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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (2708)	4/25/2001 7:14:08 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Police powers extended Wednesday, April 25, 2001 From San Francisco Chronicle IN A DECISION that should send a chill through the spines of civil libertarians, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that police may arrest people for even the most minor infractions usually punished by fines. The ruling was a frightening extension of police powers and gives renegade cops -- or merely annoyed officers -- a license to harass, punish and abuse citizens with unnecessary arrests. Yesterday's decision allows police to take into custody people suspected of such petty violations as failing to wear a seat belt, having a dog off leash or even littering. The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 against a Texas woman who claimed her constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated in 1997 when she was handcuffed and taken to jail because she and her children, ages 6 and 4, were not wearing seat belts in her pickup truck. When she told the arresting officer she was not carrying her driver's license or insurance papers because her purse was stolen the day before, he said he had "heard that story 200 times." The officer then handcuffed her and brought her to jail, where she was held for an hour, them released on $310 bond. She ultimately paid a $50 fine, then sued, claiming a violation of her constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Even Justice David Souter, who wrote the majority decision, chided the arresting officer for "extremely poor judgment," and for imposing "gratuitous humiliations." In San Francisco, the police policy is to issue citations for minor offenses, unless a suspect refuses to provide identification. Other Bay Area police agencies have similar ticket-and-release policies they say will not change. However, the court's ruling allows -- and might even encourage -- rogue cops to use their authority to arrest as a weapon to punish minor offenders and humiliate suspects they just don't like sfgate.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (2708)	4/25/2001 7:51:54 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 93284

Sandra O'Connor should be kicked off of the Supreme Court for her action in the Presidential contest, but in this case she voted with the other 3 dissenting. The others who voted for the Atwater woman and the fourth amendment were Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. This does not change my opinion of her, I still think she is no better than all of the other republicans who stood in the way of justice so Junior could be installed as president. It is no surprise that Thomas voted with Scalia, he doesn't seem to have a mind of his own. Has he ever voted differently than Scalis? Souter wrote the opinion for the court and the 5 who voted to allow arrests in minor violations of the law. supct.law.cornell.edu