James S
Flashlight Enthusiast
Sasha, you and I agree with almost everything except computers /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif That being said I think I don't understand everything you were saying above...
I think the rest of you might want to re-read that PDF as linked to above. I think the judge using the word "detain" was perhaps not the best choice of words. You're not being detained, you're being asked to wait for a few minutes while an officer gives you a flyer with information about a crime that they are trying to get information on. They are specifically not allowed to stop and search you for no reason. Police will always abuse the probable cause thing, but this doesn't give them any more powers in that way. But it does bring them closer to you for no reason. but it's the same as pulling up next to one at an intersection and waving with your middle finger. If the officer gets a look at you and doesn't like what he sees he has probable cause to pull you over. In this new case, if he sees something he doesn't like while giving you the pamphlet he can arrest you there.
But he is still required to arrest you. (unless it's the INS come to look for terrorists in which case you can be held without a trial if they invoke national security, but thats a whole different argument that has absolutely nothing to do with this)
If the police are looking for you, and they think you're on that highway they can already put up a road block to get you. These roadblocks are for asking the folks on their way home if they saw anything yesterday on the highway at the same time when something happened.
I don't see immediately how this will be abused any worse than they system is already abused. THey can already stop and give you a breathalyzer for no reason. They can already stop you if you look crosseyed at them. They can already stop you if your suspension is bottoming out to see what you've got in the trunk. Now they can stop you to ask if you saw a certain car yesterday that was involved in a hit and run.
It is specifically forbidden that they just set up a road block for no reason. To think they will never make up a specific reason is naive, but thats no different than anything else. There is enough crime that they can pick something to stop anywhere, but I can't see anything specifcally in the decision that lets them do anything more than stop you long enough to give you the pamphlet. The court seems to think that the police budget will keep them from doing this very often. I'm not sure that is a decent check for spurious use, but again. I don't see the "detention" of citizens anywhere in the language except from that judge that used it to describe the fact that they are going to screw up traffic. I sat in traffic for an hour and a half for no good reason this morning. No reason for the hold up. If at the end of it they had asked me if I had seen a guy that kidnapped someone or killed someone, it might have made the experience less annoying and not more.
I think the rest of you might want to re-read that PDF as linked to above. I think the judge using the word "detain" was perhaps not the best choice of words. You're not being detained, you're being asked to wait for a few minutes while an officer gives you a flyer with information about a crime that they are trying to get information on. They are specifically not allowed to stop and search you for no reason. Police will always abuse the probable cause thing, but this doesn't give them any more powers in that way. But it does bring them closer to you for no reason. but it's the same as pulling up next to one at an intersection and waving with your middle finger. If the officer gets a look at you and doesn't like what he sees he has probable cause to pull you over. In this new case, if he sees something he doesn't like while giving you the pamphlet he can arrest you there.
But he is still required to arrest you. (unless it's the INS come to look for terrorists in which case you can be held without a trial if they invoke national security, but thats a whole different argument that has absolutely nothing to do with this)
If the police are looking for you, and they think you're on that highway they can already put up a road block to get you. These roadblocks are for asking the folks on their way home if they saw anything yesterday on the highway at the same time when something happened.
I don't see immediately how this will be abused any worse than they system is already abused. THey can already stop and give you a breathalyzer for no reason. They can already stop you if you look crosseyed at them. They can already stop you if your suspension is bottoming out to see what you've got in the trunk. Now they can stop you to ask if you saw a certain car yesterday that was involved in a hit and run.
It is specifically forbidden that they just set up a road block for no reason. To think they will never make up a specific reason is naive, but thats no different than anything else. There is enough crime that they can pick something to stop anywhere, but I can't see anything specifcally in the decision that lets them do anything more than stop you long enough to give you the pamphlet. The court seems to think that the police budget will keep them from doing this very often. I'm not sure that is a decent check for spurious use, but again. I don't see the "detention" of citizens anywhere in the language except from that judge that used it to describe the fact that they are going to screw up traffic. I sat in traffic for an hour and a half for no good reason this morning. No reason for the hold up. If at the end of it they had asked me if I had seen a guy that kidnapped someone or killed someone, it might have made the experience less annoying and not more.
