Secret Service Violates 4th Amendment Rights of Diners to Stop Photo's of Michelle Obama

obligatory (0.00 / 0)

no justice, no peace.

---

by: benwetmore @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:09:56 PM CDT

I am not even sure what to say............... (0.00 / 0)

It is the unabashed belief that they are above the law - pure and simple.

BTW - Michelle has proven to be a rather uneventful first lady, don't you think?

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:21:40 PM CDT

ERm (0.00 / 0)

There's a lot the secret service can do that is in violation of the broad laws, but most of it is necessary for protection purposes. Not that this was one of those cases.

---

by: CD Rates @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 21:42:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What if the agents had the owner's permission? (5.00 / 1)

The owner of the eatery says, "Please give your cell phones to the agents temporarily or you will be asked to leave."  I don't see a violation in that case.

Even barring that, I don't believe it is a violation for a law enforcement officer to merely ask that something be done.  If a policeman shows up at your door and says, "May I look around?"  and you agree, then that isn't illegal because you gave permission.  Although if you said, "Get a warrant or pound sand." then that would be the end of it.

But I'm not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV.

---
"It is true that I am of an older fashion; much that I love has been destroyed or sent into exile." - The Judgement of Dr. Johnson, Act III

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:24:35 PM CDT

You're always the party pooper around here... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 18:42:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I heard about this story (0.00 / 0)

And I believe you are correct.  The owner of the eatery can request everyone turn in their phones, and he can ask you to leave if you don't comply.  What goes unsaid is the Secret Service has no authority to require you to surrender personal property.  They can ask, and you can voluntarily do it, but if you did not, they don't even have the authority to ask you to leave (they could have word with the owner though and he could).  But that phone itself cannot be shown to to be any kind of threat....unless you throw it ala Russel Crowe.  But if they wanted to make that case, you'd have to empty your pockets, and surrender your shoes.  But practically speaking what owner is going to risk a visit by the president/first family because a patron would turn over the phone?

This was all because "someone" didn't want to be photographed eating a burger and rings while trying to promote a healthy lifestyle. I'm sure there aren't many cameras around when the prez lights one up either :)

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 19:18:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Confiscate (0.00 / 0)

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
1 : to seize as forfeited to the public treasury
2 : to seize by or as if by authority

I assume the New York Post here means definition #2.  Doesn't the word "confiscate" imply that it was without consent?  People often use words that don't actually fit what they are trying to say and news stories are often wrong.  However, if this story is accurate it looks like these things were taken without consent.

"Victory is Mine!" - Stewart Gilligan Griffin.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:49:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Haven't (0.00 / 0)

seen any evidence that the owner had anything to do with this.

Sorry, Obama family....you knew what you were getting into and now you are celebrities.  That status has it's price and that price does not involve me giving up my personal property.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:48:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More BS from Eabo... (0.00 / 0)

...where was your outrage at the Bush Secret Service?

Just another example of phony outraged from the Right.

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 21:49:41 PM CDT

Some us were (0.00 / 0)

Opposed when protests were limited and "Free Speech Zones" were created at conventions, or prohibited in general.  This is the US and pretty much a free speech zone from coast to coast...at least that's the theory. You'll also recall Bush had Cindy Sheehan camped outside his ranch and supported her (and her followers') right to dissent publicly outside his private residence.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 22:01:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You recall incorrectly... (0.00 / 0)

...Sheehan had to move to private property down the road to continue her protests--Bush didn't let her do anything.

BTW, would you please provide a like from RMG regarding "some of us were" opposed to creating "free speech zones".  I stand by my ascertain that this diary is nothing but a fake outrage from someone who just hates Obama.

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:50:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can only speak for myself (0.00 / 0)

And I was not a member of this community at this time.  Had the discussion many times in my social circles.  So go ahead and just imply I'm making stuff up.

And reports were that Sheehan's only restriction was that she could not be on private property (which apparently is very large in TX).  Who would allow a protest on their own property?  Would you? None the less, GW stated more than once that he supported her right to dissent publicly.

But, how pray tell is this related to confiscation of private property?  Or it simply a swat at Ebo et al?

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:29:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's to point out that this... (0.00 / 0)

..."violation of the 4th Amendment" BS  that Eabo is spouting is a cheap swat by Eabo aimed at Obama...because if Eabo--and the other so-called defenders of the US Constitution here at BMG--really cared about the Constitution; George W. Bush et al, gave them much more subjects to be outraged about.  But no, they just sat on their hands and said nothing.  

