I go to courthouses all over Southern California on my business day regularly. Since my job requires me to go into the court houses I 'voluntrily' submit to the indignation of the security search.
If I get a 'ticket' I must go to the courthouse and submit to the indignation of the search because a uniformed officer has signed a sworn oath accusing me of some sort of infraction and I am civicly obligated to answer to it.
BUT I'll be damned if the judiciary is going to force me come to the courthouse, innocent of ANY charge, and then force the indignity of a search upon me so that I can do THEM the favor of jury duty.
It is written in the U.S. Constitution that no law written can be used to nullify any of our Bill of Rights.
A Jury Duty summons warns that non compliance can result in legal action against you.
Most every courthouse in the United States now has a "security" station where every visitor to the court is searched for weapons & contraband.
The Forth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right against "Unreasonable Search & Seizure".
QUESTION!!
How can the "Court" mandate one's presence to serve when one's presence is immediately forced to submit to an inconvenient and invasive "search" of one's person and effects?
Laws exist, in part, to protect the rights of many from the idiocy of a few.
Would you honestly want to be a juror seated on, oh, let's say, a terrorist's trial, knowing that no one in the courtroom had been screened for weapons or explosives?
I agree with you Bostonguy.
The sad part of being called in for jury duty
now is that to qualify all you need is
a driver license /voter ID or both .
The smart thing to do is search them since
the gov is going to be so stupid as
to invite random people to take part in
a jury trial. I don't like this . Nope not
the new way . There was a time you had to
proove yourself at the court house. Not anymore.
Sick .
Ang
for some temporary security; deserve neither."
(Benjamin Franklin)
With all due respect, what the hell 'essential liberty' is at stake in having people walk through metal detectors at a courthouse?
Submitting to a scan for weapons prior to entering a courthouse is not unreasonable or invasive in the eyes of the law.
the courts will contract "Private" security companies (Rent-a-Cops) for these civic minded endoscopic exams. These single digit IQ, minimum wage functionaries are often guilty of going FAR beyond their authority.
The Precept in the American Justice system is
"Innocent until proven guilty"
I take great indignity in being "presumed GUILTY" of carrying contraband into a courthouse until exonerated by a "search".
The "law" felt the lynching of Rodney King was not "unreasonable", Or the 22 bullets fired into the car & diminutive body of a "sleeping" Leticia Miller in Riverside California. The "law" NEVER thinks its wants or actions against the citizenry is UNreasonable.
I beg to differ.
eom
If They wish me to volunteer(?)my time at their facility they can treat me with the dignity of being presumed INNOCENT until I prove otherwise.
innocence when you report for jury duty. So your very premise is wrong.
Go back and read your Constitution and get back to us if you find the words "presumption of innocence." It's not in there and
just bc you hear it discussed on TV does not mean you have a right to be presumed innocent here.
All I know is that in the course of my daily business I have had overzealous security details cross FAR beyond a "Compelling need for public security" and go as far as to marginalize/deny my First Amendment rights.
The Supervisor of the central San Bernardino Superior court in California was influenced to FIRE the entire "security" contractor when I proved a case of First Amendment violations on their part against me. (Cohen vs California) was the case law I used.
It is currious how often this magnificent government of and by the people gets to re-write or marginalize the "Peoples" rights. It seems so similar to every other historic government that ultimately turned despotic.
On more than one occasion I have had the overseeing 'security officers' forbid the wearing of certain benign and completely ubiquitous garments into the courthouse. This comes under direct violation of FIRST Amendment protection.
It is through a grey area in the law and a pervasive concern for the public safety that the courts ask us to waive our 4th Amendment protection upon entry to the courthouse. But low bid private security companies with minimum wage functionaries as well as indolent minded Sheriffs and Federal Marshals often misinterpret their duty to search for weapons and contraband as a license to abridge a 1st Amendment protection vindicated by the Supreme Court in 1971 (Cohen vs California).
Its not in the Constitution but its part of English Common Law. Most laws in the US are based on English Common Law. The one exception is Louisiana. Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic Code.
although there are a few states that have enacted statutes making it a part of their criminal code. The presumption is not found in the Constitution and to the extent it has any constitutional foundation it would derive from the due process clause.
But my point to the OP was that the presumption never applies to government restrictions on your freedom - outside of a criminal courtroom, all the government needs is probable cause to restrict your freedoms. And the legislature needs only a rational basis to do so, absent a fundmental right or suspect class, in which case a compelling state interest is needed.
The presumption applies only to the jury in a criminal case as far as the common law goes. The government can refuse entry to a public building unless the entrant consents to a search without violation the presumption.
Compelling interest to secure the court house.
You have notice that you must be there AND that you will be searched. Therefore, because of the notice and the compelling interest to protect the courthouse, the search is reasonable.
