North Carolina town calls snow emergency, so Fourth Amendment is suspended...

[benEzra]

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_14.html

The relevant portion begins at 14-288.1; the statute in question is 14-288.11. It authorizes police checkpoints and vehicle searches without probable cause during declared crises (of any sort, including drought, rain, snow, terrah, or whatever). The statute is under Article 36A, RIOTS AND CIVIL DISORDERS, and was passed in 1969 so that anyone of the "wrong" color approaching town could be searched with no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, if the white folks felt threatened.

I decided to post this in a separate thread to see if the "throw the Bill of Rights out the window, the SNOW is falling" people are OK with this, too. The 4th Amendment doesn't actually have a Drought, Snowfall, White Flight, and Terrah exception clause, but plenty of people here seem to share the Bush Administration's penchant for abridging the Bill of Rights whenever someone can articulate an ad hoc justification for doing so, and I was wondering how deeply that mindset goes.

[stray cat]

1. I think segregating anyone with a contagious lethal disease is wrong

There is never a good reason for inhibiting someones freedom even if it means they spread a disease that kills millions. I guess this would be the other extreme and I'm sure there are some that agree that it is never ok to infringe on someones freedom.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Quarantining someone for medical reasons is not okay?

If they knowingly avoided being quarantined because they had a deadly communicable disease it would be murder.

[benEzra]

5. Yeah, because in the OP, I'm griping about quarantining people for contagious lethal diseases.

:eyes:

That's sort of like justifying surveillance of people's library book choices because "having our cities nuked is bad, so ANY infringement in the name of fighting Terrah is OK".

The fact that quarantines may be necessary in extremely rare and limited circumstances that would pass a strict-scrutiny constitutional challenge does not mean that ALL restrictions are justifiable. In this case, declaring the 2nd and 4th Amendments to be null and void because it's snowing (but the power is still on), or because some farmers' crops are dying because it hasn't rained in a while, is a really bad idea.

[rd_kent]

7. You forgot your sarcasm tag, or did you?

[Euromutt]

12. You completely missed that "without probable cause" bit, didn't you?

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are by no means inviolable, but the BoR specifies at several turns that there has to be a damn good reason for a right to be violated, and that the determination of whether the reason is good cannot be left to the agency carrying out the violation.

Thus, the people have the right to be secure in the persons and possessions against unreasonable search and seizure; people and their possessions may be searched, and even seized, but there has to be at least reasonable suspicion that the person searched is in the process of committing an offense, and failing that, the cops have to get a warrant from a judge.

Similarly, under the Fifth Amendment, people can be deprived of life, liberty and/or property, but only via due process of law. Generally, that means it requires a court order, but in the case of quarantining someone infected with a contagious lethal disease, the decision of a medical professional would be more appropriate.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Holy shit.

I don't know what else to say.

[LiberalFighter]

4. It probably has never been challenged.

I see no justified reason to search any vehicle they choose during natural disaster type of emergencies without cause. The white folks at the time thought they were smart by creating this statute.

[SteveM]

6. Yep, search & seizure, Jim Crow-style. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. K&R

:hi:



:kick:

[JoeyT]

9. Someone will gleefully defend it.

Someone will defend anything, no matter how bad.

[benEzra]

10. If they do, they're saying Cheney and Gonzales were right...

that as long as someone in authority articulates a plausible reason, then arbitrary abridgements of the Bill of Rights are perfectly acceptable for the greater good. I happen to disagree with that philosophy, but a disturbing number of people seem to agree with it.

[Bold Lib]

11. Damn, didn't realize on how many levels this is wrong! K & R!!!

[farmout rightarm]

13. At first blush, this doesn't look materially different from random sobriety checkpoints

which were declared constitutional years ago by the SC. They're common all over the country and of course are a catch-all (so to speak) for revenue enhancement...
shrug

editing---just to be clear, I'm NOT defending this, I think it's abominable...was just pointing out what might be considered precedent or stare decisis maybe!

[PavePusher]

14. With the very material difference...

that bearing arms is specificaly a Constitutionally protected Right, and drunk driving is not. And having declared a "state of Emergency" is the P.C. way of saying "We can't help you, you'll have to tough it out..." and then making sure it's as hard as possible.

[farmout rightarm]

15. Sure, that's exactly right but in many ways the sobriety checkpoints are even MORE

egregious because they don't even have the pretense of an 'emergency' to justify them. I think we're dealing with infringement of TWO parts of the bill of rights here and I don't like either one for shit. grr.

[PavePusher]

19. Well, I do agree with you intellectualy.

Emotionally, having been hit by drunk drivers twice, well... I can understand the emotional side of the issue. But I am capable of staying rational about it, and believe that Civil Rights trump perceived "safety" every time. Makes for some sleepless nights on occasion.

[Euromutt]

16. I'm happy (and somewhat proud) to say Washington state prohibits "sobriety checkpoints"

And governor Gregoire did not score any brownie points with me when she tried again to get the legislature to accept them a year or two ago.

Still, with "sobriety checkpoints" there is at least some justification (not enough, in my opinion, but some) in that operating a motor vehicle on public roads implies consent to BAC testing (and you learn this in the written driver's test); it does not imply consent to a search of vehicle and occupants.

[farmout rightarm]

17. Good for Washington, I didn't know that...and I drive there sometimes.

I do 'get' the marginal justification, it's understandable but it is not an absurd stretch to envision someone
extrapolating the principle to claim at some point "he lives on a public street which implies consent to show he is not in possession of contraband" (another convenient catch-all)

[paulsby]

18. it's differnt

sobriety checkpoints (which btw are unconstitutional in my state, but we have a right to privacy), only justify a seizure. not a search