Now they express false this outrage (which I first heard on Michael Graham yesterday)...because they are haters and will tear into the President of the United States for any fabricated or imaginary reason they can find. (He's a Mulsim, not a US Citizen, wants to kill grandma--because he killd his grandma, he's a communist, he's a Nazi {and Rush and many conservatives are saying/implying that--not just LaRouchians}, ect)

If you call that a swat at Eabo et al, that is your opinion...for me it is pointing out their obvious hypocrisy.    

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:04:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True enough (0.00 / 0)

But I think it's the the nature of many folks in matters political.  We tend to let things slide when "our guy" is in office, even though deep down we may say "That's not quite right", but we'll yell bloody murder when the opposition is in office.  Not because we're haters, but we hate what we see going on, even if it is exaggerated.  I'd be the first to concede the GW stepped on/over the constitution more than once and sometimes quite blatantly, and there were plenty of folks who cried fowl (of many political stripes).  But given the proximity to 9/11 many folks (including those in Congress) let it slide, because it was uncharted territory.  It was less about politics and more about fear.  And I believe the same tactic was and is being used push for Cap-n-trade, Stimulus, and HealthCare reform.  "We have to act now....or everything will collapse"....sounds an awful like "We have to do this or we run the risk of being attacked again".

And yes, there is a lot of hype out there that gets regurgitated over and over, but it's more about fear and some hidden agenda than policy.  Oh yes, there's a lot of policy bitching too, but that happens constantly from all sides.  Often people become more engaged when opposing something/someone than supporting, and that's much of what you call hypocrisy.  That doesn't make it BS though IMO.  Who among us is so principled that they don't let those they look favorably upon have a bit of a pass, and not find fault with those they disagree with or dislike?  Like to meet such a person.  BS to you...human nature to me.

This was published in the NYPost...hardly the liberal Bastion the NYTimes is, but certainly not the national enquirer either.  People naturally recoil when policy appears to have no real purpose...especially something as innocent as woofing down a burger.  This one is "right in the face", and gives the appearance of hiding something even if  what is being hidden in innocuous.  Hardly clinging to executive privilege to avoid embarrassment, but annoying none the less.  I don't suppose there are long discussions going on over at BMG about this (just a guess)?...see first sentence.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:09:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's even deeper than what you write... (0.00 / 0)

...Sure we cut more slack for the people like than those we oppose...I call it hypocrisy and I'll freely admit that by that standard, I can be hypocritical.  (As an aside, you seem to be reasonable enough to hopefully admit that the venom against Obama is far, far worse than the worse ever aimed at Bush...i mean Bush ducked duty in Vietnam with a no-show national guard stink, or Bush's daddy bought off a judge to hide W's coke arrest is the worst, or Bush fell off the wagon are the worst lefty attacks against Bush.  Bush hasn't been accused of killing his grandmother, or supporting terrorists who killed 3000 Americans and all the crap I listed above.  The hate aimed at Obama so early in his term is mind boggling.)

Also, I will admit that I purposely use the word "hater" for a very good reason.  When liberals would offer criticism about Bush and his many misguided policies, conservatives just dismissed the substance of the points by saying "Oh your just a Bush hater" without addressing the points.  So yes, I agree with you...it all has to do with politics and frankly nothing to do with policies (do you really think Obama wants Veterans to kill themselves?).  And part of my little private mission is to help in my small way to call out the political BS of conservatives and hold up hypocrites for what they are.  BTW, have you read any on my posts on BMG...many have been the sharpest criticism aimed at Patrick at BMG.  

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 13:08:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes and know (0.00 / 0)

There was a great deal from both sides aimed at this and the previous administration.  No dispute.  And Bush had some pretty wild attacks thrown at him too (Ala Dan Rather, MoveOn.org, Keith O, Mathews, DailyKos).

I was often critical of Bush as well. But, MSNBC and DailyKos became so offensive I could not even stomach it.  I would call the level venon on par with what you're seeing now.  The attacks on BHO are of a different type, but no worse than the Bush Derangement syndrome that was common since the invasion of Iraq.  When you have Affleck doing impressions of Keith O on SNL you've officially lost it.  Even J Braude found MSNBC not fit for consumption.  The NYTimes/Globe went out of their to portray Bush in the most negative light they possibility could as often as they could.  Now the opposite is coming from conservative sources.  You may find them more offensive than those against Bush because of your inclinations, but I'm not sure I agree with that, but that is because of my perspective.

