the exposure NSA's wiretapping/data mining surveillance of the American people.
/watch?v=9_frz-ykQjI&feature=related
So you can fabricate that it is reasonable to wiretap/data mine the signal traffic of every single American citizen.
bbossin 1 year ago
@bbossin: I would rather not fabricate ANYTHING.
The TRUTH is that the 4th Amendment DOES protect against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures without a warrant. If a search is reasonable, neither probable cause nor a warrant is needed. That is Michael Hayden's point, which I agree with.
As you can easily read from older posts, I do not agree with the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S claim that warrantless wiretaps are "reasonable". The Attorney General should be criticized, not Michael Hayden.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Why is a military person even having this conversation? The military doesn't have any control over the American people unless martial law is declared.
palehorseridder 1 year ago
@palehorseridder: You are right in that the military as an organization does not have control over the American people unless martial law is declared.
However, a particular military PERSON is allowed to serve in non-military organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and (here) as Deputy Director of National Intelligence (an organization created by George W. Bush whose Director is a member of the President's cabinet).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Michael Hayden, RC, further enabling his 'faith's' ongoing Requirimiento against the uSa...having been in place since its inception.
In Romes view, you have no rights and Mikee likes that.
BTW, IMF and World Banks are only a small part of the Roman Money Cartel. The international system of fiat money and 'federal' banks of all countries are part of said cartel. Theft of production and excessive taxation, such that you fund your own enslavement to Rome.
abbesieyes 1 year ago
heres the problem i see going on all over America cops seem to be searching cars all the time,so if they are violating the 4th theres is no punishment for violating it so whats to stop them!!!
jewls323 1 year ago
@jewls323: In many cases, it is illegal or unconstitutional for officers to search cars.
However, in many other cases, it IS legal and constitutional for officers to search cars.
The Wikipedia article on the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives some insight into understanding the issue.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@jewls323 A warrant must be issued upon probable cause. The probable cause has to be stated under oath or affirmation. Can a cop search your car based on probable cause? Not unless you let him! He would have to testify under oath or affirmation and have a judge issue the warrant based on that testimony. Otherwise he cannot search! If he does he is in big trouble if you know the law and how to hold him accountable. The solution is learn the law and apply it. Private message me for more info
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@jewls323 A warrant must be issued upon probable cause. The probable cause has to be stated under oath or affirmation. Can a cop search your car based on probable cause? Not unless you let him! He would have to testify under oath or affirmation and have a judge issue the warrant based on that testimony. Otherwise he cannot search! If he does he is in big trouble if you know the law and how to hold him accountable. The solution is learn the law and apply it. Private message me for more info
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@SimplyThinkDreams: Well, yes, an officer CAN search your car based only on probable cause. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court said in United States v. Carroll.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer The only reason they allowed the evidence to stand in that case was because the defendents had previously agreed to sell undercover agents liquor, which was contraband at the time. That is the whole key to the case. The Court makes it clear that without that interation, the officers would not have had cause to search and seize That is completely different than getting pulled over and an officer searching your car because he believes you might have contraband on you.
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@SimplyThinkDreams: Yes. The principle that the Court set forth was:
the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon PROBABLE CAUSE [that the vehicle contains contraband], the search and seizure are valid.
So it sounds like we agree that your car can be searched based only on probable cause, but not merely on reasonable suspicion or a belief.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Yes, that is what they ruled. It is more complicated though considering the United States had no authority to enact prohibition in the first place. The government does not have the authority to tell you what property you can and cannot possess. The reason being is that government's authority is granted from the people; and, the people do not possess the authority to tell another person what they can and cannot own as property. The people cannot grant which they do not possess.
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@SimplyThinkDreams: Well, the government's gang is bigger than your gang, so it may be useful to learn how to work within their rules.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Its not a government. Corp. U.S. is a private corporation formed in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. In that Act, the original jurisdiction (oj) government formed a private corporation owned by the oj government. Later on, Corp. U.S. was quitclaimed to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the Bretton Woods Agreements. This is easily proven by the record. If anyone wants more information please private message me.
