# Police searching your bag?



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

I went to my local pool the other day and the police were searching people's bags, coolers, and anything they were carrying. None of these people gave them permission to do this. When I got up there I asked why they where doing this as he searched my bag(I didn't say anything because I don't know if what he was doing was legal or not and didn't want to make a scene). The cop (who I know and is a coward) said they were having problems with drugs at the pool. Now I'm not real familiar with the laws, but isn't this illegal? I know the police can't search your person with out a warrant or unless you give them permission. Now this pool is owned by the city so wouldn't that make it public property? Can he legally be doing this?


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I wouldn't think they would be allowed to do this. I've never heard of them searching bags to go to a public pool. Although, I remember back in Florida, seemed like the majority of people at the public(free) pool were the ones from the ghetto. Always starting fights and shit. As for searching, I would have told him "No way". That is the problem, people just go along with it like it is ok and it's not!!


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

They can get away with this by using implied consent. By entering the property you agree to being searched. Kind of like hunting on state wildlife management land. By being there you gave the DNR officers consent to search your truck for illegal game.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I would say that the majority of them were probably younger folks that don't really know what they can and can't do. So they just go along with it. Did they even ask people or just search?


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> They can get away with this by using implied consent. By entering the property you agree to being searched. Kind of like hunting on state wildlife management land. By being there you gave the DNR officers consent to search your truck for illegal game.


I'm not sure if I agree with that. I agree witht he hunting part because those are in the rules. But the public pool? I wouldn't think so. It would be like them searching your vehicle because you are on public roads.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

The problem with implied consent is that it can become a detour around the 4th amendment. How long will it be before being on a state or federal highway gives Barney the implied right to search your car? Or living inside the city limits gives the implied consent to have your home searched?


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

Beach Kowboy said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with that. I agree witht he hunting part because those are in the rules. But the public pool? I wouldn't think so. It would be like them searching your vehicle because you are on public roads.


That's next.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Beach Kowboy said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with that. I agree witht he hunting part because those are in the rules. But the public pool? I wouldn't think so. It would be like them searching your vehicle because you are on public roads.


I believe you and I think alike and are typing the same thing at the same time!


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Not legal at all.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> I believe you and I think alike and are typing the same thing at the same time!


Great minds!


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Then how should I go about trying to stop this? And this pool is public but you have to pay to get in. And could it be a state law or something?


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

I would refuse and remind them that there is a law against illegal searches and he should read about it... its called the 4th amendment! 
If they don't let you in then call your local new agency and let your friends and family know what it going on, picket at the pool to let everyone know what the police are up to. If you let them get away with trampling your 4th then whats to stop them doing the same to your 1st, 2nd and so on.
Be VERY vocal about it when you are refusing the search so everyone in line knows that they are trying to search you illegally 

Doc


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Unfortunately it is legal. You choose to enter the venue you agree to the venues rules. One way it might not be legal is if it's not posted. If it were not posted it would be a stretch legally, but if it's posted then it's legal. I don't have the court ruling but it was once decided you can choose to have your bag searched or not enter. It's the same concept as flying and many other venues like concerts, pro sport events and as noted hunting on public land. Sad, but legal.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

You simply tell them no. They will deny you entry, and you should ask "Based on what?". They will say "Because you refused to allow us to "inspect" your bag." You reply "Inspect, or search?". They will say inspect and you say "I do not consent to you searching my bag." If they say "search", you say "What is your Probable Cause to conduct your warrantless search?"

One of two things will happen; They'll say "Ahh. **** it. GO!" and let you in, or they will tell you to hit the bricks. Then you do like Doc Said. 

As others here have said, it is an "Implied Consent" when going into a public venue, say a sports stadium for instance. The easiest way around it is not to bring one. Or just don't go. I refuse to frequent businesses that prohibit concealed carry, even though I don't carry anymore.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

The proper protest is at the legislative authority over the venue. In the case of a city pool...a city council.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Ripon said:


> The proper protest is at the legislative authority over the venue. In the case of a city pool...a city council.


A protest at a city council meeting with a few concerned citizens in tow may bring relief. This can be particularly effective if the council allows the public a chance at commenting publicly at their meetings. They just changed the law in Georgia so that kind of search would not fly in this state.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Call the ACLU. I'm not a big fan of theirs but if there is a violation of the 4th amendment, they will get involved.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Ripon said:


> Unfortunately it is legal. You choose to enter the venue you agree to the venues rules. One way it might not be legal is if it's not posted. If it were not posted it would be a stretch legally, but if it's posted then it's legal. I don't have the court ruling but it was once decided you can choose to have your bag searched or not enter. It's the same concept as flying and many other venues like concerts, pro sport events and as noted hunting on public land. Sad, but legal.