One tiny thing you overlook in whole discussion that bears mentioning......there is an unspoken tinge of racism in the the term "hater" when applied to critics of the current president....often not spoken directly.  And there is a tendency for those who use it against the current critics to throw the word around with that subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) innuendo.  And while racism itself is offensive, it is equally offensive to be labeled a racist when there is no basis...even if unintentional by those using those term.

It's always that little thing skulking in the background of response to criticisms that no one wants to acknowledge.  

How many commentators have more than implied that Tea-Party attendees (I won't say tea-baggers because even that has a sleazy sexual implication) and those protesting at Healthcare forums just can't stand a black man in office?

It's always like they're waiting for that moment when they can whip that one out of their pocket to shut down the discussion (because a racist is just ignorant right?).   It's one of those hot button issues the public is so hyper-sensitive to one is most often guilty by virtue of the claim being made (regardless of the facts).  Look at the whole Gates/Crowley thing. No one even knows for sure what was said and the masses lined up along lines of (Crowley's a racist/Gates was wrong and sharply divided groups).  You could easily use the word hater when reponding to critics of Bush and no one questioned what you meant.  Not so much the other way though (again no intent implied).

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 15:08:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two things... (0.00 / 0)

...as I point out, the "hate" label (in my memory) started out with Clinton haters and then Bush haters and now Obama haters...that you throw the jab that there is a subtle hint of "racism" in calling Eabo and all "haters" seems more rooted in a defensive reaction you have and not the contemporary political root of the term (which I pint out goes back to at least 1993/4)  I don't think Eabo is a racist...just a partisan (I do believe some here have a degree of racism in their writings, but I'm not going there.)

Also, can you at least concede there is an eliminate of racism that lurks in the opposition of Obama.  Let me first say that those on the left that knee jerk that any criticism of Obama is racist are themselves prejudice.  But I went to a health care town meeting recently and some (certainly not all) of the opposition I saw was not opposing health care reform, but a hatred against illegal aliens.  Yes illegal aliens are an issue, but those that being them for every wrong in the world are card carrying racitst.  I have to run...but Rush has a histriy oif being a racist (remember he was suspended from Monday Night Football for bad comments) and Glenn Beck is racist.  I have to run...  

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 16:01:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are awesome Festus...... (0.00 / 0)

You have responded 7 times to this post and 6 of the responses had comments about Bush in them.  

Take a deep breath and repeat after me "Bush isn't President any more.  I can relaaaxxx nooowwww".  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 17:11:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised by your intellect response... (0.00 / 0)

...I honestly thought you were unable to count up to 7.  

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 18:23:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then I didn't word it well (0.00 / 0)

I was careful to try not to throw a jab at you personally, and perhaps I failed.  I didn't say or mean to imply that you were calling Ebo a racist.  What I was trying to convey that although your use of the word may by meant in one way, it may have a much deeper meaning when another reads it.

 What I said and what I maintain is that the word "hater" when used by typical media sources often carries an implied (and sometimes explicit) undertone of racism so as to dismiss the critic as being ignorant (because of racism).  And it is quite different when paired with GW's name then the term alone or in reference to a comment about a person of color or ethnicity (h8r).  

The history of the word in political word I don't know, so I'll take your word for it.  However in the real world the vernacular was common place in popular, music, video and street language. It is most often uttered by a person of color or ethnicity to dismiss someone as ignorant because they are intolerant or unacceptable of anyone who happens to be non-white.  I've had this discussion many times in social circles with people of all shapes, colors, and backgrounds...and it generally it comes back to some derivation of term more devious than it seems to imply.

Check out the urban dictionary for hater.  There are multiple definitions.  But they all mean more than an intense dislike or what Websters would term "One who expresses hatred" (which if I understand your comments was your intent).  They revolve around jealousy, ignorance, poor character, poor upbringing, unenlightened, or pejoratives like this:

A premeditated or spontaneous act of an individual or group thereof, who endeavors to keeps another individual (usually African American) from achieving his or her full potential in their chosen field of excellence.

There's more to this definition, but I won't go one as the post is probably 3/4 on inch by now.

Now while I know this had nothing to do with your intent, this is perception when I read the word hater in reference to a critic of the president (or anyone of color).  But maybe I just grew up in different neighborhood.  

