GCTI Ambulance Raided

[gonefishing]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/fbi-agents-raid-atwater-village-ambulance-company/

Raided today most likely Medicare/Medical Fraud.

 

[Handsome Robb]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/fbi-agents-raid-atwater-village-ambulance-company/

Raided today most likely Medicare/Medical Fraud.

Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.

 

[gonefishing]

Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.

Same thing happened to Alpha not long ago. I beleive it is for the protection of the agents.

 

[JPINFV]

Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.

...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.

 

[vcuemt]

...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.

What exactly would refusing to be searched have accomplished?

I think what you meant to say was "most people don't care enough".

 

[SkiMaskWay]

That's a joke right?

 

[rmabrey]

Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.

The boxes were probably old runs or billing information. As far as searching staff, I'm sure I cant comment without violating a forum rule.

 

[JPINFV]

What exactly would refusing to be searched have accomplished?

Having the enumerated right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and secure in my property means something to me.

I think what you meant to say was "most people don't care enough".

Nope. It's in the same league as answering questions posed by the police.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/YOUTUBE]

The interesting part is the counter point provided by the detective starting at the 27 minute part.

 

[vcuemt]

 

[SkiMaskWay]

...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.

Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.

 

[Akulahawk]

Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.

Search warrants have to specify the persons or things to be searched/seized. If the search warrant doesn't apply to me, then I'm generally not going to allow a search absent a warrant. Simply having a warrant doesn't give the agents the right to search everything and everywhere. If you want to wand me while I'm going in to work, fine. However if you want to search my belongings, I will need to see the warrant that specifies that I, or my belongings, must be searched.

 

[jrm818]

use it or loose it....

:usa:

 

[MonkeyArrow]

I would venture to say that once the agents have a search warrant to search and seize the property and the certain effects that they are looking for, they also have jurisdiction over the scene. They [being the federal agents] can have everyone wanded as a condition of entrance onto their scene. Of course, you also have the option of not attempting to access their scene. Why people were still reporting to work and work was still going on while a federal raid was happening, I don't know.

 

[JPINFV]

Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.

So, as mentioned, the warrant specified the employees as well? Could they also search the vehicles of the employees as they arrived at work?

 

[gonefishing]

So, as mentioned, the warrant specified the employees as well? Could they also search the vehicles of the employees as they arrived at work?

It all comes down to officer safety. But I think an emt's car really wouldn't be of interest or included in such a warrant.

 

[JPINFV]

I would venture to say that once the agents have a search warrant to search and seize the property and the certain effects that they are looking for, they also have jurisdiction over the scene. They [being the federal agents] can have everyone wanded as a condition of entrance onto their scene. Of course, you also have the option of not attempting to access their scene. Why people were still reporting to work and work was still going on while a federal raid was happening, I don't know.

Either the warrant authorizes the police to search me, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if I have what they're looking for provided it isn't in plain sight. This is why that one police agency, hospital, and physicians got in trouble when searching for supposed drugs in a rectum of an individual. A good portion of their search happened after the warrant expired. If the warrant is only good to search X between the hours of A and B, it doesn't apply if it's outside of those hours or you aren't X.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...er-nm-police-force-colonoscopy-in-drug-search

Either the scene is closed or it isn't. They can't (legally, which I do understand is something the police rarely care about... see any time the police arrest a photographer in public. This includes a recent $200k civil rights settlement) set conditions of search on people entering the scene if the scene is essentially open to non-law enforcement individuals. Besides, the simple work around is I go, clock in, and stop by my car on the way out to pick up my belongings.

 

[JPINFV]

It all comes down to officer safety. But I think an emt's car really wouldn't be of interest or included in such a warrant.

Constitution > officer safety. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. The overused "officer safety" line does not trump statutory law, case law, and our enumerated rights. Otherwise, police officers would be without restraint to do anything in the name of "officer safety."

 

[gonefishing]

Constitution > officer safety. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. The overused "officer safety" line does not trump statutory law, case law, and our enumerated rights. Otherwise, police officers would be without restraint to do anything in the name of "officer safety."

True. Than that emt easily could of refused but your entering an active search zone. He could of refused and went home lol thats what I would of done [emoji1]

 

[rmabrey]

There is no "but". If the warrant doesnt specifically state that they can search my belongings than they arent searching them. They can wand all the want as im walking past them. I will not stop, nor will I empty metal objects from my pockets.

 

[MonkeyArrow]

Either the scene is closed or it isn't. They can't (legally, which I do understand is something the police rarely care about... see any time the police arrest a photographer in public. This includes a recent $200k civil rights settlement) set conditions of search on people entering the scene if the scene is essentially open to non-law enforcement individuals. Besides, the simple work around is I go, clock in, and stop by my car on the way out to pick up my belongings.

Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts.

Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.