How is this legal? It shouldn't be, the same argument could be made with all the other rights we have.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

As Keith9365 stated it is implied consent. also most public places have signs stating that by entering this property you consent to be searched. If you have something to hide and do not want to be searched do not enter the property. Pretty simple to me.
Firefighter, I do not think standing up so state, and local laws is a smart idea, I believe you would end up making a fool of yourself in the public eye.


----------



## Leon (Jan 30, 2012)

that does seem questionable legally.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

firefighter72 said:


> How is this legal? It shouldn't be, the same argument could be made with all the other rights we have.


It's legal because you have no "right" to be at the pool. Due to the fact that he wishes to visit the pool, he has to make the decision to consent to a search or not go at all.
Fair? No. Legal? Yes.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Bringa nd old bag and put a bunch of used condoms,dildos and other sex toys in it.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

firefighter72 said:


> I went to my local pool the other day and the police were searching people's bags, coolers, and anything they were carrying. None of these people gave them permission to do this. When I got up there I asked why they where doing this as he searched my bag(I didn't say anything because I don't know if what he was doing was legal or not and didn't want to make a scene). The cop (who I know and is a coward) said they were having problems with drugs at the pool. Now I'm not real familiar with the laws, but isn't this illegal? I know the police can't search your person with out a warrant or unless you give them permission. Now this pool is owned by the city so wouldn't that make it public property? Can he legally be doing this?


I'm not a lawyer and not completely familiar with your laws but here is my understanding
Two points.

1. It was an authorized search because you submitted to it. If you don't want your bag searched refuse the search. If the police do the search anyway then atleast up here it would have anything found in the bag inadmissible as evidence due to the illegal search.

2. Access to public buildings can be subject to search. You do not have to go to the public building - this is true of military sites too. Often a rule, any property owner can impose rules to base upon site access, even private individuals. It just isn't as common for people to require a search of peoples property to enter private property.

Failure to follow the rules (any property rules) can result in a trespass, not just being on someone elses property, the idea is being on someone elses property without the consent of the person who controls the property.

For instance, A rule could be no firearms, no drugs, required to check all personal property except clothing, search of person and personal property.

There are other protections that didn't apply like inability to search diplomatic personnels personal carry bag.

None the less. You did not have to submit to the search but you could also be refused site access and asked to leave if you did not submit to the search, ie refused entry.

It is a violation but very common at lots of establishements, especially clubs.

If you don't like the policy you can complain to the pool manage and just stop going to the pool.

If you did have contraband on you I would suggest refusing the search, that may give cops reasonable grounds to perform a search, but it might not too.. none the less you are fragged if you consent. If you refuse the search, and the cops search anyway then it is a questionable point.. is refusal these days simply probable grounds? 
None the less if you do not agree with the search do not submit to it, it is that simple.

Cops may get pissed but it is people allowing these things to be standard that end up having all our rights widdled away.

I was mighty pissed when I couldn't even take my bag into places to shop, because they didn't want their property stolen --- yet they want me to leave 2000 dollars of equipment sitting outside their store in my bag.

Sadly I agree with the ability but there can often be discrimination. Normally it is an abuse of authority. If people were dealing at city hall I doubt they'd be searching everyone coming into city hall with a bag.

None the less welcome to the Orwellian state. It ain't going away any time soon.

Its not your property, sucks I agree but the world ain't nice.

Note the real dodgey point comes when essential services are being provided with conditions of submission of rights.. that is when it is a failure of state in violating its own duties to preserve and protect the public, and their fundamental rights. Once fundamental rights are unconditionally violated by action or non action, it is a corrupt state that is not worthy of rule.

The real issue was that this was a public building, if they did this on the street and they did in Toronto during the G20 meetings, it is totally what the rights are suppose to protect against.

It is martial law. Setting up spot checks is not new though, they do it as part of RIDE programs and otherwise. These actions have been accepted but only because the judiciary has taken the position that violation of rights is acceptable if it doesn't target everyone but rather just a demographic and the benefits outweigh the violations - even though one violation is a crime. The idea is crimes are ok to commit as long as crime is prevented as a result. Synopsis, your rights are not protected but illusionary to the extent that people who are in power do not have their rights infringed.

This is not a Johny Do Good reality, it is blood and guts and corrupt. You are just a tool to the man, learn it and don't think you are protected, you are the target. It is a NeoFascist capitalist police state, you are probably so indoctrinated into your cult society you don't even get it.

If you refuse you are the enemy, you are not yielding your rights to the police state so you are a threat. It is that simple.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Never give consent.. Just like NEVER take a breathalizer. They will tell you that if you refuse, your license will be taken for a year. That is true. However, if you submit to a breath test and you are above the limit. They have the evidence against you AND you are still goin to lose your license. At least if you don't take it, they wont have evedence. Now, with that said, don't drink and drive..


