Police Deny Constitutional Rights

[spywizard]

Just so you know, I don't make cops jobs harder by resisting. I'm proud of who I am now days and I just do what they ask (when possible) and it goes easier for everyone. The easier I can make a cop's job go and keep it all rolling , the easier and faster it is for me. ...crazy mike

yep... like it's not illegal to go around without identification, but if you are stopped on foot by a police officer, patted down (he has the right to do so) and he cannot determine your identification, you are looking at 24 hours in the city jail if he wants to be a dick... oh yea, good times, and if it's a friday night, you are in for a show..

[kelkel]

No police officer in any state has the right to force you to exit the vehicle in any state without telling the individual the reason why. "Because I said so" is not a reason and ANY cop that does that should be fired on the spot. No state can create a law and give power to a police department that flies in the face of our constitutional rights.

As far as a death by DWI, me personally I don't see a difference in death by DWI or any other accidental death or death by disease or whatever else you can think of. It's all the same end result...the same tragic loss. I've never had a friend or family member die due to DWI but cancer, car wrecks (no alcohol), war (Iraq), and even outright murder (uncles wife). It all sucks. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not making light of a death by DWI at all. I'm simply alluding to death by any cause is no justification for infringing on liberty. And yes, we're talking about very simple liberties in relation to the video in the OP but even the simplest are important. If we cannot keep the simple ones we cannot keep the big ones.

One of the biggest problems in the U.S. today is we allow our rights to be weakened more and more every day all in the name of safety and generally a very false sense of safety. And every time we ask for more safety, we give up more of our liberty. How or why many can't see this and can't see how dangerous it is to our wellbeing more so than just about anything else I can think of I cannot understand.

Do your research. You are incorrect. You can in NJ and in many other states. It's to protect the officer as their lives are important too. That is the reason. If the driver doesn't like it, tough shit, he would then be arrested for obstructing justice. Call any criminal lawyer in NJ and they'll regurgitate what I just said. It's not a constitutional right to drive.

[spywizard]

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."^[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).^[2][3]

[jimmyinkedup]

Yeah this one really doesnt bother me man. As much as many things law enforcement do I really do not like, this was kind of stupid. Now what would bother me is when the next guy pulled up etc and opened his wallet revealing a badge and was simply waved on with no questions or anything THAT would bother me. Shit like that fries my ass. This - not so much. I expected it to be much much worse.

[crazy mike]

now see crazy mike, that's the problem, there is a law "failure to follow the directions of a police officer" get you cuffed and stuffed real quick... was the officer wrong?? perhaps, the op.... it is funny that the man was detained, and questioned about drugs in his car without warrant or suspicion of drugs ie, him acting weird , or eyes dilated, but in the officers report he will swear that he was suspicious due to many different signs that are acceptable to the court..

they put the dog on the hood of the car to do one thing, damage the paint..

thus a civil lawsuit is the only recourse... the camera was funny..

lucky for him one of the cops didn't drop a bottle of test e in the glove box..

then he'd been in for a ride..

In short, I been around and I know the law a bit. I follow police commands, but in this case just a question, he could of said this is a ck pt and I need to see your face now I am commanding you to roll down the window. Now the situation is set for more directive or most anything else...The point we all know why the cops just get's mad and HE refuses to answer or explain, AND why, I'm a cop and you have to do what I say. Are you Q's me a cop.
So yes we all agree most cases the kid should just do it, but if not is this what we do, and never just giving a complete explanation, just sticking to the premise you have to do because I am law, Bullsh!t It seem that most agree the cop/cops did some wrong, but it seem that some people (no names her) just think one side, The kids wrong , oh, they fVcked up his car for what. He deserved nothing more then civil dialog. ...crazy mike

[spywizard]

In short, I been around and I know the law a bit. I follow police commands, but in this case just a question, he could of said this is a ck pt and I need to see your face now I am commanding you to roll down the window. Now the situation is set for more directive or most anything else...The point we all know why the cops just get's mad and HE refuses to answer or explain, AND why, I'm a cop and you have to do what I say. Are you Q's me a cop.
So yes we all agree most cases the kid should just do it, but if not is this what we do, and never just giving a complete explanation, just sticking to the premise you have to do because I am law, Bullsh!t It seem that most agree the cop/cops did some wrong, but it seem that some people (no names her) just think one side, The kids wrong , oh, they fVcked up his car for what. He deserved nothing more then civil dialog. ...crazy mike

oh, now don't be bringing logic and reasonable thought processes into this.. hahah.. this might help some more..

