Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!
T asks: I’ve been saying for years that one should treat AGWs like vampires. Never look at them or invite them into your house. So now that they are actually in the business of blood-letting here is my question: Does a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provide an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement?
My reply: If precedent is any guide, it likely will.
In my opinion – based on the plain meaning of the language – the Fourth Amendment is already a nullity. It clearly and very specifically prohibits “unreasonable” searches absent “probable cause” that an individual has committed a crime.
The entire Bill of Rights is predicated upon the rights of individuals contra the government.
I cannot imagine anything less “reasonable” than stopping/searching people at random, in the absence of any probable cause whatsoever. Yet it is now routinely done, at roadside “checkpoints,” where one is compelled to prove to the satisfaction of an armed government worker that one isn’t “drunk” and is a licensed/insured driver – absent any reason at all to suspect the driver of being “drunk” or not being a licensed/insured driver.
Logically, it certainly follows that if the government can subject people at random – and absent any probable cause – to prove they are not “drunk” via interrogation, coordination testing by the roadside or by “analyzing” their breath – then why should their body fluids be off limits?
Conscious or not?
Indeed, I can see no reason – based on the logic of the law as it is – why armed government workers ought not to be empowered to conduct random body cavity searches (vaginas, anuses) since “someone” might be hiding arbitrarily illegal drugs or weapons in those orifices.
Nor why AGWs ought not to be endowed with power to conduct random spot checks of our homes and computers, too. In order to check for – well, anything that might be illegal.
If someone can explain why not – given what the courts and the laws already allow – I’d love to hear it.
…
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. 
Sadly, many idiots have no concept of the worth of the Fourth Amendment; cops routinely use ignorance and/or intimidation (“what do you have to HIDE?” or “why the ATTITUDE?” when one refuses to consent to a search of his vehicle/home/person). In not a few cases, they will dispense with consent and just enter and search anyway, hopefully not giving you a gratuitous while bellowing “Stop resisting!” as you receive blows on the ground w/o any ‘resistance’, or arresting you on charges of assault/battery of a peace officer and/or ‘obstruction’. This is why in ANY encounter with an AGW, record, Record, RECORD. Sure, many will get pissed about THAT, and will (illegally) retaliate in spite of numerous laws and court decisions affirming the absolute right of citizens to record peace officers in performance of their duties.
Again, cops love to use intimidation and ignorance on their prey. A common retort to a refusal to allow entry and search by the cops at your door: “We’ll just get a warrant”. In most cases, IF probable cause already existed, they’d have the warrant in hand, and you’d be sitting on your couch, handcuffed, with a cop of the warrant beside you, while the cops toss your place in search of what the warrant is supposed to specify. (NOTE: their search is supposed to be limited to areas that could reasonably conceal the item(s) listed, so, for example, if they had a complaint that you’d stolen a bicycle, and there was reason to believe that it was at your home, they could look in any room or shed that could hold the bike, but, if they start pulling drawers and dumping them out, or opening up shoe boxes, then likely your attorney, if they find a joint or a hash pipe, will get that charge tossed on the basis that the police exceeded the scope of the warrant. Search and seizure law is FLUID, though, and it’s amazing how much judges allow the cops to get away with). So, if the cop gets huffy and frustrated b/c you won’t cave in on your 4A rights, well, tough. In fact, unless you’re already under arrest (or you’re a probationer or parolee with the condition that your residence is subject to search 24/7 w/o notice), you can politely shut the door and refuse any further interaction with the doughnut scarfer. Sure, they’ll get mad, and pound and pound and demand that you “talk”, but have no more right to demand that you communicate with them anymore than we mundanes.
The last reason to NEVER permit an unwarranted search (NOTE: I’m not discussing ‘exigent’ warrantless searches, and, yes, these ‘exigences’ are frequently abused) is simple: Too many cops are ‘dirty’! E.g., remember that they’re bureaucrats with badges, and picked from the “hew-mon” race. More than a few, especially if they don’t like your attitude (or you’re banging his ex-girlfriend) will happily plant contraband on your premises or in your car. This is why my main ride has a “raspberry Pi” connected to several cameras, one covers, for example, the trunk, and activates recording (you can get a LOT of video on a 64 Gb SD card) when the trunk lid opens. Sure, since that “Pi” has a Bluetooth, it can use my phone’s 4G or WiFi, if in range, and upload to the “cloud”, but that’s not readily available in some places I go, like the hinterlands of Nevada! Both the camera and the Pi aren’t readily found (the latter being in a hidden compartment), so the chances that, in event of fuckery by the cops, these items that potentially would hold exculpatory evidence would escape their attention. It might seem paranoid, but it was a cost-effective solution for peace of mind in dealing with the “heroes”.
“If someone can explain why not – given what the courts and the laws already allow – I’d love to hear it.”
Because Hillary Clinton wanted to run an email server. If she had run it on AWS or at her office, it wouldn’t have been protected by the 4th amendment. So she set it up at her house.
There’s a lot of big mansions in this world. A lot of stuff happens in those mansions that isn’t able to be discovered since there’s not enough evidence to go to court. A lot of horrible stuff that rich people want to keep private. Just look at what little gets out and realize none of these people ever feel remorse or guilt (or the churches would be full of repentant billionaires).
If it makes it a little harder for the DA to convict because of how evidence was acquired, that’s ok by them. Your public defender is probably going to recommend a plea deal anyway.
RK,
“Your public defender is probably going to recommend a plea deal anyway.”
Probably?
A bit optimistic isn’t it?
Your low/medium/high priced private (lol) counsel will also have you allocute.
You wouldn’t be in court if you weren’t guilty of something. Just ask Edwin Meese.
A great Star Wars parody on YouTube, “TROOPS” (mimicking the format of the long-running “blue porn” show ‘COPS’), follows a detachment of Imperial Storm Troopers on mundane law enforcement duties. The intro’s “disclaimer”…”All suspects are GUILTY! PERIOD! If they weren’t guilty, they wouldn’t be ‘suspects’!”
Life has well-imitated art.
https://youtu.be/5HO70-Rk3jE
“All suspects are guilty… otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects, would they?”
I worked with a guy in the early 80s who said he didn’t think the cops should even need a warrant to search a house.
I pointed out that many sex acts were still illegal in Texas. Do you really want the cops in your bedroom?, I asked. He had no reply.