Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Letter from a lawyer in Jacksonville paper

379 Views 3 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  lostprofit ... al-choices

The part in bolded colored has me confused. I thought that the police could only legally stop some one if they have RAS
and whole body frisk if they suspect they armed and dangerous. Not on a consensual encounter? Or did I miss something in the past few years I have been visiting here? His letter starts below.

I am perplexed by the uproar over the enhanced security measures that have recently been instituted at airports.

The "don't touch my junk" crowd seems to find it objectionable to be subjected to a full-body frisk if they decline the full-body scan.

I have been practicing law in the criminal courts for 22 years. During that time frame, our highest appellate courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the government on search and seizure issues.

In fact, countless citizens are now lawfully subjected to full-body frisks by the police every day for no reason other than the officer stopped the person and wanted to ensure the person was not armed before engaging that person in a consensual encounter.

No crime needs to be alleged. The police can frisk you just to ensure their personal safety.

Certain people are a danger to the police; therefore, the police are trained to treat everyone as a potential threat.

Most people agree with that analysis. Using that as a backdrop, why do so many people find it objectionable to have their bodies searched to board an airplane?

The answer is obvious: Most people do not care about the other guy who is subjected to a frisk by the police, since they do not expect to ever experience that situation.

If there were no chance of a terrorist boarding an airplane with a weapon, then we would have every right to question the necessity of any security measures, much less enhanced measures. But that is not the case.

Since air travel began, we have seen hijackings and bombings and terrorist attacks on a relatively regular basis. Therefore, security is important.

Yes, there will always be the terrorist who somehow gets through even the toughest security. However, if just one attack is prevented by virtue of the enhanced security measures, then I am all for it.

Personally, if I am flying in an airplane, I realize that I have to give up certain rights for security reasons. I may not like it, but I would like it a lot less if security were relaxed and the plane I boarded is hijacked.

We all can choose not to fly. If the concept of being frisked or scanned is so problematic, then take the highway.


See less See more
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Fascinating... a lawyer uninformed about the law.

Perhaps his specialty is real estate, or septuagenarian law?
It could be that where he's from, the cops routinely violate citizens' 4th Amendment rights and get away with it. Unless the cops find some evidence of a crime on their persons, the unlawful seizure and search will only waste a few minutes of the citizens' time and offend their dignity, which is probably not worth a whole lot of "damages" in a civil action against the department or the individual officers. Little or no damages PLUS no evidence of contraband to suppress = low chance of anybody holding the cops accountable.

And it could also be that the cops around there are really good at obtaining verbal consent from the citizens regarding both the detention and the pat-down. If the citizen agrees to go along with what the cop asks for, there's no cause of action against the cop. Maybe citizens around JAX need to be more assertive about their rights?
With that kind of logic, I think we should all start frisking one another.... you know, just to ensure our safety. :screwy:

(Disclaimer: The preceding post was not to be taken seriously. The author is a bit of a goofball.)
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.