StarDestroyer.Net BBS

verilon wrote:

phongn wrote:

verilon wrote:However, phongn, this guy wasn't pulled over in the car - he was in the office of the building. But I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I do.

The car merely served as an example, verilon, to show that a warrent is not needed. As I said earlier, the research I'm doing (granted, it is limited research) seems to indicate that the USSS was within it's rights to do what it did.

To ask for permission - be denied - and come in anyways? That's legal!?

Given probable cause it seems to be. This is opposed to a police officer just deciding to randomly investigate your house w/o cause. This is only my highly-unqualified opinion, of course: IANAL.

IIRC, Stravo is one, isn't he? You may want to ask him if he is, he would be better qualified.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the USSS has acted in the wrong here as well. I don't have that much information on it (other than what you've posted), but based on what you've posted I will stand by my position.

Okay first off ENOUGH WITH THE FUCKING PROBABLE CAUSE!! I have heard it wnough to know you're going to keep saying it!!!

Second, if they are denied permission, they can still come in?? How is that legal? I'm confused by that.

If a Cop does not have probable cause he can search you anyway,

However there will be hell to pay after the fact
But he can still search, however anything he finds can be questioned if he did not have probable cause to begin with


For example, If Joe Cop is driving along and decides to stop off at my house and search it for no reason other than he wants to, And if Joe Cop finds a fifty megaton nuclear warhead and large blueprints for Congress, He can arrest me, but come trial I can have all that thrown out because he did not have probable cause to being with

Yes even though they found a fifty megaton nuclear warhead they still can't charge me with anything because the method by which they found the crime commited was itself illeage

verilon wrote:Second, if they are denied permission, they can still come in?? How is that legal? I'm confused by that.

If they don't have probable cause, then it's illegal for them to enter without permission, just the same as it would be illegal for me to enter your house without permission. And, obviously, if they have a warrant, then they don't even bother asking for permission--they have a legal right to come in. Probable cause is somewhere in the middle. It's usually used in situations where evidence is in immediate danger of being destroyed or a person is in danger of being harmed--for example, if a police officer heard screaming coming from a house, he'd have probable cause to enter without securing permission from the owner or getting a warrant, on the grounds that someone may have been in immediate danger and there was no time to waste on legal niceties. The bottom line is, though, if th have probable cause, they don't need permission to enter, though it they don't have permission that may limit what they can actually do inside (if you give a cop permission to search your home and he finds incriminating evidence against you, it holds up in court, whereas evidence he found coming in on PC wouldn't, IIRC). Now in this case, the Secret Service would probably argue that any threat against the Preisdent's life constitutes immediate danger, considering the president's high profile (and the times we live in), and getting a warrant would have wasted valuable time. Since they didn't confiscate anything or arrest anyone, this would probably hold up.

That makes more sense. Thanks, RedImperator.

Probable Cause - relates to an officer or a law enforcement official that has a REASNABLE belief that a crime has take or is going to take place. A police officer's test for reasonableness is different than you or I. A police officer has the advantage of experience or training.

For example, a police officer that sees someone walking down the street in a high crime neighborhood with a bulge in his waistband, an officer has probable cause to search that person and see if the bulge is a weapon, WHETHER THE PERSON AGREES TO IT OR NOT. Probable cause is a balance test between a peson's right not to be stopped and searched and a need to enforce law.

Ver, he's your buddy and all but they were well within their rights to do what they did. You don't need a warrant to stop and search a person that you have probable cause has committed a crime or is in the process of committing the crime. Are the tests for probable cause fast and loose...yes they are. For instance here in NYC one judge ruled that running from the police WAS NOT probable cause because if you are a minority in NYC you can expect to have some apprehension about being approached by a Police officer. Utter BS in my opinion, if you're running from the cops, there's something up, but there you see how thorny the problem can be.

When it comes to threatening the president's life as I gather is what happened in this instance particualrly in the times we're in now, the SS had probable cause...should they have gotten a warrant, IMO yes, but did they need one? Doubtful when it comes to this potential crime. I have not read the particular statute for threatening a president's life, I assume the SS are given a wider breadth in terms of investigating these threats, as ANY threat to the president even in jest is invesitigated IIRC.

