You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's started, Amerikkka the police state [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
NewEmanuelGoldstein Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-04 08:18 AM
Original message
It's started, Amerikkka the police state
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 08:44 AM by NewEmanuelGoldstein
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040622/topstories/79458.shtml">Story here

and more here

A sample -

Supreme Court rules you can be arrested for withholding your name



JOAN BISKUPIC GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- A police officer can force a person to identify himself, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case involving a Nevada rancher who was fined $250 for refusing to give his name to an officer who was investigating a possible assault.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that as long as an officer reasonably suspects wrongdoing is under way, the state law under which the rancher was charged does not violate either the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The ruling essentially validates more than a dozen "stop-and-identify" statutes nationwide.

"Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. "In the ordinary course, a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."

The four dissenting justices, all from the liberal wing of the court, said the ruling broke with court precedent that had permitted people detained in brief police stops not to give their names.


Welcome to the police state.;(

EDIT: One more thought. This ruling now allows for taking the 5th to be a crime worthy of arrest, and imply guilt when it is supposed to expressly prevent that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC