|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 27, 2013, 05:34 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Violation of 4th amendment right?
This comes from a Facebook group I'm a part of called "Florida Open Carry" which is largely associated with Florida Carry, Inc. as far as I can tell.
This photo I'm attaching shows a sign that says "bags and coolers will be searched for public safety". This is a public park and the rules are for the 4th of July weekend. Personally this makes me mad. I see it as an infringement of 4th amendment rights. We have a right to not be searched without reasonable cause and attending a public place is not reasonable cause. I understand that Baseball games and airports and even private events (concerts) on public lands may require searching before you can gain entrance but I do not believe this to be so for public land. What do you think? |
June 27, 2013, 06:12 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Shouldn't they have told what the searches are looking for? Seems to be without probable cause to me, just fishing.
|
June 27, 2013, 06:37 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
To play devil's advocate, things to keep in mind: People are willingly attending the park, and it would be hard to argue that they forced you to be searched because you had to attend the park (unlike, say, the random searches in the NYC subway, which one could argue not having a reasonable alternative mode of transportation). Fireworks+alcohol+higher than normal attendance+cause for celebration=heightened public safety risk. You may not see it as reasonable cause, but the argument can certainly be made that it's there.
Now, if people were to show up, and not consent to a search while also indicating they were leaving, then a search were forced upon them...that would be a different issue. |
June 27, 2013, 06:43 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 8,783
|
You know what they say about one bad apple !!
They forgot to add number-8
"This is your park, enjoy it" They still need probable cause !!! Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing. |
June 27, 2013, 06:52 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
The constitutional protection is specific to "evidence gathering". Since this is not a quest for evidence, there is no constitutional violation. If they did find something during one of these searches that was illegal, that evidence would likely be tossed during any criminal trial.
|
June 27, 2013, 06:58 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Doyle, I see nothing in the amendment about that. Are you saying a cop could stop and search my ID on the street to see if I'm a felon because that's not evidence gathering?
|
June 27, 2013, 07:17 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Remember that the Fourth Amendment reads (emphasis added):
If there is a disagreement about whether, in particular circumstances, searching one's belongings is unreasonable, that would be a matter to be resolved by the federal courts. The governmental authority imposing the search requirement would have the opportunity to try to convince the federal court of the reasonableness of the searching. In light of the circumstances and what happened at the Boston Marathon, I'm not prepared to bet against the governmental authority being able to make its case.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 27, 2013, 07:49 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Are there some past court cases or any kind of papers that might give some guidelines as to what's reasonable and unreasonable? I know the supreme court has found that a person having a gun (even open carried where legal) is not reasonable cause to suspect a crime, so I'm having a hard time thinking that simply attending a public area could prove so.
|
June 27, 2013, 07:57 PM | #9 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
Last edited by BigD_in_FL; June 27, 2013 at 08:21 PM. Reason: word omission for clarification |
|
June 27, 2013, 07:58 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 8,783
|
You have a right to say; NO
See if this sheds any light on this thread. I found it interesting but not surprising ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueQMuEqRGPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua-qT99vvTs Say no and; Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing. |
June 27, 2013, 08:01 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
|
|
June 27, 2013, 08:19 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
I'm not planning to do extensive research on the topic, but some of the consistent themes I recall are --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 27, 2013, 09:00 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
So what would happen if you were to refuse a search and enter anyways? Could you get in trouble since it's still public grounds?
|
June 27, 2013, 11:14 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
My best guess at this point is that given the circumstances, given that the search requirement is apparently being well publicized and given the events at the Boston Marathon, a judge is extremely unlikely to rule against the search requirement.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 28, 2013, 12:22 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
There's plenty of time to make a huge stink out of it before the event. Find out who's behind it.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
June 28, 2013, 01:00 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
This is the response we got from one of Florida Carry's lawyers:
"Okay, so here's the word from our attorney, [redacted], in a nutshell. Yes, it is an infringement on the 4th Amendment. However, it is likely the courts would side with the city given the amount of leeway SCOTUS has similar government infringements in the post 9/11 era. The public gathering would probably be considered a "sensitive area" for the duration of the event, and the intrusion would be considered minor since no one is being forced to attend. On the other hand, if a firearm is found in the bag of a CWFL holder and that person is denied entry, Florida Carry will bring suit, charging a violation of 790.33 F.S., insofar as the licenseholder is not a credible threat to security by virtue of his/her background check and the undeniable and documented law-abiding character of licensees." Looks like Frank wins for being closest |
July 1, 2013, 09:42 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Of interest to me is that there is nothing on the sign which specifically indicates that firearms are prohibited or restricted.
|
July 1, 2013, 10:00 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
^^
That and alcohol which is prohibited as a general rule of the park is commonly carried in bags and coolers. |
July 1, 2013, 12:07 PM | #19 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 1, 2013, 01:09 PM | #20 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In the body of decisional law discussing the scope of Fourth Amendment protection and what may constitute an unreasonable search, the notion of one's reasonable expectations of privacy is a consistent theme under a variety of circumstances. Quote:
For example, traveling between Northwest Arizona and Southwest Nevada, before the Hoover Dam bypass was opened, often involved traveling over a public highway over Hoover Dam. That stretch of public highway was posted to the effect that vehicles were subject to search, and they were from time to time searched. One would have done well to believe the signs. For another example, vehicles can be subject to search at agricultural check-points on public highways between various States. Quote:
Quote:
First, the right protected by the Fourth Amendment is to be secure from unreasonable search. Second, a public safety concern over the contents of bags or coolers is hardly nebulous, especially in light of the recent events at the Boston Marathon. Third, see post 16.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||||
July 1, 2013, 04:37 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
|
It's getting to the point that unless you are in your own home expect to see more and more of these types of "rules" being applied. Of course it's all in the interest of safety and security so the majority of the public won't feel violated as maybe they should. The less it is challenged the more it will be applied.
|
July 1, 2013, 06:11 PM | #22 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
He went on to say that strict scrutiny applies unequally across enumerated rights, with the Court traditionally giving preferential treatment to certain rights but not to others. So I thought perhaps such higher scrutiny could apply to the 4A, although I am uncertain about the application of the term "unreasonable", which is absent from the 2A. Quote:
I'm saying that searching private bags and coolers hoping to stop crime is by definition nebulous, since it's unclear that a net positive societal benefit will derive from the monetary costs & other resources expended searching the private property of people when there's such a low probability of encountering nefarious activity. |
||
July 1, 2013, 06:41 PM | #23 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Second Amendment says: The Fourth Amendment says (emphasis added): So the a determination of whether the right protected by the Fourth Amendment has been violated specifically requires a determination of whether the search or seizure was reasonable. There is considerable decisional law considering the question of reasonableness. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
July 1, 2013, 06:41 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 311
|
Violation of 4th amendment right?
I don't see a "no guns allowed" sign so I wonder what would happen if you were searched and were carrying with a concealed carry permit? If they sent you home or arrested you this would be a violation of BOTH 2nd and 4th Amendment rights! Yes or no?
|
July 2, 2013, 01:16 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
KBP, see post 16 to see the opinion from one of Florida Carry's legal team.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|