nice abuse of power by the first lady

[BlaqueKatt]

story here

Michelle Obama had the secret service confiscate the cell phones of the patrons in a restaurant she went to, "so her picture wouldn't be taken".

I'm sorry but that falls under illegal search and seizure unless they had warrants-i don't care who you are you do not get to take my personal property without a warrant.

She also sent 3 agents to the kitchen to ensure her burger was "properly cooked"-great nice violation of health codes on top of it.

[Greenday]

Illegal search and seizure has to do with collecting evidence. The Secret Service wasn't collecting evidence for any criminal cases so that's not quite the case. But I'm seriously surprised that they were allowed to do that.

[Slayergrrl]

Oooh. I'd be hella pissed!! Why the hell would I want her picture anyway?

[guywithashovel]

At this point, I really can't think of a good reason for this to have been done. However, if this is the worst abuse of power that I ever see from this administration, I'm not going to get my feathers ruffled too badly. Especially not after the crap the previous administration pulled.

[Flyndaran]

Illegal search and seizure has to do with collecting evidence. The Secret Service wasn't collecting evidence for any criminal cases so that's not quite the case. But I'm seriously surprised that they were allowed to do that.

It's illegal search and seizure if governmental employees take your stuff period. Sadly it's common for secret service thugs to take your stuff and even to never give it back. My favorite company, Steve Jackson Games, nearly went out of business when Secret Service took all thier computers and files, and subsequently never gave much of it back. This happend in the early 80s in response to their devolping a book on a Cyberpunk setting.

[BlaqueKatt]

It's illegal search and seizure if governmental employees take your stuff period.

yuppers-fourth amendment to the US constitution-

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.

The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests.

seems like there was meaningful interference by the government with an individual's property.

However, if this is the worst abuse of power that I ever see from this administration, I'm not going to get my feathers ruffled too badly.

yeah because violating a constitutional amendment is forgivable

"But...but... but... Bush did worse"

that does not make it ok. Anymore than the Bush lackey's "but...but...but Clinton" made anything Bush did ok.

[Mr Slugger]

I can understand sending the secret service into the kitchen to check on the food. I mean if were the spouse of someone running the country wouldn't you want to make sure no one messes with the food?

However as far as taking people's cell phones I think it's downright wrong, unfortunately it happens alot. I mean we had a cop that got drunk and crashed his cruiser into a group of people. Of course people grabbed their cell phones to video tape it, and when back up showed up they demanded the phones and were going to arrest people if they didn't hand them over.

[Flyndaran]

I can understand sending the secret service into the kitchen to check on the food. I mean if were the spouse of someone running the country wouldn't you want to make sure no one messes with the food?
....

If you are that worried, then don't go to a private establishment. Being related to a politician does not allow you to violate health codes.

[linguist]

She also sent 3 agents to the kitchen to ensure her burger was "properly cooked"-great nice violation of health codes on top of it.

[/quote]

So am I correct in assuming that you were there and witnessed the agents walk into the kitchen without washing their hands or wearing proper hair restraint? Because if not I'm failing to see the health code violations, and claiming that there were comes off as a desperate ploy to cast aspersions whereever you can.

[Nyoibo]

So am I correct in assuming that you were there and witnessed the agents walk into the kitchen without washing their hands or wearing proper hair restraint? Because if not I'm failing to see the health code violations, and claiming that there were comes off as a desperate ploy to cast aspersions whereever you can.

I don't know about the US but in Australia it wouldn't matter if they did that, it's a health code violation for any non-authorised personel to enter a food preparation area.

There's also no way in hell I'd give up my phone to some guy in a suit.

[Mr Slugger]

If you are that worried, then don't go to a private establishment. Being related to a politician does not allow you to violate health codes.

I dunno it wouldn't violate any health codes around here so long as they didn't actually handle the food. I've seen vendors, delivery guys, etc. walking around a kitchen around here. Again they just don't just the kitchen stuff. But I've seen far worse in a kitchen than some guy in a suit.

As far as private establishments. I dunno sometimes I'm in the mood for steak at home and sometimes I'm in the mood for steak at the texas roadhouse. Just because she's the first lady doesn't mean she should be locked completely away. That's what the secret service are there for.

[linguist]

I don't know about the US but in Australia it wouldn't matter if they did that, it's a health code violation for any non-authorised personel to enter a food preparation area.

regulations vary by state and municipality, but in general, in my experience working in different cities and states, anyone can enter a food preparation area with the owner's permission, provided they follow proper food safety and sanitation protocol.

and who are considered 'authorized personnel?' is a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity not considered authorized?

[Slytovhand]

I was actually about to point that out as well, Linguist. Sorry, Nyoibo, but I don't think that's right. 'Entering' isn't the problem - it's what you do there that matters.

Of course, on the other hand, there is also the situation of 'Trespass'. The 'No Unauthorised Personnel' includes anyone not there with a legitimate reason to... which means if the owner says no, the answer is no (excepting law enforcement and health officials... not steak quality assurance persons).

Linguist, just because someone is acting in an offical capacity does not automatically give them the right to walk all over someone else's rights - including trespass (although, I'd imagine the US constitution allows SS to go whereever they want... and probably to do anything they want as well....)

Just because she's the first lady doesn't mean she should be locked completely away. That's what the secret service are there for.

I don't think anyone is suggesting she should be... but I don't think that gives her the right to walk all over anybody else's rights either... which is what the taking of the phones is.

Cops taking mobile phones that contain evidence?? Hmmm... surely that's perverting the course of justice??

[Mr Slugger]

I don't think anyone is suggesting she should be... but I don't think that gives her the right to walk all over anybody else's rights either... which is what the taking of the phones is.

Which I totally agree on the taking of phone's part. That should not happen. I will only defend her having the SS check on the food part

[Chantilly]

I agree it would've been a pretty blatant abuse of power ... if it had actually happened.

This is what actually happened. Paragraph five pertains to the subject at hand.

Always take the NYP with a grain of salt, especially Page Six. Their veracity is on par with the Weekly World News.

<now going back to lurker mode >