View Story | 478 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Once you have a ruling like this, it doesn't just apply to more folk, it applies to more situations. So you will have District Attorneys citing this as case law for further warrantless searches in "comparable" situations, then those situations will be cited in further "comparable" situations. An analogy is the doctrine of hot pursuit, at one time it meant that the cops could keep chasing someone that the were actually in sight of, then it got to the point where they were close behind but not in sight of, then it became the doctrine of warm pursuit, as each court ratified a little more distance, then it got looser and looser, and now it has expanded beyond all recognition.
The fourth amendment has essentially been gutted by the war on drugs, hope all are happy now, when you gut these protections for a class of people you gut them for yourself, too.
"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:28:30 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
chip, chip, chip...
by Richard Cranium on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:30:10 AM PDT
Juvenile Court. There is a long line of cases that say that students have less rights than adults, but that there has to be reasonalbe suspicion regarding a particularized student before (s)he can be searched. Along comes a case that says that atheletes can be drug tested because they are in a voluntary program and it is for the safety of themselves and the other atheletes. Now the courts are saying that that takes away the need for any individual suspicion-even though the searched students are not engaged in any voluntary activity, in fact they are mandated to go to school. So the drug testing case has metastasized into a tumor that ate away the premise for minimal constitutional protection.
We won our case only because the information that was used-a student said she was scared because she had heard that someone might be bringing a gun to school, was weeks old. Not because there was any verifiable information, or any particularized suspicion to anyone, but because the loose "information" was stale. And the judge said it was a close case.
by NearlyNormal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:38:54 AM PDT
How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?
by ca democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:01:08 AM PDT
There was the case of Georgia Thompson a Wisconsin woman who had the misfortune of working for a Democratic Governor when the local US Attorney received a call from Washinton telling him that his job was on the line if he didn't help the Republican party. Being a good Federalist Society member, he stepped up to the plate and convicted her of doing her job. She went to jail. Luckily she lives in a state where the local Circuit Court of Appeals is not comprised of Federalist sheep. Not so lucky Don Siegelman, who was convicted of being a Democratic Governor in a Southern State, and whose conviction is unlikely to be overturned by a Circuit Court comprised primarily of loyal Republican Federalists. At least the NYT and others have picked up his case. But it's rather sad, don't you think, that we have such obvious political prisoners in this country. Usually we hide it much better than this.
by Uncle Bob on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:34:01 AM PDT
through the privatizing of student loans. The net result is that private companies can now charge students higher rates and penalties, yet still receive the benefit that the loans are government guaranteed.
by ryder92111 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:52:52 AM PDT
housing for any students receiving loans - or all senior's houses who receive Social Security - or all veterans who receive disability care.
Come to think of it, why this should let the government forensically search without cause or warrants any business that receives government contracts, assistance, tax incentives, or subsidies. Maybe this non-ruling should be used to go through Exxon and Halliburton and the Carlyle Group's closets...
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." ~ Barack Obama
by Reality Bites Back on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:32:07 AM PDT
...what are they but the Queen of Corporate Welfare? Send Office of the Inspector General's staff onto every square inch of Blackwater property - maybe they'll find a few of the pallets of $100 bills that went missing in Iraq.
9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.
by varro on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:36:41 PM PDT
by ca democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:30:50 AM PDT
These folks weren't dissidents by any means. But their imprisonment helped elect ReTHUGs. The Georgia Thompson case being a most egregious example.
And in the case of Don Siegelman, the Thugs have done exactly what Newt and Hot Tub Tom accused the Democrats of doing to them - making politics illegal. Siegelman's "crime"? Giving a job in his administration to a campaign contributor. By this standard shouldn't every GOP governor AND THE PRESIDENT be in jail? [Of course, at least in pretzel boy's case, he belongs there regardless.]
