Ditto. I'm reminded of the practice of police officers touching the tail light at the start of a traffic stop to leave a mark of their presence as later evidence [1]. Is that a search too?
A little colored talcum powder on the wheel seems like such a trivial, short-term intrusion that I just don't see the issue. Those perfume spraying salespeople at department stores routinely do something much more invasive.
Not a lawyer...but if a cop pulls you over, the default assumption is that there is an "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing" - you would probably have to show that the officer did not have a valid reason for stopping you (e.g. "Driving while black").
Right, they'll have grounds for stopping you, but a search requires additional cause on top of the initial stop. If talcum powder is a "search", then so is that touching.
The various levels of governments are generally is not permitted “trivial, short-term intrusions”, regardless of the duration or triviality. Specific exceptions are permitted in certain circumstances, which is why (for example) firefighters can smash your windows and run a fire hose through them if you block a fire hydrant.
You're either being overly pedantic or wrong. Why is a traffic stop limited to 20 minutes if the duration never matters? Why are DUI checkpoints?
Edit: I'm well aware that circumstances can generate cause for intrusion, which, if we're going to be that pedantic, also refutes 'governments are generally is not permitted “trivial, short-term intrusions”, regardless of the duration or triviality.'
Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, with probable cause, escalate to investigation and/or arrest. Delays of far less than 20 minutes for the purpose of generating probable cause through drug dogs have been found illegal: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/01/131176P.pdf
DUI checkpoints were found by the Supreme Court to be a specific instance of permissible intrusion in service of the public good, as the benefits of the theoretically-impermissible search outweigh the trivial, short-term intrusion: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=...
Both cases clearly indicate that while the trivial, short-term intrusions are normally unacceptable, the public good in each circumstance outweighs the violation of constitutional rights. In the chalking case, the court found no cause sufficient to justify the violation. It seems likely it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which I’m quite looking forward to if they accept it!
I encourage you to look up other such cases; I suspect you’ll find that violations of the general principle against any intrusion, regardless of duration, will be carefully scoped to ensure they cannot be generalized.
>Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, with probable cause, escalate to investigation and/or arrest. Delays of far less than 20 minutes for the purpose of generating probable cause through drug dogs have been found illegal:
Yes, I know. I was referring to the valid version of it that references 20 minutes to establish that duration matters in terms of whether the intrusion is justified -- i.e. the charitable interpretation you use to ensure a responsive discussion.
>DUI checkpoints were found by the Supreme Court to be a specific instance of permissible intrusion in service of the public good, as the benefits of the theoretically-impermissible search outweigh the trivial, short-term intrusion
Yep, exactly the argument I was making here.
Again, you're just being pedantic while agreeing with the substance of what I said. That isn't productive.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what issue you have with my initial statement. I looked up the possible meanings of pedantic and received this list from the web:
Each of those words is positive, if not mandatory, when dealing with the law, with the courts, with court judgements, and with the Constitution. Could you be more precise (pedantic, even!) about why taking a 'fastidious' or 'precise' approach to this discussion of constitutional law is inappropriate here?
A little colored talcum powder on the wheel seems like such a trivial, short-term intrusion that I just don't see the issue. Those perfume spraying salespeople at department stores routinely do something much more invasive.
[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/502605/reason-police-officers...