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 20:08:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't take your comments to mean I was calling anybody a racist,,, (5.00 / 1)

But on reflection I can see how some people being called an Obama hater could feel they were being called a racist.  But that is a complex issue involving the over  history of racism (and sexism for that matter) in the US and elsewhere.  Apparently I can called a "Bush hater" and the implication is I'm a fringe leftie, but to call someone an "Obama hater" the implication is they are a racist...maybe...words and context can do that.  In a different vain, just like a strong and agressive woman could be called a "bitch" but it is positive qualities in a man.  

By your logic (and it has merit) that anyone who is critized for being critical of Obama, feels they are being called a racist.  Not sure what we can do about it--and I'll admit that a few liberals will throw out the racist label quickly--but like I said, the issue you bring up is bigger that me, you or Obama and will be with us for a long, long time.  (And to back up your point, I was recently having a "discussion" with a conserative relative about the current state of the affairs and of course I was being critical of him for being critical of the shitty hand Obama was dealt before Jan 20th.  The relative said, "why do people who disagree with Obama all of a sudden get called 'racist"...which of course I did not say.  Five minutes later he said, "you just called me racist a few minutes ago because I disagree with Obama.  I was amazed and baffled at his wild imigination (and he is very well educated--not a space shot), but your theory certainly explains his thought process to me.

Gee, all this talk crosses the line into political correctness and the power of words, you may lose your secret RMG decoder ring for this.  As I said, after being called a Bush hater for years around here, I just don't see it and I'll continue to call many here Obama haters...and I think many will wea that as a badge of honor, becuase they really do hate him (hell Ben Wetmore won't say the Pledge of Alliance because he hates Obama and his policies so much.)

BTW, I can't believe I'm having a conversation about the context and meaning of words at RMG.  This is a place where racist code words are thrown about everyday and if a person is called out on it by an occasional liberal, they are scoffed at.  The venom that is spewed around here (and by many conseratives) about immigrants (legal and illegal) people of the Muslim faith (Islamofacist is frankly an oxoymoron, but widely embraced here), the how birther movement is centered on the fact that he (a n*gger) don't belong here...and on and on and on.  So, while I see your point about the word "hater"--because of all the political correct schooling I had--if you want to call out some people here on the misuse and abuse of language, I would think I'm about 10th in line for that.

Which brings me to my last point...during one of you first appearances at RMG you asked me--basically--why I can be such an asshole sometimes.  Well here I am having a perfectly civil conservation with you and then we have idiots like Electric Strawberry and V3PN throwing jabs at me.  And people wonder why sometimes I sound defensive and lash out at the slightest thing.  It's a tough neighborhood around here and if I ever look weak, I'm dead meat.  

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 22:48:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Think about this: (0.00 / 0)

Last night there was a rerun of The Simpsons where Homer was using prescription marijuana.  He said this line:

I could walk up to the President and blow smoke in his stupid monkey face, and he'd just have to sit there groovin' on it.

It was from the "Weekend at Burnsie's" episode from 2002.  Had he used that same quote now with President Obama I can easily see charges of racism happening even if there was no racist intent behind it.

Such is life.

"Victory is Mine!" - Stewart Gilligan Griffin.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:24:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Waaaaaaahhhhh (0.00 / 1)

ElectricStrawberry is "throwing jabs at me".........by pointing out that my Bush-hating link to claimed Constitutional violations is a bunch of nonsense and really led, with 2 seconds of digging, to a guy that broke the law, continued to break the law when given a choice to not break the law.....was convicted, fined, and had his appeal denied.

This is what you get when you post koolade......maybe you should try primary sources for a change instead of the rabid lefty sites you frequent.

Whatsamattah....don't like your bogus information being shown for the bogus information it is?

Maybe you should get back to whining about alleged threats of violence.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 10:35:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I did read some of your stuff (0.00 / 0)

On Patrick and many other things.  

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 15:24:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Hater" (5.00 / 1)

...is a popular, childlike catchall term to impugn the motives of someone with whom you disagree.

"Hater" is freely tossed about by folks who lack the knowledge, the maturity, or the language skills to form a more cogent or persuasive argument.

It has become the left's equivalent of calling someone a "poo poo head".

---

by: geo999 @ Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:22:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

BWAAAAAA (0.00 / 0)

hahahahahaha....

