Trouble for Bridge Day - finger printing

[normiss 620]

If that's their attitude, we're all going to start having background checks performed just to cross a bridge in a major us city.
Paranoia. Totally.
I think the terrorists HAVE won.

[mcordell 2]

Iago

******Pretty insane that the community would allow the police to do this and shut down a great a event. Do they fingerprint ever driver of every car and truck that goes over that bridge. I mean a bomb would be much easier carried in a base than a base rig anyways. And if thats what they are worried about why not just have a bombsniffing dog? I mean do the same thing they do at the airport as when you bring your rig on the plane. Fingerprints is just a way to get a base jumper database or stomp out the event, pure and simple.

This would be pure speculation since I don't work for the state police there but, this day is specifically at risk of terrorism because of the enormous amount of pedestrians that could be killed at once if an explosive device were detonated on the bridge. They don't allow vehicle traffic on the bridge during bridge day. Yes it would be easier to blow up the bridge with a vehicle but the casualties would be limited on any other day of the year. Any time there is a large gathering of people in a small area there is a risk of terrorism. This is the world we live in.

I don't see how fingerprinting the jumpers would prevent that in any way unless they are using electronic fingerprint submission to check against a list of known terrorist threats in the AFIS database but that would require that the "terrorist" had either previously been printed or latent prints of a known individual entered into AFIS at some point. It's definitely not the most effective way to prevent terrorism. Yes your prints would be entered into AFIS if you are printed at bridge day, but there isn't a way to keep a list of base jumpers specifically. Your prints would be co-mingled with military, teachers, law enforcement, and every criminal that is printed. They could be compared to unidentified latent prints collected at crime scenes, but radio towers are not really a surface that prints can be lifted from so I highly doubt they are looking to solve base jumping offenses. You have to remember, everyone thinks we will lift prints when we respond to a call and we rarely do. It's not practical.

This is just a simple case of one agency trying to make it too difficult to jump at the event. I don't think there is any other hidden agenda other than trying to get jumpers not to come. Perhaps they think the requirement of fingerprinting will deter criminals from coming. Either way, the best argument to make to overcome this is to focus on the financial impact on the community if jumpers stop coming. I don't think it would be beneficial to go to the committee and argue this from a legal standpoint since it's not illegal.

You're probably right- this is a 'shut it down' angle. The problem people have is with taking and storing fingerprints. It's unnecessary to have prints to run a background check.

Just curious, but how long would it take to run ONE set of prints through the process you describe?

Sorry for the super long quote in the reply. I'm on a phone and its a pain to edit down. If it is an electronic print submission then it would take typically a minute or so to ID based on prints. Running prints against the AFIS database for comparison to unsolved cases is supposed to be completed in no more than 18 hours, however some results may kick back fairly quickly...like 1 hour. A full AFIS search takes time. If prints are collected on FBI print cards with ink then it's probably a week or two minimum. It also costs money each time.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[Bluhdow 31]

Not replying to anyone specifically, but this is yet another example of a runaway police state. The police throw around terrorism and drug wars to empower themselves way beyond reasonable measure, and this is the result. The reality is, I'd rather have the threat of terrorism than today's "public servants."

This whole time I was worried about politicians invading my daily life, now I can add police to the list. Demilitarize the police and maybe they'll stop acting like an occupying military.

Apex BASE
#1816

[decompresion 2]

Not replying to anyone in particular:
I have no problem with giving fingerprints to the police. Under the policy of "If you have nothing to hide..." it makes sense.
I will give my fingerprints if they supply the name and home address of every cop on the bridge. (Nothing to hide=nothing to fear)
Or if they fingerprint every attendee and not just jumpers. (I don't like selective enforcement)
And I want to see the psych eval and service record for every armed person in the event. (I just want to make sure that the people in charge of my "safety" are of sound mind)

There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

[normiss 620]

I prefer to not give up the few rights we have.
I stand by the 4th.
Get a warrant or arrest me, until then, no prints for you.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I have no problem with giving fingerprints to the police. Under the policy of "If you have nothing to hide..." it makes sense.

