Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sopater

Honestly, the abuse of rights via the commonplace coerced consent is far more egregious than the pre-Miranda coerced confessions.

I see no reason why police shouldn’t be required to inform the detained of their right to refuse the search.

Terrorists aren’t intimidated into consent, and marijuana isn’t worth the police state abuses.


246 posted on 12/02/2007 10:25:01 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Beelzebubba
I see no reason why police shouldn’t be required to inform the detained of their right to refuse the search.

In fact that is law in Oregon. A person must know they are (and in fact be) free to refuse consent and leave when consent is requested. No threatening to get a canine unit, standing in front of your car or door or otherwise blocking you. Anything like that will get a case tossed out of court, even if you give consent.

254 posted on 12/02/2007 1:37:36 PM PST by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson