Back when I was a Vietnam war – 'scuse me; police action! – protester, there seemed to be plenty of law school students and graduates standing by to help us protect our rights in case some in authority took unkindly to our calling attention to their misdeeds. I best recall their advice on the three things to remember during a police interrogation: 1) Don't say anything. 2) Keep your mouth shut. 3) Shut the fuck up!
But I suspect the place we really need such advisors these days are in the lines to get through the scanners at airports.
As you may have guessed, I've been continuing my dialog with my high school classmates, and my last voluminous response, which I reposted here on Aug. 17, drew further commentary that I thought was also worth reposting, since it touches on search and seizure – a popular topic among adult businesspeople – and contains some food for thought, I think:
In a message dated 8/21/06 5:52:08 PM, Dave writes:
Frankly, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.
Probably not -- but you went to the trouble to post this reply, so I'll go to the trouble of responding to it since it contains some errors of fact, and I have some opinions about the other stuff.
I don't find the procedures for getting on an plane to be such a problem. In the face of the potential and past horrific actual results to be an unreasonable search. And with the exception of the folks on the first day of the tighter carry on restrictions I/we are all aware of what we may and may not bring onboard verses checked baggage so I expect the newly banned things to be seized if I or anyone else tries to bring them on board. In fact I still think we are not doing enough. I'm not advocating changing the letter of the law on this I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't agree that the security measures are outside of the test of un-reasonable search.
What you're saying is that every person who flies on a plane should be assumed to be a ne'er-do-well intent on seizing the plane and either blowing it up or smashing it into a skyscraper or committing some other nefarious act. That isn't the way we do things in America. Citizens, even airline passengers, are presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty; hence there is NO probable cause for searching them or their belongings.
And I think the actions of 9/11 and many other incidents over the past few decades satisfy the probable cause test.
They don't. I'm sorry you don't have any legal training or you would know that the simple act of purchasing an airline ticket does not, in the vast majority of circumstances, give rise to probable cause for a search. This is proven by the fact that thousands of people buy airline tickets every day and the vast, VAST majority of them want to do nothing more than board at location A and deplane at location B.
The items looked for, restricted, removed/seized at security points is well published and well known as is the location where they will be searched for and the everyone that will be subjected to this process also satisfies the test, at least for me and enough of my fellow citizens.
And that's the problem, isn't it? You and "enough of [your] fellow citizens" are so blasé about your rights that you not only waive them for yourselves, you waive them for all citizens who wish to ride in an airplane. Why is it not properly the situation that if you are so afraid that one of your fellow passengers is going to blow you up or hijack the airplane, that you don't stay home and not fly, or find another form of transportation more to your liking? But no; instead, you think it's more proper to commit illegal searches on everyone who does fly in the hopes that by violating everyone's rights, possibly someone will discover a gun or knife or explosive device that would put you in little danger if you weren't on that airplane. It's the American system of law turned exactly on its head.
And rest assured, at the current rate of loss of rights, it won't be long before you WILL get searched before you are allowed to board a train or bus, and you will soon likely need a government permit before you'll be allowed to buy a gallon of gas for your car.
This is the nature and part of the vigilance necessary in a troubled time that is the price of American freedom we all must pay.
Send me a bill; I'll contest it in court if I don't owe it.
Like it or not, just as with politics and religion, the law and its understanding and interpretation is subject to opinion and people don't all agree on any of it. Just as we don't agree on this.
But the reason "we don't agree on this" is because you are apparently insufficiently aware of the American system of jurisprudence, the U.S. Constitution and the rights for which your forefathers gave their lives. That's curable ... but not if you don't have the willingness to learn. Indeed, it took me a couple of months in federal prison before I even had the urge to learn it.
I admit it bothers me that undoubtedly some members of this list will consider me a nutcase for objecting to what you and others have characterized as "reasonable security measures." They AREN'T "reasonable"; I know why they aren't reasonable — in fact, it's part of my job to know why they aren't — and if you do some research, you'll find out why as well. Until then, when you attempt to tell me why they are, I'll continue to tell you why they aren't.
I apologize in advance for attempting to goad you into doing the work (research) that every American should do or have done while they were in school. THAT'S "the price of American freedom we all must pay."
Mark Kernes, '64-'66