----------



## Lifer Prepper (Jun 1, 2014)

I would ask him what law allows him to do that. Also, by searching, you are being detained....


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Lifer Prepper said:


> I would ask him what law allows him to do that. Also, by searching, you are being detained....


The Fourth Amendment is fraught with many misconceptions. A standard theme we see popping up is that warrant less searches are legal and if you don't like it, then don't go into places where they are done. Some people cannot appreciate the Constitution.

In Georgia, the courts have taken a much more constitutional view. They recently passed a law and if you are a _"legal_" gun owner, you can go onto any government property (up to the state level) with your weapon. The only exclusions are government buildings that have x ray machines. That's pretty much a step in the right direction.

In order for the "_search_" to be legal, it must be *reasonable*. The founding fathers of this country disagreed with the sentiment that Rights are granted by a government and subject to the whims of power hungry political propaganda prostitutes. * WHY* this particular law? I'd bet they claim for safety reasons. And, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently stated:

_"He who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety_."

Generally speaking, the moment you begin giving up Liberty under the pretext of Safety, you end up with neither - because...

"_The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground._" -Thomas Jefferson

Let's hope that the OP will go the extra mile and fight this at every level. I'll help if so.

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - The Fourth Amendment


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

I don't always agree with Resister, but in this case it's not a building that I would expect to see any type of search done. It's not like it's the court house or the county jail. And they're searching for drugs? Not weapons? This does not make a lick or sense at all. If you don't mind us asking what city?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Said person is still secure in their person, house, papers, and effects. This is not a mandatory search. The 4th amendment was intended to keep government out of our homes and out of our pockets while in public. Stepping on to private property alters this protection. A property owner can make it a condition for entry that your items be searched. It is not mandatory, as you are always free to leave if you refuse.

Now... this brings up the all important questions:
Was this private property, or property intended for the public use?
If private, what were peace officers doing there at all?
If public, they cannot restrict access simply because you refuse a search.
Being within the public domain, you enjoy full 4th amendment protections.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

firefighter72 said:


> Then how should I go about trying to stop this? And this pool is public but you have to pay to get in. And could it be a state law or something?


"Thank you for the opportunity, Officer, but I'm going to pass. I don't consent to searches. Thank you."





But don't drown while you are there. After passing on the search, I'd expect that any emergency attention you need will be delayed - significantly.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

It was not legal for a Police Officer to search your bag without one of the exceptions to the search warrant rule in place or, a search warrant. Police Officers cannot arbitrarily search just because "There is a drug problem at the pool". That is not one of the exceptions to the search warrant rule recognized by the Supreme Court. You do not waive your 4th amendment privilege just because you want to go swimming. This was a patently illegal search and any proceeds would be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The Pool Staff could probably get away with this, but if they found something, good luck getting a charge to stick. They cannot act as agents of the Police either.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Great vid GT! 
Thanks for that.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Said person is still secure in their person, house, papers, and effects. This is not a mandatory search. The 4th amendment was intended to keep government out of our homes and out of our pockets while in public. Stepping on to private property alters this protection. A property owner can make it a condition for entry that your items be searched. It is not mandatory, as you are always free to leave if you refuse.
> 
> Now... this brings up the all important questions:
> Was this private property, or property intended for the public use?
> ...


I think it's public/city property because I went to fill a job app out and I had to got to city hall to do that.


----------



## StarPD45 (Nov 13, 2012)

firefighter72 said:


> I went to my local pool the other day and the police were searching people's bags, coolers, and anything they were carrying. None of these people gave them permission to do this. When I got up there I asked why they where doing this as he searched my bag(I didn't say anything because I don't know if what he was doing was legal or not and didn't want to make a scene). The cop (who I know and is a coward) said they were having problems with drugs at the pool. Now I'm not real familiar with the laws, but isn't this illegal? I know the police can't search your person with out a warrant or unless you give them permission. Now this pool is owned by the city so wouldn't that make it public property? Can he legally be doing this?


Was it posted at the entrance along with the other rules of the pool? If so, you gave consent by entering.
Otherwise I would say it isn't. 
But of course the law and the constitution don't mean squat to our new "leaders" and their cadre of sycophants.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

The public domain does not automatically bestow us the 4th amendment right. I can give two examples of not:

1) the Oakland Collesium is owned by a public entity (Port Authority) and you want to see a Raiders or A's game your bags will be searched...period
2) Many airports are publicly owned part of transportation authorities or districts - we all know - no one flies without a search.