Keep in mind that criminal law is not my speciality and all of this was taken from my memories when studying for the Bar and some of my crim law classes in the past.

BTW if they only arrested him and not searched the premises they did not need a search warrant, they were seizing HIM to investigate, not searching or seizing his property. To arrest someone is alot easier than getting a warrant to seize or investigate his property.

To ask for permission - be denied - and come in anyways? That's legal!?

IF YOU HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE! The police do not need your permission to enter your home or office or fucking taxi if they have probable cause.

They can still enter if they don't have a warrant. A warrant is only needed IF YOU ARE COLLECTING EVIDENCE!

This is not that big of a deal!

verilon wrote:That makes more sense. Thanks, RedImperator.

No problem.

Ver, hes your buddy and all but they were well within their rights to do what they did. You don;t tneed a warrant to stop and search a perosn that you have porbable cause has committed a crime or is in teh process of committing the crime.

This I understand and all, but what is getting me is the fact that they asked for permission to come in... and were denied.. So I can understand the Secret Service guys coming in, but not the police.

HemlockGrey wrote:

To ask for permission - be denied - and come in anyways? That's legal!?

IF YOU HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE! The police do not need your permission to enter your home or office or fucking taxi if they have probable cause.

They can still enter if they don't have a warrant. A warrant is only needed IF YOU ARE COLLECTING EVIDENCE!

This is not that big of a deal!

Has this NOT been covered eight times???

My apologies. I did not see page 2.

verilon wrote:

Ver, hes your buddy and all but they were well within their rights to do what they did. You don;t tneed a warrant to stop and search a perosn that you have porbable cause has committed a crime or is in teh process of committing the crime.

This I understand and all, but what is getting me is the fact that they asked for permission to come in... and were denied.. So I can understand the Secret Service guys coming in, but not the police.

I think federal agencies are supposed to coordinate with local authorities when possible. It wouldn't do if a bunch of guys in suits arrested someone only to be met at the door by a bunch of cops looking to arrest them.

neoolong wrote:

verilon wrote:This I understand and all, but what is getting me is the fact that they asked for permission to come in... and were denied.. So I can understand the Secret Service guys coming in, but not the police.

I think federal agencies are supposed to coordinate with local authorities when possible. It wouldn't do if a bunch of guys in suits arrested someone only to be met at the door by a bunch of cops looking to arrest them.

Thing is, they all came together.

verilon wrote:

neoolong wrote:

verilon wrote:This I understand and all, but what is getting me is the fact that they asked for permission to come in... and were denied.. So I can understand the Secret Service guys coming in, but not the police.

I think federal agencies are supposed to coordinate with local authorities when possible. It wouldn't do if a bunch of guys in suits arrested someone only to be met at the door by a bunch of cops looking to arrest them.

Thing is, they all came together.

That's the point. The SS probably contacted the local police, or were contacted by the local police, and to make sure everything went smoothly, both sides went.

neoolong wrote:That's the point. The SS probably contacted the local police, or were contacted by the local police, and to make sure everything went smoothly, both sides went.

Ah okay.

phongn wrote:Verilon is running around screaming "the sky is falling." Given probable cause it is possible (another example would be if you're pulled over and an officer requests that he search you car; he does not need a warrant or the driver's permission to do so given probable cause).

What probably cause is that exactly? If it is the driver acting suspicious he cannot search the car without the driver's permission (a fact lost on many people who agrees to having their car searched). The driver not agreeing to it would be suspicious but if you run a check on him and there is nothing up with him (arrest warrant, whatever) you cannot search. In the case of your friend, they did have probable cause and although it might have been so that they got a warrant, they would have had got one easily.

verilon wrote:In that lil Patriot Acts post of mine, the Secret Service was involved. I am asking why the SS should be allowed to be aove the law.

The SS?





Yup, I see the resemblance...

The Secret Service hardly equals the Nazi secret police.