• The Case: In Sitz v. Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by checkpoints.
• The Details: Some states, including Michigan, have ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision violates rights granted by their states’ Constitutions, and have outlawed DUI sobriety checkpoints.
• The Impact: If you’re stopped at a DUI checkpoint and arrested for DUI (or a crime unrelated to DUI!), your arrest was probably legal. Talk to a DUI attorney for details about your state’s laws.

The Miranda Rights DUI Exception – DUI Arrests
As you probably know from TV and movies, police officers are required to inform you of your Sixth Amendment rights when you’re arrested. If they don’t read you your so-called Miranda rights (right to an attorney, right to remain silent, etc.), anything you say is inadmissible as evidence in court. Except, as it turns out, in DUI cases.

• The Case: In Berkemer v. McCarty, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police aren’t required to read DUI suspects their rights until sometime later than they would during any other criminal arrest.
• The Details: In its decision, the Supreme Court didn’t specify when Miranda rights must be read.
• The Impact: If you’re questioned by police on the way to the station, or while in custody, the evidence you offer may be admissible even if you haven’t been read your Miranda rights.

The Fifth & Sixth Amendment DUI Exception – DUI Evidence
During most criminal arrests, police inform suspects that they have the right to an attorney – that is, they are legally permitted to consult with a lawyer before answering any police questions. As mentioned above, though, DUI suspects aren’t always read those rights. And, it seems, some might not apply anyway.
The Fifth Amendment protects suspects from self-incrimination. Suspects can choose not to answer questions (“I plead the fifth”) rather than answer in a way that could harm their cases. Further, if a suspect refuses/withholds evidence, that refusal cannot be entered as evidence in court. The Sixth Amendment grants criminal suspects the right to an attorney – that is, the right to consult with a lawyer before proceeding with police questioning.

• The Case: In South Dakota v. Neville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI suspects have no right to refuse a breath test. Breathalyzers can provide highly incriminating evidence in DUI cases, but, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, DUI suspects are required to submit.
• The Details: Besides the Fifth Amendment violation, many jurisdictions refuse to allow DUI suspects to consult with a lawyer before submitting to a breath test – and this has been ruled legal. In short, Sixth Amendment rights have been denied in DUI cases. Note that a few states have outlawed these practices permitted by the Supreme Court, because of conflicts with state Constitutions.
• The Impact: Many states have “implied consent” laws that allow breath test refusals to be submitted as evidence during a DUI case. Most states even have penalties for refusing a breath test. It’s a good idea to have a basic understanding of your state’s DUI laws to get an idea of what you can expect.

[thegodfather]

I don't even know where to begin with this video. Let me just say though, that the SCOTUS has ruled that using canines for the purpose of drug interdiction at checkpoints violates 4A Constitutional protections, and they are not permitted at legally permissibly checkpoints such as sobriety, seat belt, registration, and immigration. Those are the only types of checkpoints allowed by ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, and any dereliction of the aforementioned for 'general drug interdiction' is absolutely illegal under the law, and a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments.

[Metalject]

now see crazy mike, that's the problem, there is a law "failure to follow the directions of a police officer" get you cuffed and stuffed real quick... was the officer wrong?? perhaps, the op.... it is funny that the man was detained, and questioned about drugs in his car without warrant or suspicion of drugs ie, him acting weird , or eyes dilated, but in the officers report he will swear that he was suspicious due to many different signs that are acceptable to the court..

they put the dog on the hood of the car to do one thing, damage the paint..

thus a civil lawsuit is the only recourse... the camera was funny..

lucky for him one of the cops didn't drop a bottle of test e in the glove box..

then he'd been in for a ride..

I can't see how on earth any police officer could point towards reasonable suspicion with that video being right there for everyone to see. But for the sake of argument let's say there was, the officer would still be required to tell the individual why he's being detained, why he wants him to do this or that. This is how our law works. If you arrest someone and do not mirandize them, even if guilty as sin the arrest is invalid and the defendant goes free, all because the cop did not follow the law. Miranda v. Arizona 1966.