Apply here.

Edit: Or here.

[kallend 1,621]

Andy9o8

Quote

I have no problem with giving fingerprints to the police. Under the policy of "If you have nothing to hide..." it makes sense.

Apply here.

Edit: Or here.

Looks like they may be looking for a few good torturers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[piisfish 135]

normiss

I prefer to not give up the few rights we have.
I stand by the 4th.
Get a warrant or arrest me, until then, no prints for you.

apparently they are already having : bag search, sniffing dogs etc for that event. Seems like rights have been given away already.
Poor country. Poor inhabitants.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[SansSuit 1]

http://www.fayettetribune.com/news/base-jumpers-balk-at-revised-bridge-day-background-checks/article_ac317644-7d6d-11e4-8b86-5b8bfe7e3934.html

Peace,
-Dawson.
http://www.SansSuit.com
The Society for the Advancement of Naked Skydiving

[nigel99 143]

piisfish

***I prefer to not give up the few rights we have.
I stand by the 4th.
Get a warrant or arrest me, until then, no prints for you.

apparently they are already having : bag search, sniffing dogs etc for that event. Seems like rights have been given away already.
Poor country. Poor inhabitants.

We need to send the french in to liberate them

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[FastRon 0]

Iago writes- "You're right. Constitutional protections have been weakened by the courts that a cop can practically stop and search you anytime they want. 'Reasonable suspicion' can be practically anything."

I'm not sure where you gather your information but no they can't and no it isn't. Over the last 30 years it's been my observation that privacy protections grow every year.

Oh- and re: needing probable caue to search someone? Ever been "patted" down by our beloved TSA at the airport? Were you under arrest? How does that work?

[danornan 64]

normiss

I think the terrorists HAVE won.

Yep and it started right after 9/11.

Our prior way of life, in the US, will never be the same and the freedoms we enjoyed are in the past tense. Sad but true and it will get much worse, before it ever gets better, if it does. Bridge Day is just another example.

Dano

[Andy9o8 0]

FastRon

Iago writes- "You're right. Constitutional protections have been weakened by the courts that a cop can practically stop and search you anytime they want. 'Reasonable suspicion' can be practically anything."

I'm not sure where you gather your information but no they can't and no it isn't. Over the last 30 years it's been my observation that privacy protections grow every year.

Well, I've studied, worked in, taught and written on and personally handled countless cases in trial and appellate courtrooms on American criminal justice and constitutional law for about 35 years, which is where I gather my information. In that time - in large part due to the Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointments to the judiciary generally and the SCOTUS in particular, I most definitely have seen privacy and search & seizure protections steadily net-erode in practice, as well as in jurisprudence, and the scope and breadth of what is deemed "reasonable suspicion" steadily net-expand. Since Nixon became President (I was there to see it), and pretty much steadily since then, the weight of the pro-police judicial decisions has outweighed pro-civilian decisions by a vast factor; and that reflects in the field.

But hey, that's just me.

[decompresion 2]

This thing turned out quite long and rambling. A smart person would ignore this post...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I read "Persons" and "effects" as fingerprints here but I can be wrong.
The word "suspicion" does not appear anywhere in the amendment. I am not LEO or a legal instructor. Maybe you should keep an open mind about what you teach. Have you ever asked why the prohibition of "Unreasonable search" became the affirmation of "reasonable suspicion". You do see the difference right?
The law says: that people are secured against an unreasonable search. This is supposed to be an active shield against something that is a negative. (When in doubt: don't search)
The interpretation of the law that you teach is that if they have a reasonable suspicion, they have the authority to conduct a search. So you are adding language that does not exist with the word "suspicion" and you are changing "UN-reasonable" to "reasonable". (When in doubt: search)

I respect your "opinion" but it is just an opinion. You might be LEO and and instructor but the fact that you are not even opening this up for discussion is truly scary. What if you are wrong? What damage could you be causing by teaching officers that they have the right to stop and search with impunity?
You should be telling them that every "stop and search" is a potential for a costly lawsuit. They might be fired or sent to jail for violating the 4th. You should tell them that "reasonable suspicion" is an afterthought where the 4th does not have specific language that allows it and some language against it. You should teach that they need to be very careful with their "subjects" who don't have badges and guns. And that the power asymmetry between "the cops" and "the people" is such that any encounter with the police that has a negative impact on an individual harms society as a whole.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong

There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

[decompresion 2]

KGB? CIA? = Amateurs
You meant to say:
Apply here: Google, Facebook, IRS, iTunes, Disney World, Chase...