The Secret Service was founded decades before the Nazi party. They stole ou initials, not the other way around. And for Chrissakes, Ein, these people would take a bullet for the president or a member of his family (not to mention presidential candidates and former presidents). There's no justification for comparing them to Nazis.

EDIT: I just re-read your post, and I realized the wording is a little ambiguous. If you meant, "I see the resembalance" to be sarcastic, I apologize in advance.

It was mostly a (tasteless) joke. It was aimed more at Herr Asscroft than the actual SS anyway.

EDIT: He's more responsible for wanting to turn the Secret Service into the Schutzstaffel than anyone...

RedImperator wrote:The Secret Service was founded decades before the Nazi party. They stole ou initials, not the other way around. And for Chrissakes, Ein, these people would take a bullet for the president or a member of his family (not to mention presidential candidates and former presidents). There's no justification for comparing them to Nazis.

Oh yes there is...they had Pennsylvania Avenue in DC closed off,
because of a "threat from a car bomb"...someone tell me how
Mr. Mad Bomber is going to have enough C-4 in his fucking
car to reach across several HUNDRED feet from Penn. Avenue
to the White House?

MKSheppard wrote:

RedImperator wrote:The Secret Service was founded decades before the Nazi party. They stole ou initials, not the other way around. And for Chrissakes, Ein, these people would take a bullet for the president or a member of his family (not to mention presidential candidates and former presidents). There's no justification for comparing them to Nazis.

Oh yes there is...they had Pennsylvania Avenue in DC closed off,
because of a "threat from a car bomb"...someone tell me how
Mr. Mad Bomber is going to have enough C-4 in his fucking
car to reach across several HUNDRED feet from Penn. Avenue
to the White House?

1000 pounds of PBX would probably collapse the front of the building at that range. That explosive is easy to get all over the world, fairly cheep and compact. You could fit it in the back of a van.

Of course the best strategy is to have someone ram the gate, and then drive a second vehicle though the gap. And that's what there afraid off. But by placing the outer most barrier further out, there might be enough reaction time to stop a second vehicle.

Sea Skimmer wrote: 1000 pounds of PBX would probably collapse the front of the building at that range. That explosive is easy to get all over the world, fairly cheep and compact. You could fit it in the back of a van.

Of course the best strategy is to have someone ram the gate, and then drive a second vehicle though the gap. And that's what there afraid off. But by placing the outer most barrier further out, there might be enough reaction time to stop a second vehicle.

The secret service would happily evict everyone within 2 mile radius of the
white house if they could....they should go back to hunting down counterfeiters, instead of guarding the leader of the free world...

I'd feel much safer if the SS losers were replaced with US Marines
with M-16s locked and loaded with orders to shoot first and ask questions later, concerning trespassers on WH grounds.

MKSheppard wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: 1000 pounds of PBX would probably collapse the front of the building at that range. That explosive is easy to get all over the world, fairly cheep and compact. You could fit it in the back of a van.

Of course the best strategy is to have someone ram the gate, and then drive a second vehicle though the gap. And that's what there afraid off. But by placing the outer most barrier further out, there might be enough reaction time to stop a second vehicle.

The secret service would happily evict everyone within 2 mile radius of the
white house if they could....they should go back to hunting down counterfeiters, instead of guarding the leader of the free world...

I'd feel much safer if the SS losers were replaced with US Marines
with M-16s locked and loaded with orders to shoot first and ask questions later, concerning trespassers on WH grounds.

The Marines would demand the leveling of surrounding buildings in addition to an eviction. They and the rest of the military learned a damn lot about how to defend against car and truck bombs over the last two decades.

They would also want a real wall instead of a fence, with a blast deflecting berm behind it .

Sea Skimmer wrote: They would also want a real wall instead of a fence, with a blast deflecting berm behind it .

Here's a simpler idea:

Place a radio transmitter on the WH grounds, transmitting random signals
on random frequencies keyed to FM....

Sure it would play hell with reception on car stereos, but it would send any
car bombers to hell 3 blocks away from the WH when the radio-controlled
detonator on their bomb goes off (yep, they do that to keep the suicide
bombers honest, hee hee)