I haven't once given an example where there was any reason where there is cause or reasonable suspicion. I'm talking pure random stopping with no cause ie checkpoint.

 

The courts don't seem to have a problem with them. Maybe instead of arguing about it with people who don't have any say on them, you should take it up with the Supreme Court. If the courts say they are ok, then you lose, game, set, match. No more serves

I believe you're missing the point, and the facts. They can't legally search your car during a routine checkpoint. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You certainly proved me correct. What happens AFTER the stop is irrelevant to this debate and has been from the get-go.

The courts don't seem to have a problem with them. Maybe instead of arguing about it with people who don't have any say on them, you should take it up with the Supreme Court. If the courts say they are ok, then you lose, game, set, match. No more serves

 

Rocket, that's lame. I'm fully aware of what the court says and have cited what they used to justify their decision in hopes that we could have an intelligent debate. Instead, I get "it's legal - get over it."

 

You certainly proved me correct. What happens AFTER the stop is irrelevant to this debate and has been from the get-go.

 

What have I proven you correct about? You keep using all of these outlandish examples as comparisons, and they don't even come close.

Let me ask this, would anyone have a problem with cops pulling over drivers for no reason other then to see if they are drunk or to gain probable cause to search the car?

 

Im not sure why its that hard to see the point Clyde is arguing.

Let me ask this, would anyone have a problem with cops pulling over drivers for no reason other then to see if they are drunk or to gain probable cause to search the car?

 

Im not sure why its that hard to see the point Clyde is arguing.

 

Do you attend any sporting events? Do you have a problem with security checking bags or your person?

Do you attend any sporting events? Do you have a problem with security checking bags or your person?

 

Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

 

Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

 

Certainly more comparable than any of Clyde's examples. You're being stopped, and searched without you giving them any reason to search you.

 

HB, I'm not sure if you understand "with cause."

 

I understand it just fine.

What have I proven you correct about? You keep using all of these outlandish examples as comparisons, and they don't even come close.

 

You and a few others have repeatedly made the point that the police cannot check inside of your car after they stop you at a checkpoint. While that is right it's also 100% immaterial to the repeated point I've made. What happens post-stop is not the issue. THE STOP IS THE ISSUE. It goes completely against the 4th amendment.

 

By missing that key point you are missing why my examples/analogies are indeed relevant and material.

Certainly more comparable than any of Clyde's examples. You're being stopped, and searched without you giving them any reason to search you.

 

Yes. But you're talking about going to an event that is ran and owned by a private company. They are not required to have any type of probable cause to ask you to allow them to search you. Your consent is implied as a condition of admission. They can't, however, compel you to consent to a search. You can simply refuse and leave if you want.

Yes. But you're talking about going to an event that is ran and owned by a private company. They are not required to have any type of probable cause to ask you to allow them to search you. Your consent is implied as a condition of admission. They can't, however, compel you to consent to a search. You can simply refuse and leave if you want.

 

 

Isn't GABP owned by the city, paid for by the tax payers?

Isn't GABP owned by the city, paid for by the tax payers?

 

Irrelevant.

 

There is no 4th Amendment rights regarding a baseball game.

 

The owner of the club or the sport itself is setting the rules.

Isn't GABP owned by the city, paid for by the tax payers?

 

I said the event, not the venue. Whether the venue is owned or leased is irrelevant. The conditions of your admission are.controlled by the company running the event and you can either choose to observe them or decline and not attend.

I said the event, not the venue. Whether the venue is owned or leased is irrelevant. The conditions of your admission are.controlled by the company running the event and you can either choose to observe them or decline and not attend.

 

...and the ticket taker is not going to arrest me.