And I would be surprised if the kid files a lawsuit. I'm sure he could but that wasn't the point of this little deal at all. The kid was simply trying to show an example of a problem that is a huge problem, declining liberty.

[thegodfather]

oh, now don't be bringing logic and reasonable thought processes into this.. hahah.. this might help some more..

• The Case: In Sitz v. Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by checkpoints.
• The Details: Some states, including Michigan, have ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision violates rights granted by their states’ Constitutions, and have outlawed DUI sobriety checkpoints.
• The Impact: If you’re stopped at a DUI checkpoint and arrested for DUI (or a crime unrelated to DUI!), your arrest was probably legal. Talk to a DUI attorney for details about your state’s laws.

I'm not sure Sitz is the proper case law to be citing here. The real issue at hand is the use of canines during a routine checkpoint for sobriety which the SCOTUS clearly ruled illegal. Even if the canine was used in a legal capacity in this case, the officers had no facts which they could articulate by which a reasonable person would believe the suspect had committed any crime, and therefore absent even the lowest degree of suspicion, that of reasonable suspicion, the officers had no legal standing to run a drug detecting canine around his vehicle. They cannot chose to do this on a whim, there needs to be solid articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was/is/or has been committed. The courts have ruled for DECADES that simply choosing not to acquiesce ones constitutional protections upon law enforcement's request is not an admission of guilt, and is not reason for suspicion, and cannot be used as such in the field.

[Metalject]

Do your research. You are incorrect. You can in NJ and in many other states. It's to protect the officer as their lives are important too. That is the reason. If the driver doesn't like it, tough shit, he would then be arrested for obstructing justice. Call any criminal lawyer in NJ and they'll regurgitate what I just said. It's not a constitutional right to drive.

I don't consider myself an expert by any means on any topic in the world. Anyone who claims to be an expert is usually a moron, lol! I did graduate with a degree in constitutional law. I went to school to be an attorney although I never made that my career. I ended up getting into other things. So sure, I know a little but that doesn't always mean I'm right.

Anyway, my point, States can make laws that violate the constitution, but if the matter is brought forth to the federal level on the basis of a constitutional violation the State law can immediately be overturned. This happens all the time, but no one has brought this precise thing to the forefront of the court. The constitutional rights of the individual always outweigh an obstruction of justice charge if this obstruction was deemed to be related to a constitutional infringement.

The long and short, an officer cannot make a demand of an individual that is constitutional without giving just cause. He MUST give the individual an answer. In some cases brought forth to the court revolving around constitutional violations in relation to instances in a vehicle, the court has ruled the same laws apply to the individual in his car as they do in his home. While in their car, that is their private place of dwelling. A police officer cannot enter your home without a warrant or without asking if he can enter your home and giving you a reason why he would like to. The same can be said of issues when you're in your car.

[Lunk1]

I can't see how on earth any police officer could point towards reasonable suspicion with that video being right there for everyone to see. But for the sake of argument let's say there was, the officer would still be required to tell the individual why he's being detained, why he wants him to do this or that. This is how our law works. If you arrest someone and do not mirandize them, even if guilty as sin the arrest is invalid and the defendant goes free, all because the cop did not follow the law. Miranda v. Arizona 1966.

And I would be surprised if the kid files a lawsuit. I'm sure he could but that wasn't the point of this little deal at all. The kid was simply trying to show an example of a problem that is a huge problem, declining liberty.

Metal, take a deeper look at Miranda. An arrest does NOT require Miranda. Only during questioning AND if the subject is under arrest , is Miranda necessary. If you are placed under arrest and never questioned (happens a lot) then there is NO need for Miranda. If you choose to rattle off at the gums after being arrested but are not asked any questions...still no need for Miranda!

[spywizard]

I don't consider myself an expert by any means on any topic in the world. Anyone who claims to be an expert is usually a moron, lol! I did graduate with a degree in constitutional law. I went to school to be an attorney although I never made that my career. I ended up getting into other things. So sure, I know a little but that doesn't always mean I'm right.