The rules to a public pool would also apply; the place to argue against it is with the legislative body that controls the pool.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If you said very matter of factly that you do not submit to warrant less searches then they have three choices - they could search your bag anyway - which is a violation of your fourth and fifth amendment rights or they could let you in without the search or they could tell you that you can't enter without the search. If they do not allow you to enter a public facility then you have a civil rights violation whether it is for an unlawful search or not allowing access to a facility just because you exercise your rights.

What people forget is that our rights are natural rights - given by birth and the government has no power to restrict or remove them.

We are all to used to being searched. They have no right to search you without reasonable suspicion or a warrant that expressly lists who and where is to be searched for what. Only on private property can an individual tell you that you must submit or not enter. Private property is property that does not allow the public common access. Your home is private property but your store or movie theater is not. Those are public access properties - even though they might be privately owned.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Your home is private property but your store or movie theater is not. Those are public access properties - even though they might be privately owned.


Can you explain why these types of places may legally restrict my 2nd Amendment rights then?
I've always been under the impression that private property rights trump my rights because I have chosen to go there.
Is this incorrect in your view?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Can you explain why these types of places may legally restrict my 2nd Amendment rights then?
> I've always been under the impression that private property rights trump my rights because I have chosen to go there.
> Is this incorrect in your view?


This is much as about opinion as it is about the law. In GEORGIA, a few years ago a law was passed that allows employees of a corporation to carry legally owned weapons in their vehicle, even if it's on company property. The only way an employer can deny you that opportunity is to keep the parking area off limits via a fence, etc. and allow only employees to use that parking area. Our state law is that your car is an extension of your home.

OTOH, stores can elect to deny you the opportunity to carry a weapon by way of a sign prohibiting firearms. It's really confusing.

IN MY OPINION, the law could be simplified if those corporations were held to the standard that they cannot violate your Fourth Amendment Rights. Why?

Corporations are a fictitious creation of the state. If we are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it would follow that the state has a say in the operations of the corporation. The corporation is not really "_private_" since it was created by the government and corporations get some benefits from the citizenry (like limited liability.) So, why do some state laws treat stores like they're "_private_" when the corporation has no *unalienable Rights* to guarantee? Think not? Can the corporation deny entry to people based upon some classification? By contrast, as a homeowner, you can put up signs prohibiting whites, blacks, Muslims, Atheists, Christians or anyone else onto your property and enforce same.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

mandatory anal cavity searches for everyone. We have had a problem with people sneaking drugs up their keester, so, we will now search everyone's anus, if you want to come to the pool. And if you have nothing to hide, or arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. 
Oh, and some people, have a vagina, and we have had problems with people sneaking drrugs into the pool, so now, mandatory vaginal cavity searches. Jim, you got that maglite?
And, we have some people that drink and drive, so, now, all drivers pull over and submit to a cavity search, vagina search, and blood test.
I have a new answer, to all the police, all th media, everyone, it used to be "its becouse Im black aint it" ( mind you Im white as casper), but I tyhink my new answer to everything is going to be "its becouse Im muslim isnt it?"


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The rights of private property are very different from the rights enforceable on public access property. Some states have granted the owners/managers of public access property the same rights of individually owned private properties. Doesn't make it lawful no matter how legal it might be.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

the police need grounds to search, a dog is more effective in this search

to legality, of you refuse the search, it will give them grounds to enforce a search... its a gray area...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> the police need grounds to search, a dog is more effective in this search
> 
> to legality, of you refuse the search, it will give them grounds to enforce a search... its a gray area...


GT's vid link put that theory to rest. Refusing a search is not grounds to search. Oh, they may do it anyways, but it will be illegal, and anything they find will be inadmissible in court once your lawyer finds out.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> GT's vid link put that theory to rest. Refusing a search is not grounds to search. Oh, they may do it anyways, but it will be illegal, and anything they find will be inadmissible in court once your lawyer finds out.


that's when its your word against them, and after a 5 min assessment a experienced cop will know if your a druggo or a law abiding trouble maker...

but many possible reasons for a search, concealed weapons, drugs, there is another but can't remember it


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> that's when its your word against them, and after a 5 min assessment a experienced cop will know if your a druggo or a law abiding trouble maker...
> 
> but many possible reasons for a search, concealed weapons, drugs, there is another but can't remember it


The only "reason" for a search is reasonable suspicion of a crime. That's it.
If they have reason to believe you are, in fact, committing a crime, they will search you.
Their reason MUST be able to withstand meticulous scrutiny in a court hearing. Their job is on the line.
The rules on searching an arrested individual are a bit fuzzy to me, as you still don't lose your 4th amendment protections just because you have shiny new bracelets, and a warrant SHOULD be necessary, but they never seem to do that first.

Entering a public pool provides them ZERO reason to search.
Entering a known drug house DOES.

