Group Molestation Is Not A Substitute For Probable Cause-Based Law Enforcement
I just got back from the big annual ev psych conference, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference, which, sadly, was held in Boise, Idaho.
Nothing against Boise -- the place was pretty and the people were really nice. But, because I had to fly there, I had to go through our phony "security" show at LAX and in Boise on the way back.
After Allahfests like the horrible attack in London, TSA workers tend to get a little smugger than usual about the work they're doing -- which basically involves picking one by one through every individual piece of hay in a haystack instead of just getting out a fucking metal detector to see whether there are any needles.
As I said something aloud about their 95 percent failure rate (once I was "safely" on the other side of the gropenfraus), a male TSA worker said, "Oh, that isn't the case anymore."
Sorry -- did I miss that bit where all the repurposed mall food court workers in cop-esque costumes lost their jobs and were replaced by the cream of the crop of the FBI and CIA?
What I've long felt (and written) would happen -- a continuing degradation of our rights -- is happening. This is thanks, at least in part, to what blinking sheep most Americans have become over having their bodies and Fourth Amendment rights violated without probable cause.
Oh, and P.S. At the airport, anyone who can survive this blog's comments section without bursting into tears or needing an emergency visit at their therapist is smart enough to smuggle something incendiary onto a plane...without going through the TSA or maybe even while doing it.
And back to the general creeping erosion of our rights, the latest case of groping as a substitute for probable cause-based policing comes out of a Georgia high school.
At the Free Thought Project, Matt Agorist writes that an entire high school was groped by the cops:
Worth County, GA -- Violated children and furious parents have just filed a massive lawsuit after the Worth County Sheriff's office conducted an illegal search of 900 students -- in the name of the war on drugs. The rights-violating intrusive and aggressive patdowns and drug dog searches at the school yielded absolutely nothing....Naturally, Sheriff Jeff Hobby is standing by this rights violation on a massive scale, noting that as long as a school administrator was present, the search of the children was legal.
Apparently, in the sheriff's mind, school administrators can usurp the constitutional rights of children in favor of unlawful police searches.
But school officials and the student rule book disagree.
In the student handbook, it says school officials may search a student only if there is reasonable suspicion the student has an illegal item.
As WALB reported at that time, Worth County Schools attorney Tommy Coleman said in order for the Sheriff's office to search any students, they'd had to have reason to believe there was some kind of criminal activity or the student had possession of contraband or drugs.
"We did not give permission but they didn't ask for permission, he just said, the sheriff, that he was going to do it after spring break," said [Superintendent Lawrence] Walters.
"Under no circumstances did we approve touching any students," explained Walters.
Adding insult to injury, many students complained that they got far more than just a pat down.
According to the complaint,
Defendants' searches of students were intrusive, performed in an aggressive manner, and done in full view of other students.
For example:
a) Deputies ordered students to stand facing the wall with their hands and legs spread wide apart;b) Deputies touched and manipulated students' breasts and genitals;
c) Deputies inserted fingers inside girls' bras, and pulled up girls' bras, touching and partially exposing their bare breasts.
d) Deputies touched girls' underwear by placing hands inside the waistbands of their pants or reaching up their dresses;
e) Deputies touched girls' vaginal areas through their underwear;
f) Deputies cupped or groped boys' genitals and touched their buttocks through their pants.
g). Defendants had no warrant or other authority to perform a mass search on hundreds of public school children.
Is this a search or a sex crime painted in law enforcement colors?
Also, probably not a hard choice for those of you with kids: Would you rather have your daughter or son groped by some stranger cop or allow some kid with the butt of a joint in his backpack to go free?
via ifeminists
Hmm. "Constitutional rights of children."
Which are those?
Please do not confuse this question with approval of the search. I ask to expose muddy thinking on this idea.
Radwaste at June 5, 2017 3:52 AM
So, we teach these kids that they have Constitutional rights and then violate them regularly. No wonder they're confused about Freedom of Speech and willing to give it up for "hate speech."
