Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (4590)	4/24/2001 5:32:25 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 6089

Court Allows Arrest for Minor Violations nytimes.com This is the NYT story. A close decision, and the majority opinion by Souter was almost apologetic. Now, if Tony "the Legitimizer" Scalia had written the opinion, I'm sure it would have been phrased differently. "The arrest and booking were inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice David H. Souter concluded for the majority. He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. But while finding that the officer's actions were not unconstitutional, the majority did not say that they were right, or that police officers ought to emulate Officer Turek. Quite the contrary, in fact. Mrs. Atwater was "a known and established resident of Lago Vista with no place to hide and no incentive to flee," Justice Souter wrote, "and common sense says she would almost certainly have buckled up as a condition of driving off with a citation. In her case, the physical incidents of arrest were merely gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment." Justice Souter expressed doubt that episodes like Mrs. Atwater's are widespread. They are probably rare, he said, because of "the good sense (and, failing that, the political accountability) of most local lawmakers and law-enforcement officials." Well, episodes like that probably aren't that widespread for white people, anyway.

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (4590)	4/24/2001 7:19:45 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

I think the 4th amendment is quite clear. === Amendment IV 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. === If getting arrested, handcuffed, searched, taken to jail, searched again, fingerprinted, booked, and tossed into a cell full of criminals, while your car is towed away to impound and it is also searched is not an "unreasonable" police response to failing to buckle up, then my dictionary is broken. I think it also violates the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. But then, I thought the president was chosen by the people, not the supreme court. ... Mezz - God bless Amerika! We need it!!