I am speaking, of course, of laws in America. If they are different in your country, then this doesn't resolve itself one way or the other.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

both are similar on the topic (from what I gather) 

the only thing is, on such changes here, they will sneak in there, providing its not against your constitution, Australia seems to be a testing ground, we had the anti terror act before the us had the patriot act (both are almost word for word same acts) 

but back to topic, yes you can refuse a search, but when you do naturally the cop will take more interest into you, (I don't know exactly there) but here its law to provide police with name, dob, and address if questioned, failure to do so is a offense... give false is also a offense, but the point is, unless the police officer is been overly picky and looks through your stuff with a fine tooth comb... blending in = less hassles, I bet some of the Leo people here have many stories about the arsehole that refused a search, turns out to be a local level drug dealer, or illegal arms dealer....

when it comes to "can I search your bag?" in a public place, I normally say no but you can have a look inside, (as your in control, the officer may poke, but will leave you be, your both exercising your right, and providing proof your not what he is after) 

my car is always a no, its not a public place (as normally its just you and copper) and they have no need to mess up my messy car  

I hope that clears my view up a little, we have to blend in with the sheep, and not stand out, knowing our rights is one thing exercising them draws unwanted drama and a pair of bracelets

remember the patriot act


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

There does seem to be a slight difference in the way LEOs operate here versus there.
When approached by an officer, I am under no obligation to answer his questions, or even identify myself, unless he is actively pursuing a suspect, and considers me to fit the description.
They don't have the authority to simply stop every person on the street and take down their name/addy/DOB.
Also, refusing a search may indeed raise their suspicions, but that is insufficient to then demand the search anyways. It would never hold up in court.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Kauboy I don't totally agree he does have a right to be at a public building - but subject to the site rules, and instructions by the site authority.

If this search were done by police on their own, he would not have to submit to it for site access.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Will said:


> Kauboy I don't totally agree he does have a right to be a public building - but subject to the site rules, and instructions by the site authority.
> 
> If this search were done by police on their own, he would not have to submit to it for site access.


Sure, but when the officer is prefacing the search based on possible drugs, he is looking to make an arrest on whomever he finds in violation.
He isn't searching for drugs in order to simply turn people away.
Also, if the site is truly "public", then you can't be asked to forego your rights just to be there.


----------



## ordnance21xx (Jan 29, 2014)

firefighter72 said:


> I went to my local pool the other day and the police were searching people's bags, coolers, and anything they were carrying. None of these people gave them permission to do this. When I got up there I asked why they where doing this as he searched my bag(I didn't say anything because I don't know if what he was doing was legal or not and didn't want to make a scene). The cop (who I know and is a coward) said they were having problems with drugs at the pool. Now I'm not real familiar with the laws, but isn't this illegal? I know the police can't search your person with out a warrant or unless you give them permission. Now this pool is owned by the city so wouldn't that make it public property? Can he legally be doing this?


same as collage football games,

MOLON LABE


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Sure, but when the officer is prefacing the search based on possible drugs, he is looking to make an arrest on whomever he finds in violation.
> He isn't searching for drugs in order to simply turn people away.
> Also, if the site is truly "public", then you can't be asked to forego your rights just to be there.


Well pot isn't illegal in all states any more and people can have legitimate reasons for possessing it. Eg. Medical Pot, washington state, Colorado etc..

Other drugs could be prescription, or potentially even allowed for limited other reasons legally. Although this is the exception.

Now as a pool operator I would need to insure no alchohol on site for instance. If I am legally responsible for everyone on site.

Now the local government that operates the pool may use the police or sheriffs office as security - since they are paying for them anyway as a cost saving measure they may use the police as facility security, thus authority for the site would be designated to them to inforce site rules. Their search would be done as part of their site authority, but if illegal actions are occuring such as possession of contraband without lawful grounds then they or in some places anyone can arrest them (if citizens arrest provisions exist in that locality) not just the police.

Citizens arrest by security can occur up here. The legal contexts can get complex but in general, the property authority controls access and grounds of access, if you have no lawful grounds of access then access can be refused. If you commit a crime anywhere you can be arrested, and not only by police in some localities.

None the less the consent to search is never required, but grounds for search may exist, as there are lawful limitations on the constitution due to judicial interpretation of the "Framing" of the constitution, that is what was ment when those articles were made. The context of the constitution is a touchy subject though with a variety of laws. Sadly there are many people who arn't constitutionalists.. even here in Canada, as an Englishman by ancestory (one of my lines and surname) I have the right to bear arms, yet there are gun laws limiting the form of possesion. In the states anyone who may be required to be part of the people's militia has the right to bear arms, but there are laws which infringe due to assignment of powers interpretation that happened in the early years of the federalist movement in the US.