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Zalahblue 1 year ago
@Zalahblue: It sounds like you are as mistaken about the 4th Amendment as Jonathan Landay.
The Fourth Amendment only requires warrants for UNREASONABLE searches.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer You can read it for yourself here: wikipedia. org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Zalahblue 1 year ago
must be nice to be a member of the military industrial complex making millions. ask the man about his soul...
fallfly1 1 year ago
this scumbag needs to be shot
fallfly1 1 year ago
@fallfly1: Why do you think General Hayden needs to be shot?
He stated the correct interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, unlike Jonathan Landay. Sure, the warrantless FISA wiretaps are probably illegal, but I see nothing unethical or illegal for General Hayden to believe the Attorney General when the AG says such wiretaps are "reasonable" and therefore constitutional. I blame the AG, not General Hayden.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
what? and this guy is in charge of something?
fallfly1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America."
(The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit) The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."
- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.
Revelation 2:9,,3:9
MsMihailescu 1 year ago
Very good Keith. Glad you're back! Keep on defending our Constitution.
cicorp 1 year ago
How can a general not know this?
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
@jrhd00d84: The title of this video is a falsehood.
The reporter NEVER SAID anything to the effect that "probable cause" is in the Fourth Amendment. So the General's "No" was obviously denying THAT.
The reporter was arguing that the legal standard is "probable cause". The General disagreed, saying the amendment says "UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the General: The FIRST question is whether a search is reasonable. Only if not does probable cause come in.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer man I here you but enough already for the excuses for our government. Excuse after excuse I'm sick of it.
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
@jrhd00d84: I sympathize. I do not excuse our government. But I would like to put blame where blame is due.
General Hayden conducted warrantless FISA wiretaps because the U.S. Attorney General told him it was "reasonable" and therefore constitutional.
But the U.S. Supreme Court only considers searches "reasonable" to protect lives, property, or evidence and there is no time to obtain a warrant, or the public need is great and intrusion is minimal. Not so for FISA taps.
The AG is the traitor.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I agree. Hey check out this from the whitehouse web site. Just Google "Executive order order of succession within the" and click on the top link. I wonder if Obama believes people in the military, CIA, FBI might take action.
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer the supreme court is handcuffed by the patriot act. The forth amendment is clear. you search with your eyes not with your hands. Anything beyond that should need a warrant. Unfortunately the Patriot Act is in direct conflict with the 4th so the Supreme Court has it's hands tied. How can the supreme court find something unconstitutional when the constitution is in conflict with itself.
luckyhubbie 1 year ago
@luckyhubbie: I disagree with your assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court is handcuffed by the "Patriot" Act. The "Patriot" Act is not an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is an act of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court is not shy about striking down those parts of an act that conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, they have already struck down some parts, such as an attempt to extend warrantless border searches inland from the border.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer you're right. My bad.
that has to be a first on youtube. instead of calling names and arguing for days on end.
Still think the act in unconstitutional though. Even though the Supreme court upheld it. Suspicion isn't probable cause and presuming people are guilty isn't reasonable.
luckyhubbie 1 year ago
@luckyhubbie: One problem is that it can take several years from the time Congress passes an unconstitutional act until the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to repudiate (part of) it. Another problem is that someone has to start the ball rolling by suing in a lower court, and people may not be AWARE of warrantless FISA wiretaps for quite some time, or even be in a position to sue when they do become aware.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer agreed.
luckyhubbie 1 year ago
when you're done splitting hairs, the general said 'NO' to 'are you saying probable cause is NOT the legal standard', etc.
he was wrong. i saw it, my buddy the civil rights lawyer said it, olbermann said it.
the report said 'the measure is probable cause'.
'does it NOT say probable cause?'
any 'no' the general said is WRONG. period. any defense of the general in this case is ill intentioned.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: OK, you say probable cause is the legal standard. Your buddy says it. Olbermann said it. Fine.