Bill had Bimbo eruptions ... Crazy John has Rambo eruptions
by kbman on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:33:11 AM PDT
by ca democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:19:22 PM PDT
political prisoners if S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, now introduced in the Senate, passes. It has been referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
They are especially worried about the Internet fomenting "problems", and the nebulous wording and open-ended "definitions" are troublesome.
From Democracy Now! article:
A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400 to six House vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Vigilance, vigilance... gotta watch 'em every minute.
by Prognosticator on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:16:11 AM PDT
agency can see it for themselves. If it becomes a criminal offense to dissent, then the gov't is itself criminal and deserves to be overthrown by any means necessary. And I'll be there with a pitchfork and a torch.
But the line ought properly be drawn way before it comes to that. When the courts mimic the brownshirts, it's time for a thorough housecleaning of the most radical sort.
-7.25/-6.41 Consumerism is the disease that allows the ruling classes to thrive; therefore, not buying is a small but necessary first act of rebellion.
by sravaka on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:32:40 PM PDT
couldn't POSSIBLY be guilty. He was investigated and convicted on evidence that was dug up over the course of a year by an investigative reporter in Montgomery--dirt he was digging for a year before the feds indicted him. It was all part of the Scrushy mess, and Scrushy was as guilty as they come, and thank god we finally got some convictions against them. I don't doubt that Scrushy bought his seat on the state hospital board. I also don't doubt that in a lot of ways, this was SOP for politics in Alabama (regardless of party), and Siegelman was doing what everyone else has been doing for a hundred years, and it was just his bad luck to be the whipping boy for everyone else's sins.
Fair? Maybe not. Politically motivated? Possibly. But--I do think there are people more deserving of your sympathy than Don Siegelman.-
Siegelman was out, anyway--using court cases to neutralize him politically was pointless; Bob Riley is not what I want in a ideal governor but (so far) he's not a crook and he hasn't embarrassed us nationally, and he'll probably stay governor for as long as he wants to.
Alabama isn't rich enough to be red.
by highland girl on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:51:38 AM PDT
Usually we hide it much better than this.
They're interested in scaring the shit out of all of us. To that end, it's in their interest to make it well known.
Gore to Richardson to Edwards to ?
by creeper on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:42:29 PM PDT
Incendiado para arriba, listo para irme.
by gobacktotexas on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:05:01 AM PDT
I used to do quite a bit of juvenile defense. The high schools where I practiced mostly had some version of a quick-tipster program: Kids could report to someone at the school (teacher, principal, police liason officer) that another student had contraband in his/her possession. If that report turned out to be correct, the reporting kid could get anywhere from $25-$50 cash on the spot and remain anonymous.
So, if Suzy decides she doesn't like Megan anymore because Megan flirted with her boyfriend, Suzy could just stash a joint into Megan's locker, find a vice-principal and tattle on Megan, get Megan suspended from school at minimum and maybe into juvenile court, and be well on her way towards buying a kewl new purse to boot. Pretty nifty system. This information would never get cops a search warrant from a judge (well, at least not a judge who was paying attention), but it's all perfectly kosher here because they're only kids. We're school officials; we don't need no stinkin' probable cause. Used to drive me nuts.
by classico on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:32:14 AM PDT
were still doing searches months after the "report", the Distric Attorney's jaw just dropped. The judges eyes bugged out and I started asking a whole series of questions.
by NearlyNormal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:43:31 AM PDT
if this will eventually apply to landlords - will MY landlord be able to search MY closets soon. Cause hey, I can always move if I don't like it.
SUPPORT CrashingtheStates!
by RNinNC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:03:03 AM PDT
...so, in theory, nothing in the Constitution protects you from landlord searches. Your lease does, as do several common law doctrines (e.g., the covenant of quiet enjoyment), but, who knows, if a landlord wanted to put a provision in a lease stating he has a right of unannounced access to the premises, the courts would probably enforce it as the result of a "free bargain" -- and, yeah, they'd say you can always refuse to rent if you don't like it.