Bottom line, searches are able to be performed if someone wishes to enter or remain on someone elses property. However there is no right to search without lawful grounds if that person leaves the property. A search can be performed but evidence obtained on an illegal search may very well be inadmissable. I don't have much confidence in the justice system though, as I have only see farces of justice up here, and I've only seen the police state in the US so I can't comment on the courts in the states.

You can exercise your right but you got to realize without a firm rule of law it is all rule by force. The law is just a social psychological weapon it won't gaurentee your safety but it is better than nothing. It is a defence, and in a social framework it may be all you have to defend against draconian police state actions.

None the less compliance and cooperation are also defences. Knowing when to use and what the proper defence is can help.

If it ain't his property he is under someone elses rule. That rule however may favour him, or it may oppress and subject him.

The US however is the principle of life and liberty. Sadly we have these contraveries because not everyone adheres to the constitution and is not a constitutionalist. There are federalists, and statists, and so on.

Law is problematic because everyone can judge it.

But the bottom line is I think we can all agree. There was no requirement to consent to a search, and there was no default requirement for the facility to allow access to the pool to people that did not consent to a search by the police.

Personally If I disagreed fundamentally with random searches I wouldn't go there and file my greivance with the pool.

However in general being libertarian I can agree with property rights, and the right to exert authority as long as it doesn't violate fundamental principles of human rights.

IMO though no state organ should be exercising itself in violation of the constitution. Instead of searching bags they should have a no bags on site rule. I'm pretty sure that local government is still an organ of the state, I absolutely hate the one person broke the rule so everyone looses their rights bs.

They should have a no bags rule not a search your bags rule. Bags arn't required at a public pool.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

The reason they are doing this is because they was a stabbing or attempted stabbing over pot. They have had a problem with people smoking pot for a while at this pool. A lot of the white trash, idiots, potheads, drugies, blacks, and other worthless people in society go there. I don't go often unless I know people I know and like/dont mind to be around are there.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> There does seem to be a slight difference in the way LEOs operate here versus there.
> When approached by an officer, I am under no obligation to answer his questions, or even identify myself, unless he is actively pursuing a suspect, and considers me to fit the description.
> They don't have the authority to simply stop every person on the street and take down their name/addy/DOB.
> Also, refusing a search may indeed raise their suspicions, but that is insufficient to then demand the search anyways. It would never hold up in court.


maybe a good idea to check your traffic laws bro, that's where they hid the questioning law, where you have to give your personal details when asked by Leo, same as the Leo has to prove he is a Leo

and there will be slight differences, mainly in additude and culture, but the basic laws are still the same


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

firefighter72 said:


> The reason they are doing this is because they was a stabbing or attempted stabbing over pot. They have had a problem with people smoking pot for a while at this pool. A lot of the white trash, idiots, potheads, drugies, blacks, and other worthless people in society go there. I don't go often unless I know people I know and like/dont mind to be around are there.


what the hell are they putting in your weed?? weed is not a aggressive drug unless.... its laced with ice...
I'm worried for you bro


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Usually the ones that go to the public pools these days are either white trash or ghetto hounds!! Not all but most!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> maybe a good idea to check your traffic laws bro, that's where they hid the questioning law, where you have to give your personal details when asked by Leo, same as the Leo has to prove he is a Leo
> 
> and there will be slight differences, mainly in additude and culture, but the basic laws are still the same


A traffic stop is not the same as stopping me on the sidewalk to find out who I am. He can ask for my license, which has all the needed info, and he can only do that because I have agreed to it by driving under state law authority. If I choose not to drive, he doean't have the same authority.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> what the hell are they putting in your weed?? weed is not a aggressive drug unless.... its laced with ice...
> I'm worried for you bro


I don't think he meant that the weed caused him to want to stab people, but rather the possesion/transaction caused someone to act out violently.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> what the hell are they putting in your weed?? weed is not a aggressive drug unless.... its laced with ice...
> I'm worried for you bro


My weed no sir not at all. I no smoke da crap. But I've herd(from some of the white trash drugies at the hs) that they know were to get weed laced in anything you want right in town, so anything from weed laced with ice meth cocaine heroin and what ever else.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

I think the bigger question here isn't about the police or unconstitutional searches.
I think the bigger question is why da fuq you keep goin ta dis place?

If it were me, I'd have let them have the swimming pool long before the police got involved. Surely that isn't the only hole with water in it in your town.

Don't forget... You are swimming in the same water that touches their assholes. If you wouldn't touch their asshole then why do you swim in the water that does?