Anyway, my point, States can make laws that violate the constitution, but if the matter is brought forth to the federal level on the basis of a constitutional violation the State law can immediately be overturned. This happens all the time, but no one has brought this precise thing to the forefront of the court. The constitutional rights of the individual always outweigh an obstruction of justice charge if this obstruction was deemed to be related to a constitutional infringement.

The long and short, an officer cannot make a demand of an individual that is constitutional without giving just cause. He MUST give the individual an answer. In some cases brought forth to the court revolving around constitutional violations in relation to instances in a vehicle, the court has ruled the same laws apply to the individual in his car as they do in his home. While in their car, that is their private place of dwelling. A police officer cannot enter your home without a warrant or without asking if he can enter your home and giving you a reason why he would like to. The same can be said of issues when you're in your car.

hmmmmm with that being said the use of force and expectation of privacy would be due the person in the vehicle.. one would argue that by the officer reaching in to remove the person it was the same as forcing a person from their home.. a person that is intoxicated in their home need not cross the threshold of the dwelling while speaking to the police.. as a point of order in the state of Minnesota anyway, if the person remains in the home, and refuses to exit the home and the police enter, any evidence they obtain, breath/blood is not admissible... that would be 1st hand knowledge from the DA to the attorney representing my brother in law..

so, would that not be the same in the case you site.??

[austinite]

I think anyone and everyone would be pretty damn upset if they were molested by an officer.

[Lunk1]

I don't consider myself an expert by any means on any topic in the world. Anyone who claims to be an expert is usually a moron, lol! I did graduate with a degree in constitutional law. I went to school to be an attorney although I never made that my career. I ended up getting into other things. So sure, I know a little but that doesn't always mean I'm right.

Anyway, my point, States can make laws that violate the constitution, but if the matter is brought forth to the federal level on the basis of a constitutional violation the State law can immediately be overturned. This happens all the time, but no one has brought this precise thing to the forefront of the court. The constitutional rights of the individual always outweigh an obstruction of justice charge if this obstruction was deemed to be related to a constitutional infringement.

The long and short, an officer cannot make a demand of an individual that is constitutional without giving just cause. He MUST give the individual an answer. In some cases brought forth to the court revolving around constitutional violations in relation to instances in a vehicle, the court has ruled the same laws apply to the individual in his car as they do in his home. While in their car, that is their private place of dwelling. A police officer cannot enter your home without a warrant or without asking if he can enter your home and giving you a reason why he would like to. The same can be said of issues when you're in your car.

Again..not quite true. Exigent circumstance rule applies to motor vehicle in some cases exempting the need for a warrant due to mobility.

[thegodfather]

The courts have ruled in general consensus and I'd be happy to cite case law upon case law, that we have a lower reasonable expectation of privacy in our vehicles on a public roadway. Additionally, there are cases which expound upon Terry v. Ohio, that allows a CURSORY search of the vehicle of the occupant, within that occupants immediate reach & control, for officer safety. It is essentially, a Terry Search for the areas under the immediate control of the occupant, but it is only permissible in places where a weapon could conceivably be placed, it is not carte blanche to inspect every nook and crevasse in search of contraband (i.e.- CDS).

[thegodfather]

Again..not quite true. Exigent circumstance rule applies to motor vehicle in some cases exempting the need for a warrant due to mobility.

While true, you are making wild leaps with regards to THIS case, as there existed NO EXIGENCY warranting such behavior.

[Lunk1]

I think anyone and everyone would be pretty damn upset if they were molested by an officer.

I think anyone and everyone would be pretty damn upset if they were molested by ANYONE.

[Lunk1]

While true, you are making wild leaps with regards to THIS case, as there existed NO EXIGENCY warranting such behavior.

I wasn't stating the exigent circumstance rule applied in THIS case.

[austinite]

I think anyone and everyone would be pretty damn upset if they were molested by ANYONE.

Sure, but this topic is specific to police officer and citizen.

[Lunk1]

The courts have ruled in general consensus and I'd be happy to cite case law upon case law, that we have a lower reasonable expectation of privacy in our vehicles on a public roadway. Additionally, there are cases which expound upon Terry v. Ohio, that allows a CURSORY search of the vehicle of the occupant, within that occupants immediate reach & control, for officer safety. It is essentially, a Terry Search for the areas under the immediate control of the occupant, but it is only permissible in places where a weapon could conceivably be placed, it is not carte blanche to inspect every nook and crevasse in search of contraband (i.e.- CDS).

