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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (145010)	5/13/2001 12:19:42 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I am curious, given your pro-liberty orientation (which I share), what you think of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing physical arrest by the police even for the most minor of infractions (the case at issue involved a mother arrested, handcuffed in front of her small kids, searched & whisked away by a cop for a seatbelt infraction carrying a $50 fine). Attendant to any arrest, depending on where it may take place, is the right of the police to search your person, your car, your house. The arrest now (according to the Rehnquist court) could be for jaywalking, littering, keeping an untidy lawn, etc. Local authorities might or might not create police guidelines prohibiting such nuisance arrests. My belief is that they generally will not restrict themselves. The Supreme Court's opinion was a 5-4 ideological vote. Doesn't this show that disrespect for our liberties is coming from all sides of the political spectrum?