Originally posted by: GroundZero
there is a stipulation in the law called arresting area.
if "jeff" was arrested for theft in his room, they have the legal right to search the room.
same as if they arrest you for something in your car, they can then search the car as it is the arresting area.
seems lame but it is perfectly legal. also i think that there are different rule involving dorms because of the contracts signed with the university in order to live in the dorm and the rules of conduct etc...
welcome to living in the dorms. where they can do all the sh!t they want with you and not give you a reason.
Originally posted by: NakaNaka
You can't search the whole room after an arrest. If you are arrested for stealing an elephant, you can't look in a tiny drawr, but you can look in a big closet. Same applies to the tree. The underage possesion of alcohol would get thrown out if your friend had a lawyer willing to take a case through the courts, which I think should be done on principal.
Originally posted by: kranky
My feeling is that the RA wouldn't have called the police unless provoked. Perhaps your friend has been screwing around all year and the RA had had enough. Or maybe he wasn't all that polite to the cops.
Originally posted by: kranky
My feeling is that the RA wouldn't have called the police unless provoked. Perhaps your friend has been screwing around all year and the RA had had enough. Or maybe he wasn't all that polite to the cops.
Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Have your friend make an anonymous tip that the RA has a drug paraphernalia in his/her room and he heard him/her bragging about it.
See how they like their room getting searched for no reason.
Originally posted by: luvly
"How can the cops even do this? They went through everything of his, they even poured out his vitamins and stuff to look for drugs. Isnt that a violation of his civil rights?"
Yeah, yeah, poor ME-"JEFF". Aren't you always the first to say "call Jesse Jackson" quickly if someone questions if his/her civil rights has been violated? You may as well call one now . . . oh, but your friend is supposedly a poor White male discriminated for being White and male.
Putting aside the quick cry of civil rights violation, I'll tell you the following:
It's hard to give a firm opinion about your supposed friend's situation. We do not know the circumstances and complete story.
However, I can give a general response:
The police can search one's property if there's a probable cause. If the entire story is exactly as described, such that your friend confessed to a specific "crime", following a call from RA that theft was committed; then it would seem the police had a probable cause to search your friend's room or arrest him. Although your friend specified another location, the police could still search his room since he had confessed to the crime. The concept is to secure any possible evidence. If they left the room and didn't arrest him, your friend might quickly conceal the missing item if he was lying about the location. There are also possibilities we may not have been informed of; for instance, your friend, as an underage, may have been smelling of alcohol, had slurred speech or acted erratically.
There's always room for interpretation of the law, so your friend might have a case if he finds an adventurous lawyer.
[Wuffsunie:] "There was no probable cause for them searching his room, none at all. What they did shouldn't be legal."
Read previous paragraphs. I'm not sure you can say absolutely not, since the school, in the first place, called the police claiming theft had been committed. I suspect in this case there were more factors that led the police to be more suspicious of something sinister (e.g., the student may have smelled of alcohol).
Originally posted by: luvly
"How can the cops even do this? They went through everything of his, they even poured out his vitamins and stuff to look for drugs. Isnt that a violation of his civil rights?"
Yeah, yeah, poor ME-"JEFF". Aren't you always the first to say "call Jesse Jackson" quickly if someone questions if his/her civil rights has been violated? You may as well call one now . . . oh, but your friend is supposedly a poor White male discriminated for being White and male.
Putting aside the quick cry of civil rights violation, I'll tell you the following:
It's hard to give a firm opinion about your supposed friend's situation. We do not know the circumstances and complete story.
However, I can give a general response:
The police can search one's property if there's a probable cause. If the entire story is exactly as described, such that your friend confessed to a specific "crime", following a call from RA that theft was committed; then it would seem the police had a probable cause to search your friend's room or arrest him. Although your friend specified another location, the police could still search his room since he had confessed to the crime. The concept is to secure any possible evidence. If they left the room and didn't arrest him, your friend might quickly conceal the missing item if he was lying about the location. There are also possibilities we may not have been informed of; for instance, your friend, as an underage, may have been smelling of alcohol, had slurred speech or acted erratically.
There's always room for interpretation of the law, so your friend might have a case if he finds an adventurous lawyer.