A more interesting question is whether a landlord who accepts Section 8 vouchers could be delegated authority by the federal government to search the premises unannounced, on the theory that the landlord is the government's "agent" for purposes of verifying whether you truly qualify for government rent assistance. Better not give them any ideas.
-7.75, -7.64 www.politicalcompass.org "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky
by scorponic on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:27:40 AM PDT
I'm amazed that this is just now becoming news. As of five years ago, searches like this were routine. Any suspicion whatsoever resulted in searches, which was usually a report from a neighbor, or the building inspector seeing something (or someone) he shouldn't while on a routine inspection of another home (in this case, for safety purposes).
Complain as we might, the fact is there's a LOT of welfare fraud going on. 25% of our voucher holders were suspected of it, and we kicked multiple people off the program a month, for reasons varying from drugs, to lying about the occupants of the home (having a boyfriend there who made enough to make them ineligible, for instance), to allowing an abusive partner into their home after accepting the voucher from a battered women's shelter.
Will landlords ever be designated the agents? Hell no. The Section 8 agents trust the landlords less than they do the tenants.
I'm as staunch a liberal as they come, but frankly, there are enough people violating the system that the situation merits it. Assuming the San Diego folks are operating like us, a surprise inspection takes five minutes. And like it or not, you agree to this when you accept the voucher. Have for years. It's to ensure that people who NEED vouchers GET them.
There's only one group of people I feel sorry for here, and it's the minimal percentage of voucher holders who really do use it as a stopgap measure. Not that I can speak for the entire country, but I find it incredibly disturbing that we have a grandmother on Section 8, her daughter on Section 8, and while I was working there, she brought HER daughter in on her 18th birthday to apply for her voucher, same as all the other daughters have. Happy Birthday!
Send this Turn Maine Blue blogger to Denver! Click here to donate.
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:02:17 AM PDT
How many were actually booted off? What would the percentage be?
And why can't policing be accomplished without a comprehensive warrantless search?
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse
by gsbadj on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:21:35 AM PDT
Some things are not illegal. They just violate the Section 8 housing rules. They're rules, not laws, and as such, no warrant.
If we had a tip someone was dealing drugs, then we'd call the cops, they'd serve a warrant. If it came out true, then we'd have the proof we need and boot them off the program. Illegal activity, you bring in cops.
Now, consider the people screwing the system by having the "single mom" apply, but the working boyfriend (who stays "boyfriend" because getting married means losing the voucher) lives there too. Not illegal. Just against the rules. So a Section 8 housing inspector gets a tip from the landlord, and goes to inspect the house. If it's obvious that there are enough belongings of the boyfriend in the home that he's living there, they're in violation. This can't be done with a warrant because it's not illegal activity.
I can't speak for other places, but with us, new voucher recipients actually had to sit through a class in which all of this was explained to them. And that if they didn't want us snooping around, they should really consider actually following the rules.
As for the 25% suspected, around 40% of those (10% of the total recipients) were removed from the program for varying reasons- fraud, arrest/conviction for violent crime, etc.
Now mind you, we didn't take this stuff lightly. We had a high level of respect for privacy. If someone called and said someone was living in the home that shouldn't be, we'd make a reasonable effort to verify that before barging in.
But why did we barge in? Simple- before we did that, we'd call them to say we'd be having an inspection the next day. And we found out very quickly how fast someone can rent a U-Haul, fill it with stuff, and crash at a friend's place for a couple days. Then when the inspection was over, back came the U-Haul.
You're dealing with fraudsters. They know how to game the system. So if you don't want them gaming the system, you need to have rules in place that prevent it.
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:12:19 PM PDT
Complain as we might, the fact is there's a LOT of welfare fraud going on.
Caught them driving Cadillacs, did we?
by Uberbah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:04:54 AM PDT
On more than one occasion. Or the $500k in the hidden bank account we found one time.
Or the eBay business someone was operating, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
Would you like more examples? That's just in one county.