But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness". Furthermore, in that case, the officers DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. Yet the search was still ruled legal BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
I'll believe the U.S. Supreme Court. You can believe whomever you want.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer all well and good, and i dont DENY that. however, 'probable cause' is IN the 4th, and the GENERAL said it wasn't.
THERE the general was WRONG. you were WRONG for saying he was not wrong in the video.
now, you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. happy?
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: I disagree with your conclusion about the General, but letting it go at that.
FYI, I am ALWAYS happy!
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer You disagree with my conclusion, I disagree with yours. Cool and the Gang.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
There is SOME argument that probable cause is needed for a warrantless nonconsensual search, but not because the 4th Amendment says so. Some courts have held that "reasonable" means "probable cause of certain narrowly-defined exigencies (such as imminent bodily harm, severe property damage or destruction of evidence, or hot pursuit of a felon who knows he is being pursued)."
Still, the General's response that the Fourth Amendment protects us against 'unreasonable' searches is correct.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer i see the misunderstanding. i earlier said that the 4th amendment protects against 'unreasonable searches'. i NEVER disputed that.
however, you need 'probable cause' in order to even CONDUCT a 'reasonable search'. and you need 'probable cause' for the WARRENT.
the general, however, was WRONG when he said:
1) first that the 'probable cause' was NOT a requirement for a search (it is);
2) 'no' to the mans question of 'the 4th amendment says 'probable cause'.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3:
1) The Fourth Amendment DOES NOT SAY that probable cause is needed for a search. The General's assertion that the Fourth Amendment protects all of us against UNREASONABLE searches is correct.
2) The man DID NOT SAY "the Fourth Amendment says 'probable cause'". He said, "but does it not say probab", at which the General interrupted and said, "No".
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Comment removed
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
Comment removed
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer "'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"
actually, the 4th DOES say 'probably cause' is necessary ALONG WITH 'reasonable search'. you cant have the search without the probablecause.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer splitting hairs on the 'probab' is ridiculous. he already said, twice 'probaBLE cause' and the time he said 'probab-' it was because the general INTERUPPTED him.
the general was wrong twice. no way around it. LUCKILY i have a constitutional lawyer at my job and he agrees with me and yes keith olberman.
no matter what you say, the general was wrong. period. you'll not convince me, the constitutional lawyer or keith otherwise.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: OF COURSE I cannot convince the constitutional lawyer, BECAUSE YOU WON'T LET ME CONVERSE WITH HIM/HER.
Ask your constitutional lawyer THIS: "Do all searches require probable cause?"
If he says, "Yes", then he is definitely wrong.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Law enforcement officers do not know the law. How can you enforce the law if you do not know the law?
cajunpride69 1 year ago
Another point is that Michael Hayden is not to blame about the unconstitutional FISA wiretaps. The Attorney General told him that such "terrorist" wiretaps are "reasonable" and therefore constitutional, despite a long history of U.S. Supreme Court cases on what is "reasonable".
The Attorney General is the traitor, not Michael Hayden.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
General Hayden is obviously lying. He can't be stupid enough
CVKent317 1 year ago
@CVKent317: Everything General Hayden said in this video is correct. (not that I'm in favor of warrantless wiretaps)
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer actually, no its not. at :20 and then at :29, he was 'right' ONLY by omission (he kept quoting the amendment and not answering the 'probable cause' statement).
he did the same at :38 .
however, at :31 he said 'no' when the reported asked him if it wasn't based upon 'probable cause'.
at :38 he went on to say again it was 'reasonable', without addressing 'probable cause'.
at 1:26, first line, the amendment says 'probable cause'.
at :31 the general was wrong.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: The entire conversation was an argument between Landay saying that the 4th Amendment says you must have probable cause do a legal search or seizure and General Hayden saying that the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches.
The critical portion is Landay saying, "but does it not say probab..." and General Hayden interrupting him saying, "No."