I believe there have been some changes to this ruling that now require an officer be able to articulate why they felt the subject may have a weapon vs simply using it as a reason to perform a cursory search.

[Lunk1]

Sure, but this topic is specific to police officer and citizen.

Depending on your definition on "molesting" me wife is rather fond of it lol

[austinite]

Depending on your definition on "molesting" me wife is rather fond of it lol

lol. You know what i mean.

[Metalject]

Metal, take a deeper look at Miranda. An arrest does NOT require Miranda. Only during questioning AND if the subject is under arrest , is Miranda necessary. If you are placed under arrest and never questioned (happens a lot) then there is NO need for Miranda. If you choose to rattle off at the gums after being arrested but are not asked any questions...still no need for Miranda!

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way...By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. (detained)"

Some states at this time said law enforcement officers had the right to violate these rights on the same basis many here are arguing, (AZ & NY) as well as the 9th Circuit Court.

And yes, anyone taken into custody must be read their rights. Again, this is established in Miranda.

Here's something else to consider:

Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983) held that police cannot hold someone without probable cause, and any evidence found during the detention is obtained illegally and may not be used as evidence, even if the person appears to agree to the search.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 (2005) held that drug-sniffing dogs may be used during routine traffic stops (but not at checkpoints).

The above one is important. Using dogs at a DUI checkpoint is against the law, violating 543, and if they had found drugs, they would have violated 460.

[Metalject]

The courts have ruled in general consensus and I'd be happy to cite case law upon case law, that we have a lower reasonable expectation of privacy in our vehicles on a public roadway. Additionally, there are cases which expound upon Terry v. Ohio, that allows a CURSORY search of the vehicle of the occupant, within that occupants immediate reach & control, for officer safety. It is essentially, a Terry Search for the areas under the immediate control of the occupant, but it is only permissible in places where a weapon could conceivably be placed, it is not carte blanche to inspect every nook and crevasse in search of contraband (i.e.- CDS).

I agree that in our actual home there is more right to privacy but this doesn't mean we are to be denied privacy on the roadway. We're still in OUR car. And when you eluded to impermissible searches, while I do not believe the officers in the video had a right to conduct that search, they most certainly did not have any right to search the car in the way they did. You'll notice at one point in the video the officer grabs something that's in the drivers door...hard to tell what it is but it looks to be about the size of a can of altoids and he opens it and looks inside.

I understand the rules about reasonable suspicion as it pertains to vehicle stops (although I don't entirely agree with that law) but under the existing law or any sane law the officer in the video had no reasonable justification for going through the kids personal things.

[Metalject]

hmmmmm with that being said the use of force and expectation of privacy would be due the person in the vehicle.. one would argue that by the officer reaching in to remove the person it was the same as forcing a person from their home.. a person that is intoxicated in their home need not cross the threshold of the dwelling while speaking to the police.. as a point of order in the state of Minnesota anyway, if the person remains in the home, and refuses to exit the home and the police enter, any evidence they obtain, breath/blood is not admissible... that would be 1st hand knowledge from the DA to the attorney representing my brother in law..

so, would that not be the same in the case you site.??

See above post for my large opinions....everything I do is large, lol!

[jimmyinkedup]

While Im enjoying this debate many of the points that are correct are rendered moot due to immorality . For example 9/10 its the police word against the person - more and more thats changing, which is why more and more people are getting pissed. Because the police do lie, many do feel the ends justify the means. Not all, but oh so many. You can bet your ass if you ask every one if they have ever lied, whether it be by omission or outright, to help convict someone they 100% BELEIVE did it not couls PROVE did it they would all say they have.
Sadly one of the biggest and most damaging misconceptions is that if you ask 9 outm 10 people if they would believe the word of a police oficer over the word of a citizen (even a squeky clean law abiding citizen) people will say they believe the cop. The FACT is from a legal perspective, in court, his testimony should carry no more wieght as a witness than anyone elses. When the hell is the last time THAt ever happened. Anyway..rant over

[austinite]