And I edited the post to be what I actually meant to say:
"It makes sense until you think about it"

There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

[champu 1]

FastRon

Oh- and re: needing probable caue to search someone? Ever been "patted" down by our beloved TSA at the airport? Were you under arrest? How does that work?

This becomes a problem as the number of things "you don't have to do if you don't like it" grows. It becomes pretty easy to boil frogs that way. The sum total of politicians will collectively argue that there is a public interest in regulating and permitting just about everything you can imagine doing outside of your property (and some things you do on your property) and if allowed to attach what would otherwise be violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 14th amendments to all that permitting and regulating, then you'll wind up hollowing out those amendments.

As Andy mentioned, court decisions over the last few decades have enabled that, and you see more and more regulations copy and paste phrases and clauses from court decisions right into the text of the law. Kind of like how the federal government stamps "blah blah blah ... interstate commerce" on things to say, "we totally swear this is constitutional... scout's honor..."

[mcordell 2]

decompresion

This thing turned out quite long and rambling. A smart person would ignore this post...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I read "Persons" and "effects" as fingerprints here but I can be wrong.
The word "suspicion" does not appear anywhere in the amendment. I am not LEO or a legal instructor. Maybe you should keep an open mind about what you teach. Have you ever asked why the prohibition of "Unreasonable search" became the affirmation of "reasonable suspicion". You do see the difference right?

The Terry doctrine allows for LIMITED searches for officer safety reasons based on reasonable suspicion. The reasonable man standard is applied in numerous places in law. In this case if a reasonable person in the officer's position would believe someone has committed or is about to commit a crime, then they have the authority to conduct a limited search of the exterior of the clothing of a person. As I said before, I was generic in my first statement about searches so as to not go into a rambling post. These searches are allowed and have been deemed constitutional by the united states supreme court for the purpose of ensuring the safety of officers. While you may see this as overly intrusive, there has to be a balance that allows for officers to do their job safely. In this case, a limited search is the least intrusive way an officer can ensure their safety while ensuring people are not subjected to blanket searches at the whim of the government. Officers cannot squeeze bulges in clothing to determine if it is drugs or a weapon but must be able to articulate why they believed something was a weapon and posed an imminent threat in order to justify further searching. I am open minded about what I teach but I will not be placed at greater risk than necessary to do my job. There are inherent risks but they can be mitigated in ways that ensure both the police and the citizen are safe and secure.

decompresion

The law says: that people are secured against an unreasonable search. This is supposed to be an active shield against something that is a negative. (When in doubt: don't search)
The interpretation of the law that you teach is that if they have a reasonable suspicion, they have the authority to conduct a search. So you are adding language that does not exist with the word "suspicion" and you are changing "UN-reasonable" to "reasonable". (When in doubt: search)

You would be incorrect. I haven't added anything. I teach constitutional law regarding search and seizure, to include current applicable case law. The reasonable man standard (reasonable suspicion) is that of the US Supreme court. That is not my standard. Also, you put words in my mouth. I never said when in doubt search. If someone doesn't have reasonable suspicion for a limited search then it isn't conducted. If they don't have probable cause for a more intrusive search, then it isn't conducted. In my 11 years in law enforcement I have come across plenty of people that I knew were in possession of drugs or other contraband on traffic stops or personal contacts under other circumstances, however in many cases I had no probable cause to search them and as a result I didn't. The underlying principal is that if you aren't certain you have met the standard to conduct a search then you don't. Evidence getting tossed in court because of an unlawful search damages the credibility of the department in the eyes of the public. I don't teach that and would never stand for it with officers I supervise.