NOWHERE does Landay say, "The 4th Amendment mentions probable cause" to which the General says, "No."
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer perhaps by interrupting, the general made a mistake.
landay said, per your quote:
"...does it NOT say proba..."
the general said:
"no".
THERE he is wrong, because it DOES say 'probable cause'. it also says ''reasonable', but by saying 'no', he was automatically wrong.
no big deal.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3 said "THERE he is wrong, because it DOES say 'probable cause'."
But it does not say "probab"!
And, even assuming Landay and Hayden instantaneously went from arguing the legal standard for a search to momentarily arguing what words were in the 4th Amendment, and back to the original argument, it is just as incorrect to assume that "probab" means "probable cause PERIOD" as it is to assume that "probab" means "probable cause is the legal standard."
Hayden was right either way.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer yet, the 4th says 'probabale cause'.
'probab..' was only said here because the guy was INTERRUPTING.
sorry, he was wrong at the time i said.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: Sure, 'probab...' was only said here because Hayden was interrupting.
But what makes you think Landay MEANT anything OTHER than what he was saying before or after?
Hayden was right, either way.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer how can he be right IF when the guy said 'isnt probab...', continuing with what he said before ('probable cause IS in the 4th amendment', which it IS), was interrupted.
at the VERY LEAST, beyond being wrong (since 'probable cause IS in the 4th amendment), he was incorrect:
1) because he inturrupted the guy;
2) because he kept insisting it wasn't in the 4th amendment even BEFORE inturrpting.
fact is, the general was wrong. no way around it.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3:
1) How does interrupting make Hayden wrong?
2) The issue BEFORE AND AFTER the interruption was NOT whether "probable cause" was mentioned in the 4th Amendment. The issue, as stated by Landay, was whether probable cause was needed for a legal search. Landay said it was needed. Hayden disagreed, saying we are protected against UNREASONABLE searches.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer:
"'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."
this means BOTH 'secure...against unreasonable searches' AND "...but upon probably cause'. (when a warrent can be issue, oath, etc.)
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3 said, "this means BOTH ... AND ..."
A police officer searching your house with your permission is considered a "reasonable search".
So your interpretation says that a police officer is not allowed to search your house unless he has a warrant. Your interpretation also says you can refuse him entry even if he does have a warrant.
Sorry, but that is not how the courts interpret the 4th Amendment.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer i never said that an officer is not allowed to search my house UNLESS he has a warrent.
what i said was both 'probable cause' AND 'reasonablness' need to be there.
the general said 'no' to 'probably cause', and THERE he was wrong.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: Here's how the 4th Amendment works.
1. If the search is reasonable, then it is legal.
2. If the officer has a warrant issued based on probable cause, then it is legal.
3. If the search is UNreasonable and the officer does not have a warrant, then it is illegal.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer i gave the quote, and it mentions BOTH:
'reasonable search' AND
'probably cause'.
the general said 'no' to 'probable cause' and at the moment he was wrong.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
@neoconsnightmare3: Seriously, you need to better understand the Fourth Amendment. Mentioning both 'reasonable search' and 'probable cause' does not mean both are needed to conduct a legal search.
The General did not say 'No' to 'probable cause'. He said 'No' to 'probab'. He is correct that 'probab' is not in the 4th Amendment. He is also correct that the legal standard is reasonableness, not probable cause.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer i understand the 4th well enough. and i understand what the general said to the man's question about 'probable cause' being in the 4th amendment.
the general said 'no' and THAT is where he was wrong.
he said 'no' to 'probaba' because he interrupted the other guy constantly. but he KNEW that the rest of the statement was 'probable cause'.
i also know THAT. no way around it...YOU said nowhere was the general wrong, and i showed PRECISELY where he was.
neoconsnightmare3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 said, "i understand what the general said to the man's question about 'probable cause' being in the 4th amendment."
THE MAN NEVER SAID THAT.
The man said, "My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a a a search that does not violate an Ame