George W. Bush et al, gave them much more subjects to be outraged about

DO, tell....how much do you hate Bush?  How about you read the Appeals Ruling and find the REAL truth about poor widdle Mr Bursey the dumbass and how he behaved.....instead of relying on just another lefty website.....nawwww....koolade tastes too good.  Mr. Bursey violated the law....specifically Title 18, Section 1752.

Awwwww....but then you couldn't hate Bush a little more.

If THIS nonsense is what you have, I'd LOVE to hear about all those Bush violations of the Constitution.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 13:09:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Better (0.00 / 0)

get your facts straight.  Mr. Bursey violated the law......and his behavior, well.....smug little hippies still go to jail, still get convicted for violating the law, still lose their appeal.

After the President's plane had landed but before he arrived at Doolittle Hangar, the restricted area was "shut down," i.e., it was cleared of all vehicles and pedestrians, including ticket holders awaiting entrance to the hangar. See Verdict at 7, 12. Thereafter, only authorized persons, such as presidential staff, military, and law enforcement officers (all of whom wore lapel pins issued by the Secret Service), could remain in the restricted area.

Prior to the President's arrival, Bursey drove to the airport, intending to protest the war in Iraq.2 After parking his car, Bursey walked to a grassy area near the hangar (within the restricted area), at the southeastern corner of Airport Boulevard and Lexington Drive, carrying anti-war signs and a megaphone. See Verdict at 4. A Secret Service Agent, Holly Abel, and a state law enforcement officer, Tamara Baker, then approached Bursey and informed him that he could not remain in the restricted area. See id. After some discussion, Bursey crossed diagonally to the northwestern corner of the same intersection, remaining in the restricted area.

Law enforcement officers thereafter advised Bursey that the northwestern corner of the intersection was also restricted. See Verdict at 4. Moreover, Agent Abel advised Bursey that he had certain choices: (1) go home; (2) get in line if he had a ticket; (3) go to the designated demonstration area; or (4) suffer the consequences and be arrested.

Guess which one Mr. Bursey took.....

...and I don't know what the specific laws are in SC, but in other parts of the country, when someone sets up a rally on public property, you do not have a right to disrupt the rally.

.....awwwwwwwww....but then you'd not have anything to say but "but but but but Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush...."

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:58:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am.... (4.00 / 1)

....a lawyer, even though I don't play one on TV.

There is not enough information here to surmise a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  

First of all, your source is a gossip column so a big grain of salt is required here.

Second, as Patrick pointed out, voluntarily complying with a temporary seizure of personal property is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  And the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement, upon making a request to search or seize need not inform an individual that they have the right to refuse to comply.  In short, there is no Miranda style warning for searches and seizures.  If you waive the right, even if you did not know you could, your rights have not been violated.

Moreover, also as Patrick pointed out, as long as there is no suspect classification implicated, a private business owner can condition service on compliance with reasonable requests, such as, the First Family is here, you must surrender your cell phone if you wish to be served.

Unless you can cite a source that says that the Secret Service requested a patron's cell phone, the patron refused, and the agent made them give it over knowing that the owner of the establishment refused to condition service on such compliance, there is simply no constitutional violation here.  

Also, I have spent lots of time in federal buildings and with federal officials.  Surrendering of personal electronic devices is standard operating procedure.  Not because people might use them to take pictures, but because they can be used as detonators.  Here, an unnamed source in a gossip column suggests the reason for confiscating the phones was to prevent taking of pictures.  Knowing what I do about federal security procedures, I sincerely doubt that these phones were taken for this purpose.  It is a security measure.  One that I know the secret service commonly employs when practical . . . and  has been in place for longer than the Obama's have been in the White House.  

Warrantless wiretapping, however, is a constitutional violation as determined by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.  

You've made a mountain out of a mole hill here, and used it to compare apples to oranges.  

---

by: schulteraffe @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 21:56:41 PM CDT

Not disagreeing, but you're mixing fruit a bit too (0.00 / 0)

But it is easily to speculate the reason for the policy was not security related. Sounds a little more like avoiding bad press and a bit of vanity....sounds much more plausible no matter the official explanation.

The patrons were in a private business, without advance warning of a visiting dignitary (little opportunity for ill intent to be planned).  There is also no expectation of privacy and they are public people.  So there is that too.