And no wonder they're so blasé about the violation of their rights as adults, violations of rights of which they're only vaguely aware; and not really sure they ever really had.
Conan the Grammarian at June 5, 2017 4:45 AM
> No wonder they're confused
> about Freedom of Speech
That's a sensational point. The First Amendment takes a punch no matter what.
Crid at June 5, 2017 5:49 AM
Hmm. "Constitutional rights of children."
Which are those?
All of them? they may not have full rights of citizenship, but they are citizens. Not to mention the rights of their parents. Also, more than a few are 18 or emancipated, and have full rights.
Hold on, let's see...
Nope, not seeing any age requirement. Also, this is akin to a writ of assistance, one of the grievances that fueled the revolution against Britain all those years ago.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 5, 2017 6:07 AM
Even though the constitutional rights of children are vague from a legal standpoint (and it depends to an extent how old the children are), I can't see the search of 900 people, without a warrant or probable cause, standing up in court. My guess is that the county will offer some kind of settlement to try to make the whole thing go away quietly. I'm kind of surprised that the sheriff's office didn't use some high-false-positive field test kits to try to get a spectacular for a press release. Or just plant evidence. That would have been very easy to do, and who's going to believe the word of a teenager against a sheriff?
And: I'm amazed that the idea that random search is an effective security measure continues to gain credence in the security industry, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Cousin Dave at June 5, 2017 6:39 AM
It seems that what we have here is a group of armed and dangerous sex offenders.
NickM at June 5, 2017 6:51 AM
"Nope, not seeing any age requirement."
Good example of the muddy thinking I seek to expose.
See, parents can deny children all sorts of things - and government routinely denies children the exercise of rights in which they are expected to be incompetent.
"All of them?"
Perhaps a reading of the Bill of Rights is in order, as a refresher of what those rights guaranteed but not granted by government might be.
Now that you've cited the 4th Amendment, perhaps you could reconcile the difference between one's house and school property. As it is, police have apparently taken the TSA view: you want to be here, be here on our terms.
Radwaste at June 5, 2017 9:31 AM
The term you're looking for is in loco parentis.
That falls to the school in the actual absence of the parents or legal guardians. Wait for it...
Now that you've cited the 4th Amendment, perhaps you could reconcile the difference between one's house and school property.
That's easy. The school reserves the right to search anything and anyone according to their rules:
The school must ask for the search to be done, either by their own personnel, school resource officer or other convenient LEO.
The amusing thing: any contraband found would not be admissible into evidence.
The best way to drive this message home will be unelect the sheriff in question. Interested parties might come up with catchy slogans like "I won't let my deputies molest your children" and "probable cause isn't just a good idea, it's the law".
I R A Darth Aggie at June 5, 2017 10:37 AM
Now that you've cited the 4th Amendment, perhaps you could reconcile the difference between one's house and school property. As it is, police have apparently taken the TSA view: you want to be here, be here on our terms.
So what you are saying is persons, papers, and effects, of citizens are school property?
Are the children, and their private property still school property at their parents house? What about over the summer, and on breaks? Are children school property even then?
lujlp at June 5, 2017 11:29 AM
I'm glad that several of the students are participating in a class action suit against the sheriff's department and the sheriff and some of the deputies individually. What I fear is that the suit will be settled with the sheriff's department admitting to "overreaching" and apologizing. That won't have any effect of the behavior of arrogant or creepy cops. I'm hoping that the sheriff's department, the sheriff and the deputies involved all end up fired and with monetary judgments against them big enough to significantly impact their standard of living. That would motivate other cops to learn and care more about rights of the people and the laws, regulations, standards and principles that apply to their profession. They don't care about any of that as long as they can get away with almost anything.
Ken R at June 5, 2017 3:05 PM
Was this some kind of prize for the best cops that year?
Alan at June 5, 2017 8:44 PM
And as always, when Rad is exposed for the fool he is, he just doubles down.