[Wuffsunie:] "There was no probable cause for them searching his room, none at all. What they did shouldn't be legal."
Read previous paragraphs. I'm not sure you can say absolutely not, since the school, in the first place, called the police claiming theft had been committed. I suspect in this case there were more factors that led the police to be more suspicious of something sinister (e.g., the student may have smelled of alcohol).
Originally posted by: luvly
Funny, Gobadgrs, you're the one who missed the point completely. The point of my analogy/sarcasm is that your posts in similar threads are always of the same nature (i.e., you assume so much and dismiss the case of the individual). Civil rights is civil rights, no matter the grounds. I wasn't affirming that your friend was White . . . I was only applying your silly arguments in threads about civil rights, but I would almost bet a million that he is White.
Cry me a river, Gobadgrs. You always crawl into your old whiny state everytime you're called upon. *Doing the sticking tongue out!* Don't worry, you'll grow up some day and act like man, instead of a boy.
[Fallen Hero:] "wow, thanks for repeating what was already said. Luvly, you are still a dumbass."
What does that say about you? Ooops! I forgot you were a fallen hero . . . villain; so bitter that he seeks my constant attention by making senseless and pointless posts directed toward me. You're a dumber a$$ for giving time to read a dumb a$$' post and, furthermore, respond to it. Kiss off . . . no time for fallen villains.
Originally posted by: luvly
Funny, Gobadgrs, you're the one who missed the point completely. The point of my analogy/sarcasm is that your posts in similar threads are always of the same nature (i.e., you assume so much and dismiss the case of the individual). Civil rights is civil rights, no matter the grounds. I wasn't affirming that your friend was White . . . I was only applying your silly arguments in threads about civil rights, but I would almost bet a million that he is White.
Cry me a river, Gobadgrs. You always crawl into your old whiny state everytime you're called upon. *Doing the sticking tongue out!* Don't worry, you'll grow up some day and act like man, instead of a boy.
[Fallen Hero:] "wow, thanks for repeating what was already said. Luvly, you are still a dumbass."
What does that say about you? Ooops! I forgot you were a fallen hero . . . villain; so bitter that he seeks my constant attention by making senseless and pointless posts directed toward me. You're a dumber a$$ for giving time to read a dumb a$$' post and, furthermore, respond to it. Kiss off . . . no time for fallen villains.
Originally posted by: luvly
Funny, Gobadgrs, you're the one who missed the point completely. The point of my analogy/sarcasm is that your posts in similar threads are always of the same nature (i.e., you assume so much and dismiss the case of the individual). Civil rights is civil rights, no matter the grounds. I wasn't affirming that your friend was White . . . I was only applying your silly arguments in threads about civil rights, but I would almost bet a million that he is White.
Cry me a river, Gobadgrs. You always crawl into your old whiny state everytime you're called upon. *Doing the sticking tongue out!* Don't worry, you'll grow up some day and act like man, instead of a boy.
[Fallen Hero:] "wow, thanks for repeating what was already said. Luvly, you are still a dumbass."
What does that say about you? Ooops! I forgot you were a fallen hero . . . villain; so bitter that he seeks my constant attention by making senseless and pointless posts directed toward me. You're a dumber a$$ for giving time to read a dumb a$$' post and, furthermore, respond to it. Kiss off . . . no time for fallen villains.
Originally posted by: luvly
"Why do you always try to come across as intelligent? One would assume you were a psychologist/lawyer/pol sci expert with all the comments you "grace" us with. And then when your views are debated, you insult the poster in some way. I can see why people say the things about you that they do."
Dtyn, am I supposed to act stupid to please people? I see folks on the forum act stupid and they get walked on. No, I don't post to sound smart. My posts are simply reflections of my life experience or knowledge obtained.
I honestly want a response here, Dtyn: Show me where I attack or insult anyone who in a civil manner challenges my view or statements? I would honestly love to see one instance where I "insulted" anyone challenging my view without he/she initiating a personal attack. My general rule is, we can disagree about something or agree to disagree, but don't insult me. Once you do that, you've crossed the line. I either will ignore you or give you back the what you bargained. It's also the reason why initiating personal attacks is a bad thing. It causes divertion from the discussion, in spite of how important discussion might be.