I don't know if you've ever been in a setting when a first lady is making an unscheduled appearance, but my wife was when HRC was first lady (the building was in Attleboro, and it was 1999 I believe).  There was no advanced notice.  The Secret Service showed up about 15-20 minutes before she arrived.  Went through the building with a few high tech devices (I assume checking for explosives and eavesdropping equipment).  The patrons had about 10 minute warning before she actually walked in the door.  The only restriction was no one allowed to leave once they got within 10 minutes of the visit (they were given the opportunity to "leave now" or "stay", this is your last chance to do one or the other.).

Oh, she got to keep here cell phone.  Perfectly capable of detonating a previously placed device  (although granted cameras were not as common then in phones).  The only press coverage was our little rinky dink local paper who got a call and had to only have a reporter walk across the street (literally 30 second walk) with a camera.  

I too have gone on many a job interview and service calls to "sensitive" place, but they have a big sign that says "Please leave all cellphones and recording devices here".  You know the deal going in.  And the practice of surrender only became common when cameras became common.  You always had to surrender cameras and recording devices.  Nextels and non camera phones were not an issue.  In fact as recently as 9 months ago, I was asked at a military development lab if my phone had a camera.  Evidently it was permitted if it did not have one (but how many phones don't have cameras now?).  Odd since all of the work their is classified, and some of it even higher.  The data center was beyond classified. But they have no problem with phones, just cameras and recording devices according to the gentlemen I was meeting.  In fact, if I got the job for which I was interviewing, I was permitted to carry a cellphone if I signed an agreement to not take photographs on the grounds.

The building I work in now is classified in large parts, non citizens are not allowed without escort even if they are employed there, but the practice of surrendering cell phones for visitors is recent. So the remote detonation thing is less of a concern than it would appear. In my experience it all about the pictures, not about the phone itself.

You also seem to omit (albeit one man's claim) that the poster claims to have spoken to officials in the Bush admin, and that it was NOT their policy.  

So while I don't dispute anything you said on the legality (the surrender sounds voluntary, and no they need not inform them of a requirement to comply, so no real cause of action), you too appear to be mixing your fruit a bit as well, as we can hardly compare Mel's Diner to the White House or Lexington Labs.  And the camera is more often the issue than the phone itself.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 23:30:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Respectfully... (0.00 / 0)

...I am not mixing fruit.  

When practicle the secret service may choose to request surrender of electronic devices as a security measure regardless of the location.  And it may not happen every time.  I've seen it happen when visiting dignitaries have been protected at unscheduled stops.  Outside of the issue of using the phones as detonators, there is also the issue of people who have not been screened using their phones to contact others who may seek to do harm.  This is more important where there are free floating credible threats against the protected target.  Perhaps Michelle Obama has been threatened more than HRC was.

Secondly, the reference to the Bush administration procedures seems to relate to avoiding picture taking.  Not really relevant if one presumes instead that the secret service was doing their job and not acting as over zealous PR reps.    

Of course pictures are an issue where classified material is at issue, but that is not likely the case in a diner.

Ultimately, why the phones were collected is a matter of conjecture since we don't actually know why they did it.  However, there are a number of rational, reasonable explanations why the service would have done so for legitimate security purposes.  Here, the poster, without any analysis of what a Fourth Amendment violation actually looks like, has presumed that highly trained federal employees are willing to disregard the Constitution for the purposes of vanity.  It is a completely vacuous charge that says more about the poster than the current administration.    

---

by: schulteraffe @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:12:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair Points (0.00 / 0)

But legalese and speculation aside, there also a less formal concept in which no implication of the poster is required..."The giggle test"....and this one fails.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:35:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I concede that... (0.00 / 0)

...the giggle test has not been passed.  But since the supposition of constitutional violation has been created by the poster, for me, the implication stands.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:46:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Photos at the White House (0.00 / 0)

This is probably apples & oranges but a no-photo policy isn't exactly new - at least to the Obama Administration.

Back in June I took a day trip to Washington DC with the primary goal of taking the public, East Wing, tour of the White House.

To my surprise it was clearly noted in the documentation that photography was NOT permitted within the White House.  Now, this rule probably went back to GWB if not well before but I did find it a little strange.  Not only were cameras not permitted but cell phones had to be kept in your pocket and could not be used as camera.  Of course, phones also had to be off to be silent - which isn't any different from a movie theater request.

However, you're a tourist.  You're on vacation.  You've gone through a background check & a metal detector yet you can't take pictures in the White House?  Is this some sort of White House Visitors Center plot to sell souvenir guide books?  Actually, it may very well be as they were sold out!