In a moment of supreme idiocy, when our esteemed hostess said, "Children have rights, too," Rad sagely peeped, "Children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution."
Children are not handled separately in the Constitution. They are not treated as a separate category. They are citizens, as much as any adult. Yes, they have rights. Their parents are simply the protectors and executors of those rights.
So, tell us all, Raddy, where are children even mentioned in the Constitution, much less as being set apart as not having the rights of all citizens as stated in the Constitution? And where does the Constitution say that one has to attain the age of majority before becoming a citizen, or claiming any of the rights of citizens?
Well, as I pointed out to this braindead last time, there is the extremely awkward fact that three children sued their school in 1965, and won.
In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, John F. Tinker (age 15), Christopher Eckhardt (age 16), and Mary Beth Tinker (age 13, sister to John F. Tinker), these ambitious children sued for the right to wear their armbands in protest of the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.
The schools imposed a policy that said that any student found with an armband would be ordered to remove it and non-compliance would result in suspension until such time as they removed the armband.
Fortas, delivering the opinion of the Court, said,
What's this??? Children have First Amendment rights? And Fourteenth Amendment rights? But according to Mr. Know-It-All Rad, children don't have Constitutional rights. Never mind that the Constitution never once even mentions children and states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, without reference to their age.
Then there is the awkward fact that children brought this suit to the Supreme Court and won. Which means they also have the right bring suit.
Which is more rights than Dred Scott had, when SCOTUS ruled that he, as a black man (and that meant any black person, slave or free) had no right to sue in court for any reason.
Rad, you are clinging to an idea that was impressed upon you God-knows-when. And you simply can't admit that it's completely false. My advice to you is to stop making an ignorant jackass of yourself and quit trying to promote an idea that you know is a lie.
If you still want to claim that children don't have rights in the Constitution, show me where children are even mentioned in the Constitution. Show where it says in the Constitution that citizenship and the rights extended by citizenship aren't realized until attaining the age of majority.
And show me where the Supreme Court reversed the Tinker decision which plainly acknowledges children's right to petition the courts for a redressing of grievances and First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Or show me which Constitutional Amendment has overturned this.
Patrick at June 7, 2017 9:09 PM
So much hate, Patrick. It poisons you.
As I pointed out before, children have guardians in the form of parents or the State. Clearly, they cannot bear arms; clearly, they cannot enter into contracts.
What I asked for is an examination of the bill of rights.
You failed, mostly because of confusion about the very nature of rights.
Radwaste at June 8, 2017 5:51 AM
No, Rad. You failed, and will continue to do so.
And the only thing that is poisoning anyone here is your willful ignorance. And it's absolutely cringeworthy to watch. You are married to the idea that children have no rights. Even when confronted with evidence from the Supreme Court itself that children do have Constitutional rights, you still can't admit that you're wrong.
Does SCOTUS not understand the very nature of rights? They're the ones who say children have rights. I guess the Supreme Court of the United States will have to consult you from now on, since you obviously know more about the nature of rights than they do.
And your idea that parents withhold rights from their children is idiotic. Yes, since parents are the protectors and executors of the children's rights, they can forbid certain things, such as using naughty words.
However, that doesn't change the fact that children cannot be punished under law for exercising free speech. Yes, parents may choose to punish their children for saying certain things, but they can't have their kids arrested for speech.
So, no, parents do not and cannot withhold rights from children.
You failed, because rather than admit you're wrong, you'd sooner claim that you understand the nature of rights over the Supreme Court. Do you not see how utterly insane and megalomanical that is?
Patrick at June 8, 2017 6:10 PM
Patrick, I have no idea why you don't or won't notice that children are incompetent.
Please be sure to read this Goddess post, especially the part about "Teenagers are still minors in the eyes of the court."
Their guardians exercise rights.
That's the whole point, which you have missed.
Radwaste at June 16, 2017 5:18 PM
Leave a comment