You really shouldn't throw out smart-ass questions when someone's prepared to offer real responses. And no, I can't tell you who, that much is confidential. But yes. It happens.
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:59:56 AM PDT
The real fraud is how the right wing makes mountains out of molehills in order to support their agenda. Or just makes stuff up out of thin air, like Reagan's yarn about the Cadillac driving welfare queen.
In the case of voting fraud, it's really about suppressing minority votes. In the case of welfare, they want to eliminate it because they are all about sink-or-swim elitism, poor folks be damned.
by Uberbah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:03:25 PM PDT
To the contrary! I think that the work done by Section 8 agents is a useful service. Like it or not, there ARE "Cadillac driving welfare queens". No, they do not represent a majority. Nothing even close.
And it is the job of Section 8 workers, under the guidelines of the program, to find and eliminate any such instance. And they work damn hard at it, too- because if they don't, those "welfare queens" will become a news exposé.
So you say what you want. You call me a liar. And use cute little quips like "plural of anecdote is not data" to do it. But until you worked in the fucking system like I did, and became jaded enough to leave it, don't you go talking to me about how what Reagan said is a lie.
Cause it's the goddamn truth. However, liberals like me see that as the system being broken, and as a problem that needs to be rooted out so the program works for people who really need it. Conservatives hear about that one person in a hundred, or a thousand, and point to them as why the entire system is a government handout, a fraud that must be eliminates.
That does NOT mean they don't exist.
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:30:32 PM PDT
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:30:53 PM PDT
That's one point that needs to be made (loudly and emphatically) over conservative objections to such programs. There will always be people who will attempt to (and succeed) game any system. Keeping that fraud down to 1% or less is truly remarkable. We should compare that rate to the success rate of the SEC, or maybe the IRS. We should also compare the money involved - the loss of government revenue or "waste of taxpayer dollars".
Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.
by sxwarren on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:27:36 AM PDT
without illegal searches. I mean, it is not too hard to find out if a person on welfare is living with someone who is employed and can afford to take care of the one on welfare.
I do not agree that the ends justify the means here.
This is as bad as the government tapping out phones and reading our email without cause 'just in case'.
Our constitution is supposed to protect us from this crap.
01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR
by kimoconnor on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:17:19 AM PDT
You need to be able to PROVE it. Which means checking the house. Just because a boyfriend is over the house doesn't mean they're living there. But if their clothes are in the dresser...
by Eddie in ME on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:13:25 PM PDT
time and effort policing welfare fraud than it does looking into Haliburton. Really if the boyfriend has a job, I'm OK with that.
Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."
by Sacramento Dem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:42:08 PM PDT
That is kinda the point of passing a law and having the court agree...
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
by deathsinger on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:16:23 PM PDT
and ponder. Thanks for the insight, though.
by RNinNC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:16:35 PM PDT
was occuring. Most recepients of Section 8 vouchers were decent folks that were seeing hard times; lots of disabled and the elderly depended on Section 8 to have a roof over their heads. Why should anyone be subject to police-state tactics just because sickness or poverty or hard luck meant they needed to turn to their government for a helping hand?
by SparkleMotion on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:20:07 PM PDT
Florida's new shoot first law would enable my my tenant to shoot me if I went into his apartment unannounced if he 'feels' threatened.
I may have once been totally anti-gun but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it should be mandatory for every citizen to have an AK-47 wrapped in anti-rust coating and a sealed case of ammunition in their houses for when it's time to take up arms against an opressive government.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:18:01 AM PDT
That's what David Koresh thought, too. Personally, I'd like to hope we're not quite there yet. Besides, I hate to tell you, but if we really get that far, no AK is going to do you shit good anyway.
by rlochow on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:27:52 AM PDT
If David koresh believes 2 + 2 = 4 does that make it wrong too?
Agreed on an AK being insufficient for actually fighting an oppressive goverment though...
Bring the WAR home
by EthrDemon on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:55:44 AM PDT
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...