Seriously... you're on a trip of a lifetime, visiting the White House (and not exactly the West Wing where you know, something besides tourists & ceremonials happen) and you can't take photos?!  

To be fair, the prohibition seems to be photos IN the White House as, assuming for the sake of discussion that the prohibition of photography inside extends at least into GWB, we were allowed to bring cameras on on the South Lawn of the White House when His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI visited.

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 21:59:15 PM CDT

Common Place (0.00 / 0)

As far back as the 50 and 60's camera where not permitted in certain government installations.  I remember taking a tour of Hanscom AF Base (or was it Weymouth Naval) in 69-70 (ok, I was young), and there were signs all over the place that cameras were verboten.

But this was no government installation, it was a private business. Sure the owner can ask, and the SS (pardon the pun, but those are their initials) can ask, and the owner can even insist you leave if you'd don't play nice, but the SS has no legal authority from the lawyers I heard discussing it on the radio this morning.    They can ask you to stand on your head if they want, whether you comply is a different matter.  I'm not even sure they have grounds to require you to leave if you refuse to hand over your phone, but the owner does.  

But as I said/asked above, what proprietor is going to lose a first family visit for a stubborn patron?  Not likely to happen on Vineyard this week I'd guess.  But then again, they're likely to woofing down burgers in public either after this came out.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 23:44:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Military Installation vs People's House (4.00 / 1)

While ultimately the lack of a camera within the walls of the White House is relatively minor, if somewhat annoying for a tourist, I don't know if equating Hanscom Air Force Base - a military installation & not merely a government building - has national security issues.

The East Wing of the White House with its tours of the Blue, Red, Green & etc rooms... not so much.  :)

Again, not a huge issue but I could stand on the South Lawn & photograph towards the White House but I couldn't stand within the Blue Room & take a shot out towards the South Lawn?  Is the portrait of George Washington & the others of our presidents national secrets?!  

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:10:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

s.s. violates 4th amendment rights @ diner... (0.00 / 0)

all i can tell you is that my cousin, a staunch democrat who voted for our current president, is now very much up in arms about the confiscating of cell phones, because least of all, they had to have burgers.  i did not vote democratic, i did at one time, but i will never vote for that party again.  i realize that this white house wants to bankrupt us intentionally for their gain and to create a system that will strip us of our constitutional rights.  it's about money in the end.  it's about taking any potential gains in our personal lives away from us.  the healthcare proposal is about destruction of the life we live as we know it.  it is about creating a new government order explicitly for the agenda of none other than revenge. my mother is afraid of these talking points about her healthcare and it's insinuation that she is not worth the powder to blow her to hell. my cousins husband has a union job for a large company and they have already been assured that they will keep their company healthcare plan.  no rationed healthcare for them!  all unions will be exempt from having to give up their company-sponsored healthcare.  what is wrong with this picture!!! make a special point americans to find out that whatever you purchase if it has come from a union-run company. do not give up the life you know in this wonderful country because someone else thinks it is their right to take it away from you. it is our duty to take back our america!

---

by: screechowl @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:26:47 AM CDT

Was the Secret Service seizure of the telephones really voluntary? (0.00 / 0)

Just something to ponder....

Imagine the scenario:
You are sitting in a restaurant having a slice of pizza and talking casually to your friend on the phone, when suddenly the secret service sweeps through the front and back doors.  You know what the secret service looks like by the black suits and their sunglasses, as well as the sub machine guns tucked under the jackets.  Several agents approach you from across the room and ask you for your cell phone in that cold hard stare they are so good at.  Do you give it up or do you crap your underwear?  Is it really voluntary?

I would have given up my phone thinking they were going to kick the living crap out of me if I didn't.  Then after the fact, I would have been mad as hell that I didn't resist the temptation to comply with the request knowing my fourth amendment rights.

Voluntary?  I don't know.....
When the Secret Service asks me to do something I do it....

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:09:01 AM CDT

Whether or... (0.00 / 0)

....not you feel that the surrender of the phone in the scenario you propose was subjectively voluntary is one thing.  And that is really up to an individual's subjective analysis.

The issue raised by this post, however, is constitutionality.  The Supreme Court has ruled that and individual's subjective understanding of a law enforcement request to search or seize is irrelevant and there is no burden on law enforcement to inform of the right to refuse.  So regardless of what you would feel subjectively, absent an actual threat by law enforcement, your consent would be constitutionally voluntary.  And if I recall correctly, this line of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence springs from the Rehnquist Court.  