While Im enjoying this debate many of the points that are correct are rendered moot due to immorality . For example 9/10 its the police word against the person - more and more thats changing, which is why more and more people are getting pissed. Because the police do lie, many do feel the ends justify the means. Not all, but oh so many. You can bet your ass if you ask every one if they have ever lied, whether it be by omission or outright, to help convict someone they 100% BELEIVE did it not couls PROVE did it they would all say they have.
Sadly one of the biggest and most damaging misconceptions is that if you ask 9 outm 10 people if they would believe the word of a police oficer over the word of a citizen (even a squeky clean law abiding citizen) people will say they believe the cop. The FACT is from a legal perspective, in court, his testimony should carry no more wieght as a witness than anyone elses. When the hell is the last time THAt ever happened. Anyway..rant over

lol jimmy! Well said. And very true... Or as they say in west Texas... That's a True fact!

[Metalject]

While Im enjoying this debate many of the points that are correct are rendered moot due to immorality . For example 9/10 its the police word against the person - more and more thats changing, which is why more and more people are getting pissed. Because the police do lie, many do feel the ends justify the means. Not all, but oh so many. You can bet your ass if you ask every one if they have ever lied, whether it be by omission or outright, to help convict someone they 100% BELEIVE did it not couls PROVE did it they would all say they have.
Sadly one of the biggest and most damaging misconceptions is that if you ask 9 outm 10 people if they would believe the word of a police oficer over the word of a citizen (even a squeky clean law abiding citizen) people will say they believe the cop. The FACT is from a legal perspective, in court, his testimony should carry no more wieght as a witness than anyone elses. When the hell is the last time THAt ever happened. Anyway..rant over

Good point. A cops word and a civilians word should be held as equal, they're both men. In the same light, murdering a civilian or a police officer should carry the same penalty. One life is not more valuable than the other simply because of the job one happens to have. All life is equal, all life is sacred.

[kelkel]

When it comes to asking the driver to step out of his vehicle it's within the officers rights as long as he can articulate why. And it doesn't mean he has to articulate it to the person being ordered out of his vehicle. The officer does not need their permission or approval. They may not like it but so what. If they have an issue that's what the courts are there for. Nor can they legally resist arrest, even an unlawful arrest, unless excessive force is being used. Going from memory I believe the case law is under "Carty" which basically says the officer can remove the driver if he can articulate why.

If he can't articulate why and an arrest is subsequently made due to that removal then that evidence would be useless as in Map V Ohio "fruits of the poisonous tree."

[kelkel]

Good point. A cops word and a civilians word should be held as equal, they're both men. In the same light, murdering a civilian or a police officer should carry the same penalty. One life is not more valuable than the other simply because of the job one happens to have. All life is equal, all life is sacred.

With that logic I assume you'd apply it to simple crimes as well such as assault's against police, etc. So, that just makes it open season on any law enforcement as the penalty is no worse that anyone else. Welcome to the wild west, everyone resist arrest! Chaos would ensue. Without the rule of law this country would fall apart.

[austinite]

Dang. I went through a few of my comments. pretty harsh. I still feel the same way about this whole deal, but I hope I didn't offend anyone by poor choice of words. If I did, I apologize.

[V-ROID]

With that logic I assume you'd apply it to simple crimes as well such as assault's against police, etc. So, that just makes it open season on any law enforcement as the penalty is no worse that anyone else. Welcome to the wild west, everyone resist arrest! Chaos would ensue. Without the rule of law this country would fall apart.

The penalty should be the same. Either harsher for civilian assault or more lax for police assault, but same. Yes without law this country would fall apart, but only temporarily, and there is no other way to make HUGE changes. Sooner the better as we are only fooling ourselves with all this voting stuff...

[Metalject]

With that logic I assume you'd apply it to simple crimes as well such as assault's against police, etc. So, that just makes it open season on any law enforcement as the penalty is no worse that anyone else. Welcome to the wild west, everyone resist arrest! Chaos would ensue. Without the rule of law this country would fall apart.

I'm not sure I'm completely following you. If you're asking if I think assault punishments should be the same for assaulting an officer or civilian, then yes, yes I do.

[kelkel]

How about a fireman in the performance of his duties? A teacher or a senator, the president? These laws are enacted by governments who have thought this through far more than we have.