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> A traffic stop is not the same as stopping me on the sidewalk to find out who I am. He can ask for my license, which has all the needed info, and he can only do that because I have agreed to it by driving under state law authority. If I choose not to drive, he doean't have the same authority.


be very careful how you look at that, a lot of "hidden" laws are in other acts, that are not directly related to the situation but can be used under those acts and if you refuse its grounds for arrest, just be aware, traffic laws don't just apply to license/permit holders but also to the drunk on the street 

(and like you, I thought traffic act only applies to transport, until I had the same argument, and shown to me in black and white the actual law, and its in a way that doesn't interfere with the right to remain silent as you still have that right, but the police can hold you until your identity is verified)

would love to see a leo comment on this tho as it will confirm it or not


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

firefighter72 said:


> My weed no sir not at all. I no smoke da crap. But I've herd(from some of the white trash drugies at the hs) that they know were to get weed laced in anything you want right in town, so anything from weed laced with ice meth cocaine heroin and what ever else.


was more referring to your area....

a story on weed, weed was very popular in nz, most of the time "organic" but the dealers wanted to make more $$ and ice was new... combine ice with pot and you have a ice dependent population, now ice is the drug of choice there (little story about laced drugs)

in no way it was a reference to you taking the drug (don't care if you do or don't) just a reference to area


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

GTGallop said:


> I think the bigger question here isn't about the police or unconstitutional searches.
> I think the bigger question is why da fuq you keep goin ta dis place?
> 
> If it were me, I'd have let them have the swimming pool long before the police got involved. Surely that isn't the only hole with water in it in your town.
> ...


well said GT, well said


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> be very careful how you look at that, a lot of "hidden" laws are in other acts, that are not directly related to the situation but can be used under those acts and if you refuse its grounds for arrest, just be aware, traffic laws don't just apply to license/permit holders but also to the drunk on the street


If an officer is legally able to stop anyone walking down the sidewalk and ask them for their identification, without cause, then we are right back in Nazi controlled Germany with the SS demanding to see your "papers" to prove your loyalties.
So far, that isn't the case in America.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> If an officer is legally able to stop anyone walking down the sidewalk and ask them for their identification, without cause, then we are right back in Nazi controlled Germany with the SS demanding to see your "papers" to prove your loyalties.
> So far, that isn't the case in America.


do you have party preference on your id?? or sexual preference?? or religion preference??

mine just has my name, date of birth, address and height...... and a I'd number

there is a fine line that clearly you haven't experienced, this is a massively good thing cause you avoid the criminal element in your society, as would the police bother with you??

personally I have only experienced this once in my lifetime, was just in the wrong place at wrong time and the police were on the hunt for a runner...

a lot of police and leo want to enforce your personal rights, and won't abuse the powers they have without good reason, like the pool issue pointed out above...

unfortunately I would stake my left but that there are laws (in the state level) hidden in legislation that give police all kinds of little powers that cover their arse for searches, asking you who you are, and other little violations of your civil "rights"


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> do you have party preference on your id?? or sexual preference?? or religion preference??
> 
> mine just has my name, date of birth, address and height...... and a I'd number
> 
> ...


You stated that, in your situation, the officers were actively pursuing a runner. I assume that implied a "criminal", and therefore they are investigating a crime. *THAT* gives them authority to question anyone around the immediate area. That would be the same here as well.
My entire point is, it is not legal for an officer to pick me out at random, for no reason, and demand my name/addy/DOB. This would be harassment, and a lawsuit with the ACLU would land him in hot water faster than a bullet.
No law gives him any authority over me unless he is enforcing an existing law, as that is his job as a Law Enforcement Officer.
They are not shepherds, we are not sheep. We have appointed them a place in society to see that laws are followed. Not for harassment.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The rights of the individual are more important in the USA than police powers. Their powers are restricted by our rights. However, they will push to try to have you submit to their will and if you do that then you have given them permission. If stopped by a policeman on the street (while walking) he is free to ask any question he wants, lie to you or anything else but you do not have to talk to him unless you are being detained (arrested) then you are free to go. Say politely, "I can't submit to a warrantless search, am I being detained?" If the cop says no then you can walk away, if he says you are being detained then you ask what crime are you accused of. Then you say I am invoking my right to silence (5th amendment protections) and request that my lawyer be present before anything else is asked. Then you shut up. If you say anything at all you just repeat the same thing. Then they have to charge you or let you go. Keep your mouth shut - nobody has ever gone to jail for doing and saying nothing. Don't answer any questions and don't get into a conversation - just keep your mouth shut.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

GTGallop said:


> I think the bigger question here isn't about the police or unconstitutional searches.
> I think the bigger question is why da fuq you keep goin ta dis place?
> 
> If it were me, I'd have let them have the swimming pool long before the police got involved. Surely that isn't the only hole with water in it in your town.
> ...


lmao no it's not the only hole in the ground with water, but it is the only public one. Also I haven't gone back since because of this and my camps coming up. That and it is a $h!t hole. By the time summer is half way of the "water" is just bout all bleach and no joke burns your skin.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They can as requirement to enter. Same as a public school or other property. You have the right to refuse but then entry will also be refused. There is a difference in a building aka pool than a public street.
Nothing new about this. The real question is it good public policy ? That is what needs to be addressed in an in a proper manner.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Yup! it is just a matter of trading your freedom and rights for a false sense of security.

