tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post8013945725223816292..comments2023-10-10T09:46:13.964-04:00Comments on Tillers on Evidence and Inference: A Problem of Criminal Procedure -- and American LibertyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-89822791896985398742011-07-17T15:16:38.564-04:002011-07-17T15:16:38.564-04:00The 4th A. requires reasonable searches and seizur...The 4th A. requires reasonable searches and seizures. Evaluating the facts under the totality of the circumstances, the Officer would not be able to show, by a preponderance of the evidence,that there was probable cause to take the suspect into custody. The Exclusionary rule would require that the fruits of that wrongful seizure (the statements)be excluded from trial, unless to impeach the direct testimony of the defendant.<br /><br />Being that the suspect was in custody and not apprised of his rights and consequences of waiving those rights (Miranda), the suspect's statements will not be admitted at trial. The 5th A. protects persons from being compelled to make self-incriminating statements. Custodial Interrogations are by nature coercive, and in order to protect the 5th A., Miranda must be read. According to the Exclusionary rule, the violation of the 5th A. right requires that the fruits of that violation not be admitted at trial, unless to impeach the defendant.<br /><br />If brought in state court, the defendant will argue that his 14th A. right to Due Process was violated by the police conduct.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431330984713889797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-45764280810470398922011-05-17T07:53:27.890-04:002011-05-17T07:53:27.890-04:00In a later part of the above article, there is thi...In a later part of the above article, there is this:<br /><br />"According to the TSA, 898 people who underwent or witnessed a pat-down complained to the agency from November through March, and 252 million travelers were screened during that period. The TSA says less than 3 percent of travelers undergo pat-downs, including those who opt out of a body scanner or when it detects a problem and those who require an additional screening when a metal detector goes off."<br /><br />"Since the new anti-terrorism screening measures took effect last year, the American Civil Liberties Union has reported receiving more than 1,000 complaints. Those travelers claim that TSA agents have patted their genitals, run fingers through their hair or along their bras or waistbands."<br /><br />"In Alaska, 59 of the 60 lawmakers have asked a U.S. Senate committee to hold hearings in that state on what they call the 'often invasive procedures' used by the TSA, and they're researching what they can do on a state level."<br /><br />"'You shouldn't have to sacrifice your dignity when you travel, and air travel is such an important part of travel in Alaska,' said Mark Gnadt, press secretary for House Democrats in the Alaska Legislature.<br /><br />"At least two federal lawsuits have been filed over the pat-downs."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-81592330170576991512011-05-17T07:24:54.305-04:002011-05-17T07:24:54.305-04:00Angela K. Brown, "Texas bill would make invas...Angela K. Brown, "Texas bill would make invasive pat-downs a felony," ajc [Atlanta Journal Constitution?], April 29, 2011, http://www.ajc.com/travel/texas-bill-would-make-930093.html:<br /><br />"FORT WORTH, Texas — A former Miss USA's tearful claim that she was groped during a pat-down at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport could be a criminal matter under a bill gaining momentum in the Texas Legislature.<br /><br />"The proposed Texas law, aimed at people conducting security checkpoints at airports and public buildings, would make it a felony to intentionally touch someone's private areas — even on top of clothing — unless the officer or agent has probable cause to believe the person is carrying something illegal.<br /><br />State Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, who sponsored the bill, said Friday that the invasive pat-down searches at airports nationwide are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. Last fall the Transportation Security Administration implemented a new pat-down procedure that includes a security worker running a hand up the inside of passengers' legs and along the cheek of the buttocks, as well as making direct contact with the groin area."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-38677640491781931132011-05-15T20:54:30.730-04:002011-05-15T20:54:30.730-04:00See also Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37 (1st Cir....See also Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1992) (then-judge Stephen Breyer was a member of the three-judge panel)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.com