There is no bigger scumbag that has ever existed in the world than a liberal. Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin were all pretty nice guys compared to your average liberal. They had to put some planning and forethought into the malevolence. A liberal just has to exist and wander around aimlessly for their evil to assail all those around. A case in point, the so-called journalists at “Willamette Week” discovered that police routinely do “trash runs”. These trash runs are an indication to these clowns of a police state run unchecked.
A trash run is when the police target a crook’s trash, placed at the curb for collection. Rather than wait for the trash man to cometh the cops show up dump the contents in a police vehicle and leave the area. Hopefully, the cops have access to a pick up truck, the back seat of a patrol car will do in a pinch. Once they reach a place of relative safety the cops go through the debris at their leisure. Unlike the scumbags who wrote the story the cops are looking for evidence of criminal activity. Our intrepid authors were looking for whatever titillated. If the found any used condoms the writers didn’t mention it, must be professional courtesy: Portland/article-1616-rubbish
Had I written this article, I would have begun at the beginning. Confronted with a trash can set out for collection, what steps are allowable? Would a preliminary K-9 search be acceptable? How do you get a search warrant for the contents of a container without knowing what is likely to be found? Where does law enforcement authority begin and end. What about the rights of person throwing the stuff away? Oh, how can we get an answer?
I know! I know! Let’s appoint nine lawyers, known for their legal knowledge. We’ll give them a snappy name, United States Supreme Court. They will have the final say as to what affect a particular law will have, define meanings and set limits. On second thought how could nine distinguished jurists hope to match the knowledge of two journalists working for a weekly newspaper?
Like hacks everywhere, there two have given us a hint but then quickly shy away. Had they gone down that path the story would be ruined and their outrage would wind up almost as impotent as they are.
The writers devote one line about what is essentially a Constitutional Law question. That line acknowledges that the Fourth Amendment, governs search seizure, but otherwise offers no guidance. There is no mention of the Supreme Court and no indication by the authors that the issue they are investigating has ever been addressed by the court. They managed to find a trial court judge who voiced the opinion that police should obtain a search warrant, to obtain trash. So close, yet so far. Try this: Abandoned Property: California v. Greenwood, 496 U.S. 35 (1988).
California V Greenwood is a US Supreme Court decision regarding “trash runs”. In it the reader will find a fact situation, the pleading of the appellant (Greenwood) and the response by the State. Both sides may provide cases that they suppose supports their position. The majority opinion is written and delivered by the justice. Additional justices on the winning side may weigh in or remain silent. The dissenting side presents their conclusion and again associates on the dissenting side have the ability to add remarks.
This is the process used by court ever since George Washington convened the first court. Another mark that a liberal is lying by omission and or lying by synonym. In this instance the liberal requires a co-conspirator. If the person you are speaking with is a known liberal, assume he/she is lying and check their assertions. Their assertions, like them will be shallow and easy to find.
These two make it easy, let’s play. They posit: “Aren’t citizens protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment?” Yes, they are. And ever since wool first met seat leather the court has provided guidance as to what was a “reasonable search and seizure” and what constituted “an unreasonable search and seizure” The court came up with guidelines in a body of law known as “warrantless search and seizure.” A law enforcement practitioner who followed the guidelines could be reasonablely certain that the resultant search would meet with the court’s approval.
The court has ruled over and over, put it in the trash, put the trash at the curb (or communal dumpster) or off a cliff at the end of a dirt road (Kudos Arlo Guthrie) the former owner has given up care, custody, and control and any privacy interest that he/she may have had. This is common sense and reasonably understood and accepted both in and outside the criminal justice community. You can see the dynamic in action four or five times a year, in broad daylight, at least in San Antonio, you can.
The City will publicize these events well in advance both to the homeowner and public at large. In addition to two brush pick-ups the city picks up construction debris once a year, large household goods once a year and get it to the curb and it will get picked up. Stuff usually sits at curbside two of three days. I would guess only half ever makes it into a city truck, various junkyard entrepreneurs cruise the neighborhoods rescuing furniture, scrap metal and anything else they perceive has value.
There is a solution, it is called tort liability. Everytime a journalist lies, or puts out bad or incomplete information, anybody that is the recipient of the information should be able to sue. They have a right to say anything, however when the information is wrong the journalist has to pay for damages that arose from the faulty information.