This country was born based upon the need to be free from opression. I'm not a fan of violence but consequences are certainly a strong deterrent.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:53:17 PM PDT
quiet enjoyment and privacy a statutory element of any rental agreement for residential housing. Also, quiet enjoyment is an essential element of common law month to month tenancies.
Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.
by StrayCat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:48:43 AM PDT
My lease and the law here in SF says my landlord can only come into my apartment if there is an immediate emergency, ie: fire.
Otherwise he must give me a minimum of 24 hours notice that he plans to enter the unit.
by kimoconnor on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM PDT
I was just wondering if that could be changed in some way. OR, more likely, changed in other parts of the country - like my (formerly) beloved NC with it's "Right to Work" Orwellian stupidity. That's the kind of place that I could see this type of thing spreading before crashing into CA. Of course, reading the rest of this thread makes it sound (disturbingly) like this isn't QUITE such a new idea...
by RNinNC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:15:20 PM PDT
if we are going to have it for students in public schools, can we also institute it for talk show hosts [read Rush Limbaugh] on the public airwaves?
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:27:25 AM PDT
by StrayCat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:50:07 AM PDT
no reason why crackheads like Rumsfeld, Gonzo and Michael Hayden ought to be able to escape.
by deaniac83 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:52:32 AM PDT
I want hair pulled and blood drawn. I want spinal taps done to see if they are using lsd. And I want these tests to be done while they are swearing on whatever book they wish to pledge their allegence to the constitution on. Then I want these tests to be random, just like it is when you work at wal-mart.
If a cashier at wal-mart needs to be randomly drug tested, then so do our legislators and especially our president.
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB
by meatwad420 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:23:24 AM PDT
Seriously.
The constitution has a very specific method of removing Federally elected officials (president, vice president, senate, house, federal judges and supreme court justices). Namely, impeachment, or, in the case of congress, the body (House/Senate) can vote to kick them out I believe.
Now, Congress could tell the President to take a drug test or they'll impeach him, I suppose.
Of course, Walmart is not mentioned in the constitution. :-P
by Geotpf on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:08:33 PM PDT
that I can't be searched without a warrant specifying what they're looking for, and where they're looking for it.
However, dogs can apparently sign warrants, because if a K9's ears perk up at a road check, my car can be ransacked by the roadside.
Random drug tests are just government violation of the 4th Amendment by proxy. It's part of the "drug war", with insurance industry collusion.
I resent having to drop my pants like a whore for a paycheck, and I resent the fact that the people who write and enforce these laws don't subject themselves to the same guilty-until-proven-innocent philosophy.
It's just one more atrocity we can thank Ronnie Raygun for.
Fascism creeps in on little cat feet.
by Executive Odor on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM PDT
the rules for the government, including pee checks.
I don't think I could get a job with a federal defense contractor without a pee check.
by SingleVoter on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:47:17 PM PDT
...to check every crack and crevice of Rush whenever he re-enters the country. He's a proven drug mule, with him bringing those illicit Viagra back into the country.
Funny, I thought he'd use all them up on underage Dominican hookers...
by varro on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:41:57 PM PDT
of the homes they search will be drugs, which the authorities can use to further exercise their precious power over citizens, and to rob otherwise innocent people of the little they might have.
Nice... tough love and all. How perverse!
I'm sorry Bruce... these boys get that syrup in 'em, they get a little antsy in the pantsy. -Capt. John O'Hagen (Super Troopers)
by The House on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:30:11 AM PDT
It appears that many Conservatives want to turn the Supreme Court into a Supreme Bureaucracy; make the Chief Justice the Chief Clerk, rubberstamping laws that violate the spirit of the Constitution as long as they can be somehow found to be following the forms. Those who howl about "Original Intent" are the worst of them.
I'm not asking you to take the country back, I'm asking you to take it forward-Van Jones.
by Judge Moonbox on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:38:25 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 478 comments