What are our rights when being "searched"?

[Bini]

I'm curious as to what our rights are when it comes to being searched and having our personal belongings searched. I heard from someone that security guards at stores legally cannot search you, however, if they suspect theft they can detain you until police officers arrive. I wanted to note, I have seen security guards stop shoppers that have set off the alarm, and do a search. I'm guessing, if it is illegal for them to do this, the shoppers were not aware of their rights? Or didn't care I suppose.. And how is this different from going to a museum, and waiting to be "checked" by security before entering? I know that airports conduct searches in the name of national security, and pretty much everyone is at the mercy of being patted-down or scanned. So as civilians, what are our rights in these situations? Not sure why I included the airport in this, I don't think we have any rights when it comes to check points. Even when I was 6.5 months pregnant, they gave me the option of being patted-down or going through the scanner - I was advised by my OB to avoid scanners and so I opted for the pat-down by a female TSA.

[Dravin]

I wanted to note, I have seen security guards stop shoppers that have set off the alarm, and do a search. I'm guessing, if it is illegal for them to do this, the shoppers were not aware of their rights? Or didn't care I suppose.

You'll run into this a lot with labor laws. Ignorance can be two sided or it can be one sided with someone like an employer knowing they are violating the law but counting on their employees either not knowing the behavior is illegal or not wanting to rock the boat for various reasons. The two sided bit is simply neither employer or employee are aware that laws are being broken.

And how is this different from going to a museum, and waiting to be "checked" by security before entering? I know that airports conduct searches in the name of national security, and pretty much everyone is at the mercy of being patted-down or scanned. So as civilians, what are our rights in these situations?

One thing to keep in mind is in one situation you are trying to enter somewhere, baring airport security when they've already decided to search you, you can leave before the search is conducted. If they're stopping you on the way out though, there really isn't a chance to say, "Eh, I changed my mind."

Keep in mind what exactly your rights are is a bit of a morass and in flux due to court decisions and law. For instance, Indiana had a court decision where it was determine if police were, perceived to be, illegally entering your home you couldn't resist, that was changed by Indiana passing a law essentially giving you the right to resist. I'm not sure that example is strictly search and seizure territory but it demonstrate how talking about rights on such a topic in anything but the most broad terms is a tricky business.

[Guest]

Laws differ by State.

But generally -

Private domain (your house, your car, your body) can only be searched if there's reasonable cause, a warrant is issued, or you give consent.

Federal or State buildings may conduct searches before entry to the building under Homeland Security.

Private businesses and properties my conduct searches before entry to the property if you are notified of the security procedure before hand (usually in some sign somewhere in the entrance or printed on your entry ticket or displayed when you purchased the ticket under Terms of Agreement or some such, in fine print on your membership application, etc).

[rameumptom]

If the individual consents to a search, the security guards can do the search. Otherwise, they wait the police.

[Just_A_Guy]

If the individual consents to a search, the security guards can do the search. Otherwise, they wait the police.

Right. Though, when the police get there, the testimony of the witness who saw the suspect take the item or heard the alarm go off will give the police probable cause to search me anyways.

If I were a crook, I'd almost rather it be the store that searched me. Lots easier to make a case that the store manager doesn't like me, than to make a case that the cops set me up.

[Bini]

Just thought of something. Can you refuse to be searched by a cop of the opposite gender? I think I already know the answer from what I've seen on TV but then again, how much of that stuff can you really trust? Lol..

[annewandering]

Can an adult child give permission for your property to be searched? I am thinking of the instance where my son had car trouble in our car. The cops insisted he was drunk or stoned. (He wasnt) He has familial tremors so they thought he was scared. Anyway he told them to search the car for drugs or alcohol. They did find an old dried up stem from flowers I bought and insisted they were drugs. lol. Anyway, did he have the right to tell them they could search the car?

[Dravin]

Can an adult child give permission for your property to be searched? I am thinking of the instance where my son had car trouble in our car. The cops insisted he was drunk or stoned. (He wasnt) He has familial tremors so they thought he was scared. Anyway he told them to search the car for drugs or alcohol. They did find an old dried up stem from flowers I bought and insisted they were drugs. lol. Anyway, did he have the right to tell them they could search the car?

This paper, from the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, gives a decent overview of third part consent for a search complete with citations: http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/THIRDPARTYCONSENT.pdf

It's 16 pages but a substantial portion of the length is citation. The short answer, from the above, is:

CONSENT BY CAR OWNERS

The owner of a vehicle, or a person who has the owner’s permission to drive it, may ordinarily permit officers to search it because he has a right to joint access and control.