decompresion

I respect your "opinion" but it is just an opinion. You might be LEO and and instructor but the fact that you are not even opening this up for discussion is truly scary. What if you are wrong? What damage could you be causing by teaching officers that they have the right to stop and search with impunity?
You should be telling them that every "stop and search" is a potential for a costly lawsuit. They might be fired or sent to jail for violating the 4th. You should tell them that "reasonable suspicion" is an afterthought where the 4th does not have specific language that allows it and some language against it. You should teach that they need to be very careful with their "subjects" who don't have badges and guns. And that the power asymmetry between "the cops" and "the people" is such that any encounter with the police that has a negative impact on an individual harms society as a whole.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong

You are. None of what I said is my opinion. I don't teach my opinion. I teach current laws and court interpretations. I teach constitutional law. If you have concerns with anything I said regarding searches and the authority of police to conduct them then I would suggest you take that up with the courts. I have no control over that. As far as what will happen to officers who follow what I have taught them, I suspect what will happen is the affirmation of their credibility in the eyes of the court. I suspect following the laws I teach would bolster the credibility of the department in the eyes of the community and improve the reliability of the officer in the performance of their duties. Following constitutional law and supreme court case law is the only way to prevent the community and department from being at odds with one another. Officers are immune from civil or criminal prosecution so long as their actions are in accordance with the laws of the state in which they work so you are most definitely wrong about them being sued or charged with a crime.

Officers and departments get into trouble when they deviate from the laws, not when they follow them. If you have some level of legal expertise that you would like to share I am definitely open to discussion and perhaps learning from your training and experience. You called me closed minded about the issue but in several instances I have only clarified what the law actually says. I'm not closed minded, but I certainly won't be learning constitutional law from someone with no training or experience in the field.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[decompresion 2]

I stand corrected.
You give a good explanation of what the courts are doing. As you say:

Quote

I don't teach my opinion. I teach current laws and court interpretations.

I have a couple comments

Quote

If you have concerns with anything I said regarding searches and the authority of police to conduct them then I would suggest you take that up with the courts.

Quote

In my 11 years in law enforcement

is equal to
Argument from Authority which can lead to erosion of acceptable behavior. What is frowned upon today becomes illegal in the future (both good and bad). I guess we need better laws for you to teach.

Quote

I have come across plenty of people that I knew were in possession of drugs or other contraband on traffic stops or personal contacts under other circumstances, however in many cases I had no probable cause to search them and as a result I didn't

So you succeeded in following the law even though you wanted to break it? I come across people all the time who I know have drugs on them and I don't perform a search on them. Most reasonable people don't perform searches on other people. Just in case they might violate someone's rights and because it would make life difficult for everyone.

Quote

Officers are immune from civil or criminal prosecution so long as their actions are in accordance with the laws of the state in which they work

That is true of everyone. But they can still be sued. and just like all those citizens who go free because of evidenced that is tossed in court we have to assume that LEO who are not prosecuted on similar technicalities.

Quote

Evidence getting tossed in court because of an unlawful search damages the credibility of the department in the eyes of the public. I don't teach that and would never stand for it with officers I supervise.

I think you are probably one of the 99% of LEO who actually do a fair job and just do what they can with what they have. You are one of the good guys.
Recent events are indicative of the loss of credibility that the police have to deal with. There is still and "Us and Them" mentality in your post:

Quote

I certainly won't be learning constitutional law from someone with no training or experience in the field.

Fair point. Who did train you?

Have you ever asked why the prohibition of "Unreasonable search" became the affirmation of "reasonable suspicion"? Given that the searches have been deemed legal by SCOTUS. why the change? why the deviation from the original language. Can you enlighten me?

A healthy disrespect of authority is my default position.

There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

[rehmwa 2]

decompresion

A healthy disrespect of authority is my default position.

