Oh what the hell...
Posted on 06/24/2004 11:54:35 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
A lot of people want to know why I went all the way to the Supreme Court rather than give my name to a policeman. "What's so important about that?" they ask. "What's the big principle at stake?" And last week, when the Supreme Court ruled against me, maybe some thought I was foolish to have done it. But I still think I did the right thing and that there were some issues that had to be decided.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I don't have a super-clear understanding of the Constitution. I'm not an attorney. I've never even read the whole thing. I only went through eighth grade. But I remember what I learned, and it seems to me that the whole idea of "your-papers-please" goes completely against the grain of the American people.
Doesn't this SC decision contradict the Miranda ruling?
Is "You have the right to remain silent" nullified as a result?
You have the right to remain silent, unless you are asked a question.
You have the right to speak freely, unless you offend someone.
You have the right to keep and bear arms, as long as you carefully follow 40000 gun laws and are privelidged enough to be granted a "permit" from your masters.
You have freedom of religon, as long as you don't get caught.
You have the right to travel freely, once you have been stripped naked and cavity searched, at your own expense.
If you pay license tabs on a vehicle that belongs to you annually. And if you have your overpriced state required amount of insurance, AND if you have your sealtbelt on and your child in a booster seat until they are in high school.
Oh what the hell...
Americans are a funny people. Constantly screeching about how free we are, while seeking ever new ways to shackle ourselves to the State.
Uhhhh. In order for the police to arrest you for refusing to identify yourself a legislative body (federal, state or local) must pass a law saying that it is a crime to refuse to identify yourself and define the penalty for that behavior. No law, no crime.
The court said there is no Constitutional defense to such laws by claiming a general "right of privacy" which is not written in the Constitution. It didn't say, cops please decide for yourselves what the law is.
Don't like the law? That's the legislative body's business. Want to restrict or eliminate the law? That's also the legislative body's business. We're allowed to tell them what we want. Ballots, lobbying, etc, etc.
You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enought to actually try it.
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a Policeman
or aristocrat
Know your rights
Once a person is brought in for questioning demand to see your lawyer. They can't play the cat-and-mouse games to trip you up. Once you request to see your lawyer, the game is temporarily up.
Another thing don't submit to a lie detector test. That's only for law enforcement personnel to eliminate you. It's not admissible in court. Some people can't pass the test due to their physical conditions. When you take the test, you can't be under any medication. However, if a person has high blood pressure, high cholestrol, etc., they can't go without their medicine nor can they pass the test. These people are in a Catch 22 situation.
You only have to provide your name if "suspected" of a crime. This man was suspected of abusing his daughter, which was called in by witnesses.
The police have to prove the person was a suspect in a crime. In this case, they did.
Let's not create a "police state" mentality when not called for by this ruling.
Having lived a few days, I know for certain that there are always two sides to every story. I also know that there are good cops, and bad cops. This guy beat the rap but didn't beat the ride.
Do you think that the 9th and 10th amendments, which basically state that their are too many rights to be fully enumerated in the Constitution, and just because the Constitution doesn't mention them doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that those rights not mentioned in the Constitution belong to the people and the states, would cover the general "right of privacy?"
-PJ
This time the court got it wrong, it's a sign of the times.
Yeah, that stupid redneck Nevadan should count himself lucky he's alive to tell the tale!
BushisTheMan wrote:The video of the actual event is on the Internet. There have been links to it posted here on FreeRepublic. At what point during that encounter did the police officer tell Mr. Hiibel that he was "suspected" of any crime? I've watched the video and I never saw that part.
You only have to provide your name if "suspected" of a crime. This man was suspected of abusing his daughter, which was called in by witnesses.
I said that this was the decision of the court. If a subject refuses to give his name, then they must be suspected of a crime before they can be arrested.
Did I say the police told him he was a suspect? No.
Did I say the police were called there by witnesses? Yes.
Did the man refuse to give his name when asked? Yes.
The decision clarified the existing law that said you must identify yourself when asked by the police. The new law actually limits and clarifies what the law was before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.