It is unlawful to search without a warrant on any public or public access property. PERIOD!

Yes it is done all over the place to make people feel safer - they aren't but they feel that way.

If you want to make a place or mode of transportation safe allow guns carried by citizens.
If you don't want to be searched the don't allow it.
If you want to repair the damage already done to our rights vote Libertarian.

The bottom line is we don't need the government to protect us - they can protect the nation with their military and leave the protection of individuals to the individual. You don't have have a gun in your home but you should then pay more for insurance because you can't protect yourself or your property.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

firefighter72 said:


> I went to my local pool the other day and the police were searching people's bags, coolers, and anything they were carrying. None of these people gave them permission to do this. When I got up there I asked why they where doing this as he searched my bag(I didn't say anything because I don't know if what he was doing was legal or not and didn't want to make a scene). The cop (who I know and is a coward) said they were having problems with drugs at the pool. Now I'm not real familiar with the laws, but isn't this illegal? I know the police can't search your person with out a warrant or unless you give them permission. Now this pool is owned by the city so wouldn't that make it public property? Can he legally be doing this?


Yes they can search your bag, cooler, etc. it is Constitutional because going to the pool is not mandatory. You can refuse the search by not going to that pool.

This is similar to the drug testing welfare recipients discussion.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Show me, in the constitution where it states that it is OK to search someone who has not committed a crime. The constitution is very explicit.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't say anything about except when it is convenient or when you are going someplace that is undefined. All warrantless searches are unlawful - no mater if they are legal or not.

(all it takes to make it legal is to pass a law - but it is still an unlawful act)


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> You stated that, in your situation, the officers were actively pursuing a runner. I assume that implied a "criminal", and therefore they are investigating a crime. *THAT* gives them authority to question anyone around the immediate area. That would be the same here as well.
> My entire point is, it is not legal for an officer to pick me out at random, for no reason, and demand my name/addy/DOB. This would be harassment, and a lawsuit with the ACLU would land him in hot water faster than a bullet.
> No law gives him any authority over me unless he is enforcing an existing law, as that is his job as a Law Enforcement Officer.
> They are not shepherds, we are not sheep. We have appointed them a place in society to see that laws are followed. Not for harassment.


just a random example, but would you refuse giving that information, and how do you know that there was a runner or the cop was full of $hit??

and anyone has the right to ask you anything, you have the right to refuse, with Leo they have a few little extra powers (like if you give false information) to detain you, I'm sure I'm not quite wording it right, but as I said and put my left nut on, there are little hidden points written into law where there are some things you have to tell police, reasonable grounds (define that one??) for searches, so on and so forth, these laws are all over western society, same as the us 4th amendment, (written into law in oz) but some well worded legislation can infringe on those rights, this goes into gray areas, like accepting a search at a pool


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I have refused to give that information. i had found a "Slim Jim" (burglary tool) on a walk and was walking home. It was in plain view and the cops drove by and I figured they would stop - they did. They asked about it and I told them I had found it and where. When asked for ID I said that I had done nothing wrong and I didn't need to give them any information unless I was under arrest. They asked if they could have the tool and I said sure - I had two more at home and used them to help folks out who were locked out of their cars - I did tell them I was a mechanic. They were satisfied and they had a tool to help out folks who locked themselves out of their cars. The use is taught at the academy - I took part in some training with a friend when they needed another body for classes to keep them from being cancelled.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

pheniox17 said:


> just a random example, but would you refuse giving that information, and how do you know that there was a runner or the cop was full of $hit??
> 
> and anyone has the right to ask you anything, you have the right to refuse, with Leo they have a few little extra powers (like if you give false information) to detain you, I'm sure I'm not quite wording it right, but as I said and put my left nut on, there are little hidden points written into law where there are some things you have to tell police, reasonable grounds (define that one??) for searches, so on and so forth, these laws are all over western society, same as the us 4th amendment, (written into law in oz) but some well worded legislation can infringe on those rights, this goes into gray areas, like accepting a search at a pool


I'm not requesting your left nut...
You can keep it.
As Paul and I have stated, there is no law requiring us to identify ourselves at random. If the officer wishes to bullshit me and lie about investigating a crime, then that is on him and will come back to bite him BIG TIME if he presses the issue. Lawyers love lying cops.


----------