---

by: schulteraffe @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:18:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So the secret service, by virtue of their intimidating appearance... (0.00 / 0)

can ask for, and get, things that others might only attain by force?

What would you do in this case Schulteraffe?  Imagine you are in the scenario described above - and likely the one that actually played out in that restaurant.  Would you have given the SS your gun, or would you have said "Wait one minute Mr Secret Serviceman, I won't relinquish my gun as per your request as it violates my 4th amendment rights".  What would you have done or said to the SS man?  I am curious.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:30:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

First off.... (0.00 / 0)

...I wouldn't have a gun so there would be no issue there.

Would I surrender a cell phone?  Perhaps.  It would depend on my mood.  I have flat our refused to have my bag searched by MBTA police.  After initially refusing I was fully flanked by three officers who all were withing my personal space telling me that this was standard procedure and that submitting to the search was a pre-requesite for access to the station.  I firmly but politely refused and said I would leave, which I did.  I was feeling defiant and that's how it played out.  Another time I opened my bag and entered the station.  

But how I felt doesn't matter.  For the Fifth Amendment, the intrinsicly coercive nature of law inforcement gives rise to a requirement to warn under certain circumstances.  No such requirement exists for the Fourth Amendment.  Whether or not this is fair or logical is up for debate, but that is the jurisprudence that we have.  So even though a request is coming from someone who's very position gives rise to perceived coersion, a waiver of 4th Amendment rights is voluntary absent actual coersion.  

---

by: schulteraffe @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:43:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction: GUN, not phone - big oops.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:51:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On emore try.... PHONE, not gun.......big oops part deux.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:56:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Secret Service (0.00 / 0)

...does not work for the Obamas. They work for us.

If they felt it advisable to secure devices that had the potential to physically harm the first family, then they were obligated to do so.

If their actions can be shown to be P.R. motivated, then that is a different matter altogether.

Did they secure personal cameras that were not also cell phones?  

---

by: geo999 @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:32:37 PM CDT

Great question (0.00 / 0)

Doubt we'll ever get an answer since it would be a less likely a patron was carrying a camera by chance.  I'd be interested to hear though one way or another.

The SS work for us true in principal, but in practice, not so much.  

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 13:08:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

After thinking about this for a while............ (0.00 / 0)

I think this may just be a matter of overexposure by the Obamas.  There has been talk lately of how Barack Obama has had more press conferences in his first six months than Bush did in his first four years.  Certainly they (the Obamas) have a celebrity status far above the Bush and Clinton families.  So, by trying to cut back on the photos of their every move they might just be trying to stop the over exposure.  People are getting tired of seeing Obama on the news every single day and night.  It hurts his poll numbers.  There are politicians whose poll numbers go up with less exposure.

Think about it - they have outright told the media to back off of their vacation on Martha's Vineyard.  Plus, as we all know, 'absence makes the heart grow fonder'.

As far as taking away people's phones - perhaps the Obamas were trying to stop unnecessary media attention that would result from all the questions - What did they order?  Will Michelle's hamburger go to her thighs?  Did the kids get any fresh vegetables in their dinner?  etc, etc, etc.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:49:40 PM CDT

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)

There are public people who get very wary of having their children photographed with them (except under controlled circumstances), so maybe that was part of the whole thing.

There have been others who have speculated that it was in response to BHO and Biden's late night run for burgers that got more attention than a UN Assembly meeting.  He took some heat for that in the public arena because he had pointed out the growing (no pun intended) problem of obesity in the US.

In the end, I'm sure supporters will just dismiss critics, but you're right on one thing....it's not helping his poll numbers much :)  Even a few weeks ago Bill Maher (who I agree with on almost nothing) wrote an OpEd piece saying "Enough, get off the television...the election is over....go do some work"

For all the opinions spoken, I can never recall any DEM president energizing his opponents so much.  I remember there were many Clinton critics, but not like this. It was hard to argue with a booming economy at the time (for which he took credit of course).

Conservatives & Indies actually showing up at protests to voice opposition, tea parties, non-stop wall to wall pundits? Love it!

I would still really like to see a retrospective poll of voters who are now expressing buyer's remorse.  One of those if I only knew then what I know now deals.  That might prove enlightening.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 20:32:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]