I have no issue with a healthy skeptism, or a healthy awareness, etc -

but I consider we need to be respectful of each other regardless of our jobs or roles. I'd think someone that thinks "99%" of LEO are doing their best would not jump to a default 'healthy disrespect' position


healthy disrespect - I don't even know what that means. Is it 'active' and in your face? well that's just stupid. If it's veiled and passively obstructive? well that helps no one. If it means I have pre-conceived biases and act on those before seeing if the person in front of me even displays poor behavior - well, that means you are actively making everything worse for everyone.

if it means that we wait until we something see a specific individual doing something clearly wrong with their position and authority and we question that and followup with their bosses? I think that's great.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mcordell 2]

That may be the case. I have only worked with a very small number of officers that I think didn't actively try to do the right thing all the time. I respect the members of the community and would never intentionally violate anyone's rights. I value individual liberties even though sometimes it makes it harder to "catch the bad guy".

I am running for sheriff in my county at the next election and the indications are the race is mine to take by a large margin. As sheriff I can honestly say I would never stand for one of my deputies violating people's rights or harboring an "us vs them" mentality.

We aren't all bad and we aren't the enemy. Every career field has its share of bad employees. Law enforcement is no exception but there are some really great people in law enforcement. Take the time to get to know a cop in your local department. You just may find they aren't so bad.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[mcordell 2]

I definitely like being accountable to the people and not one singular individual with no law enforcement expertise who always seems to know how to do the job of the police better. I find people mostly treat me with respect if I treat them with respect. There are exceptions but I don't allow other people's behavior to dictate mine.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[SkyDekker 1,121]

mcordell

That may be the case. I have only worked with a very small number of officers that I think didn't actively try to do the right thing all the time. I respect the members of the community and would never intentionally violate anyone's rights. I value individual liberties even though sometimes it makes it harder to "catch the bad guy".

I am running for sheriff in my county at the next election and the indications are the race is mine to take by a large margin. As sheriff I can honestly say I would never stand for one of my deputies violating people's rights or harboring an "us vs them" mentality.

We aren't all bad and we aren't the enemy. Every career field has its share of bad employees. Law enforcement is no exception but there are some really great people in law enforcement. Take the time to get to know a cop in your local department. You just may find they aren't so bad.

So basically while the police tends to tell us that profiling is very effective, you are telling us not to profile the police?

[mcordell 2]

SkyDekker

***That may be the case. I have only worked with a very small number of officers that I think didn't actively try to do the right thing all the time. I respect the members of the community and would never intentionally violate anyone's rights. I value individual liberties even though sometimes it makes it harder to "catch the bad guy".

I am running for sheriff in my county at the next election and the indications are the race is mine to take by a large margin. As sheriff I can honestly say I would never stand for one of my deputies violating people's rights or harboring an "us vs them" mentality.

We aren't all bad and we aren't the enemy. Every career field has its share of bad employees. Law enforcement is no exception but there are some really great people in law enforcement. Take the time to get to know a cop in your local department. You just may find they aren't so bad.

So basically while the police tends to tell us that profiling is very effective, you are telling us not to profile the police?

I reviewed my previous posts and couldn't find anywhere that I said profiling was effective.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[FastRon 0]

Andy908 writes- "Well, I've studied, worked in, taught and written on and personally handled countless cases in trial and appellate courtrooms on American criminal justice and constitutional law for about 35 years, which is where I gather my information. In that time - in large part due to the Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointments to the judiciary generally and the SCOTUS in particular, I most definitely have seen privacy and search & seizure protections steadily net-erode in practice, as well as in jurisprudence, and the scope and breadth of what is deemed "reasonable suspicion" steadily net-expand. Since Nixon became President (I was there to see it), and pretty much steadily since then, the weight of the pro-police judicial decisions has outweighed pro-civilian decisions by a vast factor; and that reflects in the field.

But hey, that's just me."

So perhaps you've read the SCOTUS ruling in Arizona v. Gant? Terry v. Ohio is STILL the landmark ruling on 'reasonable suspicion ' stops- last I checked, that decision predates Reagan et al. I don't question your experience- it is just a little different than mine.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't question your experience- it is just a little different than mine.

I've no doubt.