[annewandering]

ok that makes sense and is probably pretty prevalent through the states. doesnt mean I agree with it however. lol.

[skalenfehl]

This website offers a lot of very good information:

How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

An excellent video to watch as well:

Great for educating yourself regarding your 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights.

[IamMe]

This website offers a lot of very good information:

How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

An excellent video to watch as well:

Great for educating yourself regarding your 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights.

Those are really good videos they put out, in my opinion. A lot of it still applies here in Canada & teach you how to exercise your rights without being arrogant or rude but still not rolling over to the police.

Edited August 8, 2012 by IamMe

[skalenfehl]

A search on youtube shows how many police officers cannot uphold the Constitution here in the US because of their ignoarance/lack of education, despite any good intentions they may have. Here are some samples of good and bad:

One Good Cop - YouTube

Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012 - YouTube

And this is how police officers should conduct themselves, as should law abiding citizens of the US:

Oceanside open carry - YouTube

Police officers and politicians swear an oath. That means they ought to keep and uphold their oaths.

[classylady]

It doesn't bother me when I go through security at an airport--I can see a necessity for it. But, and I know this seems rather tame in comparison to police and security searches, I was rather annoyed that employees searched our bags when we went to a water park. They were making sure we weren't bringing in any outside food or drink. Is there a legal precedent that they are allowed to do this?

[Guest]

It doesn't bother me when I go through security at an airport--I can see a necessity for it. But, and I know this seems rather tame in comparison to police and security searches, I was rather annoyed that employees searched our bags when we went to a water park. They were making sure we weren't bringing in any outside food or drink. Is there a legal precedent that they are allowed to do this?

Yes. It's called "My house, my rules. You don't like it, you're free to leave." If you want to go to my house and I want to search you before you walk in my door, I am completely in my right to do so. Same with a waterpark. Or a movie theater. Or the stadium. Or Disney.

[mnn727]

The problem with airports is the (so-called) Patriot Act has superceded the Constitution and the Supreme Court has allowed it.

The Signing into law of the (so-called) Patriot Act was the beginning of the end of this country.

[Guest]

The problem with airports is the (so-called) Patriot Act has superceded the Constitution and the Supreme Court has allowed it.

The Signing into law of the (so-called) Patriot Act was the beginning of the end of this country.

Incorrect.

#1.) The Patriot Act has nothing to do with airports.

#2.) The Patriot Act may have problems but, since we haven't had any major terrorist incidences in US soil, US embassies, and/or US military installations, I'd say it helped prevent the end of this country more than it began to end it.

[NeuroTypical]

A search on youtube shows how many police officers cannot uphold the Constitution here in the US because of their ignoarance/lack of education, despite any good intentions they may have. Here are some samples of good and bad:

One Good Cop - YouTube

Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012 - YouTube

And this is how police officers should conduct themselves, as should law abiding citizens of the US:

Oceanside open carry - YouTube

Oh man. Open carry yay-hoos. What a bunch of children. They remind me of my 8 yr old daughter lecturing me on what's fair and what isn't. Except they're using deadly weapons to prove their juvenile points.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[annewandering]

Incorrect.

#1.) The Patriot Act has nothing to do with airports.

#2.) The Patriot Act may have problems but, since we haven't had any major terrorist incidences in US soil, US embassies, and/or US military installations, I'd say it helped prevent the end of this country more than it began to end it.

I dont mean to be nitpicky but there is no proven cause and effect here. We did have resources before. The searches in airports are a direct effect of the Patriot act but may have been instituted anyway.

[Guest]

I dont mean to be nitpicky but there is no proven cause and effect here. We did have resources before. The searches in airports are a direct effect of the Patriot act but may have been instituted anyway.

No it is not. The airport searches are a direct effect of the Twin Towers falling down. The ariport searches are instituted under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. A completely different bill.

And yes, we have resources before that did not prevent two attacks on the towers, a handful of embassies, and the USS Cole. The USS Cole. Can you imagine the implication of that? You have terrorists who CAN and HAS blown up a US military vessel. Not just any vessel either. A Navy Destroyer!

[annewandering]

No it is not. The airport searches are a direct effect of the Twin Towers falling down. The ariport searches are instituted under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. A completely different bill.

And yes, we have resources before that did not prevent two attacks on the towers, a handful of embassies, and the USS Cole. The USS Cole. Can you imagine the implication of that? You have terrorists who CAN and HAS blown up a US military vessel. Not just any vessel either. A Navy Destroyer!