So,what is the deterrent in a civilized society that's not so civilized? Can you imagine, seemingly you can't, the amount of times police are assaulted in the performance of their duties now? It would increase dramatically which would then have a domino effect and lead to an exponential increase in violence on all sides. The threat of stronger penalties for assaults against public officials are meant as a deterrent, to help keep the peace. It's a preventative measure.

I'd agree with you quickly if society was full of even tempered, law abiding citizens but....


Deaths, Assaults & Injuries
Over the Past Decade (2002-2011)
YEAR DEATHS* ASSAULTS** INJURIES**
2002 157 58,440 16,626
2003 149 58,278 16,412
2004 165 60,054 16,737
2005 162 59,428 16,072
2006 156 59,907 15,916
2007 190 60,851 15,736
2008 141 60,139 15,554
2009 122 57,268 14,985
2010 154 53,469 13,962
2011 163 54,774 14,578

Took a second to google the above. Those numbers would rise dramatically. I guess that would be fair if I follow your logic? And to take it another step forward I assume our military when in conflict should only use similar weapons and force that the "enemy" uses otherwise it just wouldn't be fair. Damn.

[Metalject]

How about a fireman in the performance of his duties? A teacher or a senator, the president? These laws are enacted by governments who have thought this through far more than we have.

So,what is the deterrent in a civilized society that's not so civilized? Can you imagine, seemingly you can't, the amount of times police are assaulted in the performance of their duties now? It would increase dramatically which would then have a domino effect and lead to an exponential increase in violence on all sides. The threat of stronger penalties for assaults against public officials are meant as a deterrent, to help keep the peace. It's a preventative measure.

I'd agree with you quickly if society was full of even tempered, law abiding citizens but....


Deaths, Assaults & Injuries
Over the Past Decade (2002-2011)
YEAR DEATHS* ASSAULTS** INJURIES**
2002 157 58,440 16,626
2003 149 58,278 16,412
2004 165 60,054 16,737
2005 162 59,428 16,072
2006 156 59,907 15,916
2007 190 60,851 15,736
2008 141 60,139 15,554
2009 122 57,268 14,985
2010 154 53,469 13,962
2011 163 54,774 14,578

Took a second to google the above. Those numbers would rise dramatically. I guess that would be fair if I follow your logic? And to take it another step forward I assume our military when in conflict should only use similar weapons and force that the "enemy" uses otherwise it just wouldn't be fair. Damn.

Great questions and points. Some I agree with others not at all.

The one thing I disagree with the most in your post is this quote: "These laws are enacted by governments who have thought this through far more than we have." It's the government knows best mentality, which is why we're deeper and deeper into the nanny state mentality. The men who legislate are no smarter than you or I. There's nothing special about them that deems their words more valuable. It also goes against the very foundational basis by which the U.S. was founded; a nation governed by its people, not a nation subject to its government. Alexander Hamilton was very well-known for saying the power of government should be given to the first class (first class meaning well-educated). He believed a certain set of people should decide what the majority of the people do, because as he put it the majority is generally stupid (Obviously a purposeful paraphrase). While Hamilton had a lot to offer and played a major role in our government, this idea of his was largely rejected by the others. One of my favorite quotes in this light: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson - We don't need parents.

Your assault argument. In my opinion, stricter punishment for assaulting an officer or equal to a civilian will not make a difference in deterrence. Consider gun laws, the strictest in the nation are in Chicago, is this deterring criminals in any way? The consequences are massive but they do not care.

Your comment on weapons in war...I don't care what our enemies have. As far as I'm concerned we should do all we can to blow there asses to hell as quickly as we can if needed and leave. Attack us, we kill you and then we leave. End of story. I'm not concerned with fairness or the wellbeing of a nation attacking us.

[kelkel]

Regarding what you highlighted above, I guess I could have gone deeper. It inferred that these laws, rules, ordinances, etc. have been through the court system via challenges, case law, etc. And I agree, they are no smarter than us but they are our "current" elected officials. At least until the next election. Politics anymore just disgusts me.

We have to agree to disagree with the assault aspect of this conversation. It may not work in Chicago or Camden, NJ but it does elsewhere. Dealing with hardened criminals, gangs, etc is quite different than dealing with normal society. Totally different set of ethics and morality that does not apply to mainstream America, IMHO. Funny, my extended family is all from Chicago and I've lived near and I'm very familiar with Camden. Glad to be out of Jersey now though....

