The judge cited several factors showing that Awadallah's consent to go with FBI (news - web sites) agents to their office and later submit to a lie detector test was the "product of duress or coercion."
She said the agents repeatedly made a show of force by telling him he could not drive his own car, frisking him, refusing to let him inside his apartment and ordering him to keep a door open as he urinated. Moreover, she said, one agent threatened to "tear up" the apartment if he did get a warrant.
One question first. Have you ever been arrested or detained? Have you personally witnessed one?
If you had, I will tell you for a fact that the Police will NEVER let you drive your own car to the station (you could simply drive away never to be seen again, a likely scenario in this case).
The Police will ALWAYS frisk you before they put you in their vehicle (for their own protection if nothing else).
The Police will NEVER let you back into your home where you can easily destroy any potential evidence (this is so obvious I feel I should not even have to point this out).
The Police will NEVER let you into a closed room unattended no matter if you need to urinate or not (you might have the evidence flushed as well).
The Police WILL make threats to suspects, it happens every minute of every day, is this knews to you? (if simply THREATING someone, not with physical violence, but property violence, is sufficent to have a case thrown out, I fear for our society even more).
as I see it, this is a matter of an activist juror going out of his or her way to find a justification, ANY justification, to get the result they desire.
I am not a Lawyer, Police Officer or anything related to it. I can tell you from personal experiance that ALL of the things that happened in this case are a normal part of Police work.
Please cite for me any relevent Constitutional Amendments that were violated that would pass the Common Sense test to any person on the street.
I cant wait for this.....
Cheers,
knews hound
That's two questions. No. Yes.
If you had, I will tell you for a fact that the Police will NEVER let you drive your own car to the station (you could simply drive away never to be seen again, a likely scenario in this case).
Certainly. If a person is arrested or involuntarily detained for questioning, then they will not be permitted to present themselves.
The Police will ALWAYS frisk you before they put you in their vehicle (for their own protection if nothing else).
Certainly. The safety of police officers is a legitimate concern, and the minor intrusion upon those detained is not unreasonable in light of that.
The Police will NEVER let you back into your home where you can easily destroy any potential evidence (this is so obvious I feel I should not even have to point this out).
Certainly. It is entirely reasonable that the police have an interest in preventing those accused of crimes and arrested or detained involuntarily from destroying evidence of their guilt.
The Police will NEVER let you into a closed room unattended no matter if you need to urinate or not (you might have the evidence flushed as well).
Certainly. Those accused of a crime and detained involuntarily might very well seek some opportunity to destroy or dispose of evidence of their guilt, similar to above.
So, now that I've apparently given away the farm by accepting almost all of your propositions, why am I still confident?
Why, because every single one of those things you cite as an example is only applicable to a person who has been arrested or involuntarily detained, of course.
Was he arrested or involuntarily detained? Of course not - they got his consent to take him down to questioning. He consented to go with the FBI, and therefore was there voluntarily, of his own accord. As a person not involuntarily detained, he can piss with the door closed if he is so inclined. He can even drive his own car downtown - remember, he's supposedly going voluntarily, so he doesn't really have to go at all. And that means that if he changes his mind as he's getting on the freeway, too bad for the fibbies. And it means that if he wants to go home, he can, unless he's under arrest or involuntarily detained. Which, of course, he wasn't, since they thoughtfully asked for his consent to accompany them. They lied to him and coerced him by treating him as though he were involuntarily detained when he wasn't.
Sorry, chief - you don't get to have it both ways. You cannot have people come in voluntarily and then apply all the same pressures you would to someone being held involuntarily. If someone being held involuntarily asks to go home, you can laugh in his face. If someone is there voluntarily, and they ask to go home, you can't. That's the way the ball bounces - if they wanted to treat him as an arrestee, then arrest him, dammit.
The Police WILL make threats to suspects, it happens every minute of every day, is this knews to you? (if simply THREATING someone, not with physical violence, but property violence, is sufficent to have a case thrown out, I fear for our society even more).
"Confess or we'll burn your house down."