I dont know if you noticed but the so called patriots act was a result of the twin towers as well. Everything that is done now to investigate terrorists is done under that act including searches. Along with a lot that is just gathering information that might in some distant time and land be useful in some way to them. for those that have not figured out the sarcasm yes that last line was some.

I might agree that if we had the patriot act in place a lot longer ago we might not have had the twin towers incident. Instead we would have had domestic 'terrorism' from our citizens rebelling against tyranny. I would have been out there with my guns terrorizing our government in that case too. Might still be if things dont change for the better instead of the worse.

oh and jjust a side comment. the twin towers didnt fall down. they were knocked down. Nothing passive about it.

[skalenfehl]

Oh man. Open carry yay-hoos. What a bunch of children. They remind me of my 8 yr old daughter lecturing me on what's fair and what isn't. Except they're using deadly weapons to prove their juvenile points.

Why are they yay-hoos and what are their juvenile points? I'm curious to know your position more clearly.

[NeuroTypical]

Their juvenile point is "I can carry a gun out in the open and you can't stop me because I know my rights so neener-neener." They are yay-hoos because they are using a deadly weapon as a tool in their desire to prove their point. In every open carry enthusaist I've ever encountered (including those I just encountered in your links), I see a lack of respect for their fellow man, for the police they force encounters with, and/or for the deadly nature and purpose of the tool they carry around.

[skalenfehl]

Their juvenile point is "I can carry a gun out in the open and you can't stop me because I know my rights so neener-neener." They are yay-hoos because they are using a deadly weapon as a tool in their desire to prove their point. In every open carry enthusaist I've ever encountered (including those I just encountered in your links), I see a lack of respect for their fellow man, for the police they force encounters with, and/or for the deadly nature and purpose of the tool they carry around.

I've never heard of the term yay-hoo before, so I honestly don't know what you define as a yay-hoo. I've always considered a juvenile to be a teenager or just a young person, but not a child. But a juvenile yay-hoo sounds to me like some kind of punk or a hoodlum or a thug; someone who breaks the law--a juvenile delinquent?

So let me see if I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that they are juvenile yay-hoos because they arm themselves for the sole purpose of of disrespecting their fellow man, including police officers and nothing more. Is that what you're saying? Also, don't you think that maybe they really are just law abiding citizens who, after having done their due diligence, exercise their right to defend themselves against anyone who would deprive them of their life, liberty or property?

[NeuroTypical]

Sorry, let me take the namecalling out of it, before I end up having to issue myself an infraction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that they are juvenile yay-hoos because they arm themselves for the sole purpose of disrespecting their fellow man, including police officers and nothing more.

Oh no. Open carry people give me a couple of different reasons for arming themselves. Reasons I've personally been given include (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I'm exercising my 2nd amendment rights", "just educating the sheeple", "exposing governmental abuse", "I refuse to let my rights be trampled on by government thugs", and "I'm an American - that's the only reason I need". Yes, self defense is usually there too, although never, in the dozen or so conversations I've had with open-carry enthusaists over the years, never ever has 'self defense' been the only reason they've given me.

Also, don't you think that maybe they really are just law abiding citizens who, after having done their due diligence, exercise their right to defend themselves against anyone who would deprive them of their life, liberty or property?

Oh, I know they see themselves as such. And I know staunch constitutionalists such as yourself tend to see them in that light as well. But turning themselves into walking billboards for their idealogical point means they are not "just law abiding citizens". They are idealogues - which is fine - but no, they are not "just law abiding citizens".

And 'due dilligence' is learning rights and laws and statutes. But they don't do this due dilligence to defend themselves, they do it so they can win arguments against cops and enable social change by posting stories of their encounters on gun forums, and videos on youtube.

And exercising rights to self defense doesn't require wandering around in public raising anxiety of the people who really are just the law abiding citizens. I've sucessfully been legally carrying a firearm solely for the purpose of self defense, on and off for over a decade now, and I've never caused a scene or provoked an encounter with the police.

No, they are absolutely NOT "just law abiding citizens exercising their right to defend themselves". They are idealogues out to prove a point and change the world. Again, nothing wrong with that, except for the deadly tools they employ, the occasional ignorance they demonstrate about what guns are and what they do, and the occasional psychological denial they sometimes carry about their motives and motivations.

When I make a subjective evaluation of their maturity level, I figure many of them have more in common with this occupy protestor than they do with me and my conceal-carry buddies.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

OOOHHH!!! Ziptie handcuffs! Cool!

I don't know why, but I'm so fascinated by them. LOL.