GCTI Ambulance Raided

MonkeyArrow said:
Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts.

Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.
Click to expand...

Except we're also talking about bag searches as well. If they're that concerned with maintaining custody, then they should be shutting down the building. Apparently they're not that concerned.
 
If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.
 
MonkeyArrow said:
If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.
Click to expand...

Who said nobody was concerned about the wand search?
 
rmabrey said:
There is no "but". If the warrant doesnt specifically state that they can search my belongings than they arent searching them. They can wand all the want as im walking past them. I will not stop, nor will I empty metal objects from my pockets.
Click to expand...

ffemt8978 said:
Who said nobody was concerned about the wand search?
Click to expand...

Sorry. I kinda skimmed rmabrey's response and thought he was fine with the wand and not the bag search. Didn't read the as I'm walking by part.

EDIT: But the posts by JPINFV and rmabrey in the directionless thread are potentially mis-leading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MonkeyArrow said:
If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.
Click to expand...


Yet the threshold for a pat down ("Terry Search," see Terry v Ohio) is simple reasonable articulable suspicion. That's much less than a warrant/plain view/extigent circumstances seen with other searches. At the same time, I have no clue what they're actually looking for with a wand search. Either they're expecting firearms and knives, which is all the more reason to close the perimeter, or they're engaging in security theater.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what they're doing here. If you argue that a Terry frisk was replaced by the wand using the same justifications of reasonable suspicion, then the only way one could search a bag is with consent. Of course, the Terry stop is theoretically looking for weapons and weapons only, the bag search serving no real purpose and/or scope. I can only assume that they are letting people getting personal effects from the station before they shut it down. :unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
MonkeyArrow said:
Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts.

Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.
Click to expand...

Your school example isn't really apropos because that's a function of in loco parentis.
 
gonefishing said:
True. Than that emt easily could of refused but your entering an active search zone. He could of refused and went home lol thats what I would of done [emoji1]
Click to expand...

Not if your paycheck was there....some employees had there paychecks at the LA Station...
 
SkiMaskWay said:
Not if your paycheck was there....some employees had there paychecks at the LA Station...
Click to expand...


I don't need my backpack to pick up a paycheck.
 
gonefishing said:
Maybe it was a big pay check [emoji39]
Click to expand...

At an IFT company in LA City? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

But if that was the case, maybe it could explain the search warrant. :P
 
JPINFV said:
Yet the threshold for a pat down ("Terry Search," see Terry v Ohio) is simple reasonable articulable suspicion. That's much less than a warrant/plain view/extigent circumstances seen with other searches. At the same time, I have no clue what they're actually looking for with a wand search. Either they're expecting firearms and knives, which is all the more reason to close the perimeter, or they're engaging in security theater.
Click to expand...
Terry searches are only for officer safety and only if the officer can reasonably articulate a reason to suspect the person is armed... therefore it's for weapons only. If I'm openly carrying a knife and/or a firearm, there's no reasonable articulable need to pat me down for weapons as I'm already known to be armed.

They can detain for reasonable suspicion... but as soon as the detainee is determined to be uninvolved or evidence is gathered that creates Probable Cause to arrest... but you actually can't be detained beyond some reasonable length of time or it becomes an unlawful arrest if there's no PC to arrest.

In this case, they're probably exercising control of the scene to ensure that no evidence gets away or that nobody brings in any weapons to disrupt the evidence gathering process.
 
Akulahawk said:
Terry searches are only for officer safety and only if the officer can reasonably articulate a reason to suspect the person is armed... therefore it's for weapons only. If I'm openly carrying a knife and/or a firearm, there's no reasonable articulable need to pat me down for weapons as I'm already known to be armed.

They can detain for reasonable suspicion... but as soon as the detainee is determined to be uninvolved or evidence is gathered that creates Probable Cause to arrest... but you actually can't be detained beyond some reasonable length of time or it becomes an unlawful arrest if there's no PC to arrest.
Click to expand...


You, sir, are technically correct [the best kind of correct]. In practice, however, things are very different. Ever see the videos online of police hassling photographers, people legally open carrying, or people refusing to answer questions at DUI checkpoints? Things like "reasonable length of time" or "officer safety" mean nothing in the idea of what is actually done. Heck, even in this thread we've had a comment stating that the 4th amendment is essentially subservient to "officer safety."
 
JPINFV said:
You, sir, are technically correct [the best kind of correct]. In practice, however, things are very different. Ever see the videos online of police hassling photographers, people legally open carrying, or people refusing to answer questions at DUI checkpoints? Things like "reasonable length of time" or "officer safety" mean nothing in the idea of what is actually done. Heck, even in this thread we've had a comment stating that the 4th amendment is essentially subservient to "officer safety."
Click to expand...
I've seen all of those things... Unfortunately there are those that choose not to follow the law, on both sides of the badge. Every once in a while the antics on either of that same badge rise to the point where the Courts have to reset the boundary... or provide some slapdown action. Even so... there will be people that push the boundaries.
 
gonefishing said:
Thats the same here for everywhere but anything usually based in Glendale. Usually based on the high turn over rate, these companies need warm bodys also mind you most of the owners have no ems experience not even an emt license they own a gas station or 2 or a tow company, taxi company.
Click to expand...

You got that right....uploadfromtaptalk1405435261496.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top