[Metalject]

Regarding what you highlighted above, I guess I could have gone deeper. It inferred that these laws, rules, ordinances, etc. have been through the court system via challenges, case law, etc. And I agree, they are no smarter than us but they are our "current" elected officials. At least until the next election. Politics anymore just disgusts me.

We have to agree to disagree with the assault aspect of this conversation. It may not work in Chicago or Camden, NJ but it does elsewhere. Dealing with hardened criminals, gangs, etc is quite different than dealing with normal society. Totally different set of ethics and morality that does not apply to mainstream America, IMHO. Funny, my extended family is all from Chicago and I've lived near and I'm very familiar with Camden. Glad to be out of Jersey now though....

Would you agree that even if a law goes through the court system, that doesn't make it a good law? If a bad law is upheld by the court, because it was upheld by the court would you say it was just? After all, we've seen plenty of cases throughout our history that the court got wrong...Dred Scott definitely comes to mind. Have the courts done a good job overall? Compared to most countries in the world I'd say they've done a pretty good job, but in recent years it's been lacking severely. Two recent examples:

1. Obama Care: Whether you support the bill or not, the way it was upheld was not just. The deciding vote by Chief Justice Roberts appears to have been on the basis of protecting the court's image. Countless critics on the right and left agree on this.

2. Prop 8: The issue of gay marriage is not the primary issue. The court got in wrong when they ignored a legal vote held by the state that did not violate any constitutional rights, which means they can do it in any instance they want to.

The point, the legal system isn't always right. Of course no court will always be right, I understand that, it will always be made of men and men are fallible. However, the courts are a representation of those we elect as they are appointed by those we elect. Unfortunately, and I mean that in every sense of the word, we regard our right to appoint our government with as much value as a dirty diaper and then we wonder what went wrong.

We have the full ability to put those that represent liberty and justice in office, but we don't. We now vote based on raw emotion. Consider the last presidential election.

1. The majority voted for Obama because he promised them stuff. He promised them the world would be fair. He made them feel good, safe and took the burden of responsibility off of them. If you voted for that, you voted on the basis of emotion.

2. Those who voted for Romney did so because he promised to to create jobs, he'll do it for you. He'll make sure jobs are created for you and he promised the economy would prosper because of his initiatives. He made them feel good, safe and took the burden of responsibility off of them. If you voted for that, you voted on the basis of emotion.

[kelkel]

Agree 100%. Especially with the Obama Care train wreck looming ahead. Roberts decision "politicised" the Supreme Court. You're very on point when it comes to the last election and emotions. Unfortunately the majority of people, IMO, are one topic voters. Meaning they will almost always vote for the candidate who is of the same opinion on that one topic. In a perfect world they'd be far more objective and less subjective, without losing independent thought. When it comes to appointing our government or voting, apathy is the norm anymore which is sad and getting worse.

Many of our problems today are exacerbated by 24hr cable news as well. They blow every nuance of every event out of proportion in their fight for ratings or to follow their own political agenda, instead of just reporting the news. The rumor of a problem subsequently becomes an actual problem. Sad.

[spywizard]

and if they are from chicago, they will vote for him 3-4 times.. hahah

[thegodfather]

This thread has gotten so far away from any sound legal arguments I'm going to bow out. However, whoever stated that an officer needs an 'articuable reason' for an occupant to be asked to step out of the vehicle, that is incorrect. Asking the occupant to step out of the vehicle is an extension of Terry v. Ohio for the purposes of officer safety. The officer need absolutely no articuable reason to ask an occupant to step out and to the rear of the vehicle in order to secure the occupant, possibly detain him/her, in the event that occupant may have a weapon. Securing the occupant is no different than in any other situation where a LEO makes 'contact' with a person, where Terry v. Ohio comes into play, allowing the open handed pat down of the outside of the persons clothing for the purposes of detecting a weapon which could be used to harm the officer.

With regards to opening an altoid can, if contraband were found inside it, I would certainly argue that the evidence be stricken based on the fact that it'd be inconceivable that a weapon could be concealed with in an altoid cannister, ergo the officer had no reasonable expectation of finding a weapon located within said container, and therefore overstepped his bounds with regards to the precedent in Terry v. Ohio.