Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

You are probably correct. Hopefully the criminal will not go free.

 

So was the roadblock manhunt that I described a violation of rights or not in your opinion?

 

You are asking me what I just answered. Read post 40 the very first sentence..

 

I think that they were doing the right thing, but in the wrong way. In their zeal to catch the criminal, it appears as if they violated the rights of citizens. As stated before, stopping the cars was not wrong. But handcuffing everyone? That's excessive.

What should have happened if they were intent on searching the cars would be to ask each driver to submit to a search. If any refused, that would have been probable cause. That might be what they did, and if so, that's ok. I'll admit, I couldn't get the link to open. I've just been going off of what I've read on this thread.

However, if the searches were forced, and the criminal was caught that way, I am pretty sure that he will go free, as any evidence found would be inadmissible.

 

"to ask each driver to submit to a search. If any refused, that would have been probable cause."

Really?

 

If I were driving, got stopped with a line of cars, and a policeman came to my window and told me that they were looking for a guy who just robbed a bank, and asked if they could search my car, I'd have no problem with it at all. To have a problem is suspect. The Bible backs me up on this one, too. "The wicked flee when no man persueth".

Under our law, it's probable cause to search a car for almost any reason. Some could even argue that the fact that there was a bank robber reported in that line would be probable cause. When I was in college, I was riding in a car with 3 other college buddies. We got pulled over for speeding, and when the police officer saw that there were 4 college aged males in the vehicle, she called in backup. 4 squad cars showed up, as well as a drug dog. They patted us down and had the dog sniff the car. Out of curiosity, I looked it up, and that fell under probable cause.

Again, I'll stand by what I said about the handcuffs being too much under the constitution. I won't say it was wrong in a moral sense; in fact prudent. It assured that the bank robber wouldn't get away. However, it was outside the realm of the constitution, and so was illegal.

When a civilian enters a military post, their car is searched. The passengers must get out and open all the doors and trunk. It's not a very intrusive search, as the guards just look inside. They don't actually put their hands on the car. This is accepted. However, when a line of cars needs to be searched to find a bank robber reported in the line of cars (a much higher probability than a civilian vehicle containing a threat), people scream out in protest.

Police officers get zero love. "Protect me; but don't worry about protecting the rest of the population if it's going to inconvenience me."

 

Since when is a military base a public street???

Maybe actions such as the OP relates to the zero love observation.

If there is probable cause to search then more to the point, handcuffing would be the prudent action. Both should be abhorrent in this situation in my mind.

 

In Nashville the police pull you over and take your money.

Probable cause here? You probably got money.

Read all about it. HERE.

We'll learn to accept being handcuffed for no good reason. We've already learned to accept alot of tyranny since 9/11.