BTW, you have a very strong argument if they exceed the search parameters. Say your phone is taken and then the data on it is searched. Any evidence of a crime contained in the data will arguably be suppressed.
that is clearly why the search cannot be deemed unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, so long as the search does not exceed the boundaries of the government interest at stake and it is applied to all who enter without regard to race or gender.
Succintness is good, DC. but next time could you give us more than one word? LOL
This includes cell/smart phones that for some reason cannot be purchased without a sodding camera built into them.
Now the court wishes to seperate you for possibly 'days' with what could be your enterprise, your fortune, your lifeline.
for "Free phones & service for the poor" because a "phone" is considered a necessity in contemporary America?
The Jury Summons is
"Involuntary servitude".
Enforced "Under duress".
Forces the subsequent waiving of a Constitutional protection.
Imprisonment, constraint, and problematic isolation.
political rather than legal. You are arguing that the laws should be changed rather than what the law is.
I'm not asking that any law be "changed" I'm asking the "State" to respect the "Law of the Land" and the full spirit of those laws.
I posed this query on this board hoping for some certified lawyer feed back and not myopic partisan pontificators. I believe I have learned what I wish to know, along with the all too sad understanding that the "certified lawyers" have been schooled by and for the proliferation of obfuscating in defense of the "State's" agenda.
Laws are enacted by the Legislators.
Laws are interpreted by the Judiciary.
Therefore, you want Judges, who represent a Judicial System predicated on the basic tenant of controversy being decided by a jury of peers to:
Decide that jury duty and courthouse searches are unconstitutional.
Forgive us for not falling all over ourselves to take up the fight. LOL
type it all out. Notice works well enough to answer your concerns, anyway.
DC.
This guy has an ax to grind and it is entirely and blatantly political in nature. I suggest moving this to the P&R board.
If you are carrying something that is legal for you to own, but something not allowed in the courtroom, it won't be seized. You will be told not to bring it into the courthouse.
I see where you are trying to go with this, but the forth amendment does not mean you can carry a firearm everywhere without restrictions.
I go to courthouses all over Southern California on my business day regularly. Since my job requires me to go into the court houses I 'voluntrily' submit to the indignation of the security search.
If I get a 'ticket' I must go to the courthouse and submit to the indignation of the search because a uniformed officer has signed a sworn oath accusing me of some sort of infraction and I am civicly obligated to answer to it.
BUT I'll be damned if the judiciary is going to force me come to the courthouse, innocent of ANY charge, and then force the indignity of a search upon me so that I can do THEM the favor of jury duty.
Then I would get used to going to the courthouse.
Because refusing jury duty will cause you to see more of the justice system than you would like.
BUT NOT FROM A CHAIR IN THE JURY BOX!
I wrote them saying that I will not suffer the indignity of an invasive search of my person and effects when I offer no probable cause or wish to enter their building in the first place.
This is a "Nation of Laws", and everything is contestable.
From what I have gathered (from both sides) there is enough arguement that it is possibly not
practical for the local magistrate to prosecute.
If you don't show up for jury duty, a judge can find you in contempt of court and issue a warrant for your arrest, and sentence you to jail time for that alone. Writing a note does not excuse you!
as defined in the 13th amendment?
(Click on link.)
If people don't take part in the jury system, nobody would be able to get a "jury of their peers".
So I understand serving may be an inconvenience for you, I also think a judge is justified in punishing shirkers. Our entire justice system depends on people doing their jury duty.
Mrfisher brings up an interesting as well as valid point also.
It would seem that our 13th as well as 4th Amendment rights are being marginalized/ignored by this idea that jury duty refusal is by peril of arrest and prosecution.
I think "duress" is also a factor here.
They keep saying were a "nation of laws" How'z about the government respecting the laws that protect the People.
less restrictive and/or invasive methods have to be attempted before resorting to draconian solutions? (Such as involuntary servitude.) We are speaking about a Constitutional mandate, after all.
Wouldn't the public be better served if juries were made up of a paid cadre of educated persons who volunteer for this duty rather than the hit or miss method now employed?
The term peer is pretty broad and not easily defined. I don't think the suggestion above is in contradiction with the term, as long as the peer does not harbor any overt prejudices.
most of you do not understand what the concept of peer is, it is based on common sense, no mrfisher, a group of educated volunteers is not a good substitute--and where are you going to find this noble group??? please note that the original question is ridiculous and this means stupid
your sidewalk as required by city ordinance, since the 13th Amendment never applies to duties owed by an individual to the state.
This argument was pushed very heavily during the 60s by Arlo Guthrie and every one else who wanted to escape the draft but the law is pretty clear here. Fortuntely, Arlo found a different way.
Back to the Group W bench for you.