Connecticut Supreme Court Says State Cops Can Detain You Simply For Being In The Vicinity Of Someone They're Arresting
from the serving-up-retcons-and-rights-removal dept
Gideon, the pseudonymous public defender who blogs at A Public Defender, has a thorough rundown of a very disturbing ruling recently issued by the Connecticut Supreme Court. It involves every Connecticut citizens' civil liberties, which have now been thrown under a bus bearing the name "officer safety."
The court's decision basically makes everyone a suspect, even if they're suspected of nothing else than being in the relative proximity of someone a police officer suspects of committing a crime, or someone simply "matching the description." How does this work in practice? Gideon posits a single scenario, as interpreted by the person being (wrongly) detained and those doing the actual detaining.
First, imagine you are walking down a public street with your friend. You’re both on your way to the local grocery store to buy some hummus. The police pull up, take a look at you friend and mistakenly believe that he’s a notorious wanted criminal. They order him to stop. You, not wanting to be caught up in this police business, keep walking, but they order you to stop, even though they don’t know you, don’t suspect you and you haven’t done anything wrong. You have rights, dammit and you know the Fourth Amendment. Can they stop you and force you to give up your freedom?As always, this situation becomes your word against theirs. But the court has now placed even more confidence in "theirs." Your version is that you just happened to be in the vicinity of someone the police are expressing interest in. Their version is that anyone within eyesight is probably either a) an accomplice or b) a threat. And it gets even worse. The police can be completely in the wrong and still be covered by this ruling.
The second is this: what I’ve just described above is a version of the events that transpired. They’re “facts” in a sense that they’re your recitation of the events. But that’s obviously not good enough, right? There is another version – that of the police officers. So who gets to decide which is the “truth”? Which is believable and accurate and should be relied upon? Because – and this is critical – the law is entirely fact-dependent. How the law applies depends on the nuances of the factual scenarios. And that is left entirely up to the trial judge: the judge that hears the evidence from you and the police officers and then decides what “actually” happened. That’s called fact-finding and will only be overturned if “clearly erroneous”. Meaning almost never. There is a deified deference paid to the trial court’s “findings of fact”.
One of the bulwarks of the Fourth Amendment protection is that the police need something called particularized suspicion, meaning that they need to have some evidence to believe that you have committed a crime in order to stop you.So, police can be targeting the wrong person and sweep up anyone who happens to be in the vicinity and still be immune from the consequences. In essence, the court gives police the ability, if not the actual right, to detain anyone at anytime for no reason at all. How did the court manage to arrive at this bizarre rights-trampling ruling? Well, it had to do a whole lot of re-imagining of the actual events using the most paranoiac of police officers' mindsets. As Gideon points out, he's never seen the court engage in such a thorough retroactive fact-finding mission -- one that involved massaging the facts until they conformed with the court's preferred outcome.
This opinion does away with that. In fact, the police don’t even have to be correct about the person in your vicinity they are seeking to stop.
From the majority opinion:
The defendant next claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court properly had found that Detective Rivera and Lieutenant Angeles were justified in detaining the defendant because they had a reasonable concern for their safety. In support of this claim, the defendant asserts that the trial court’s conclusion was based on clearly erroneous factual findings and, further, that the Appellate Court ignored those erroneous findings and improperly upheld the trial court’s ruling on the basis of facts that the trial court never found.Explained in plain English by Gideon, who has been following this case as it has progressed through the system:
In support of the finding of officer safety, the trial judge found that the guy the police were looking for (who, of course, was neither of the guys stopped) had a felony warrant for possession of a firearm, and that’s it.It doesn't add up, but the court fudged the math. Officer safety trumps rights because credible threats are credible even when they're not threats (a probation violation rather than an "armed and dangerous" suspect) and even when they're not credible (no witnesses stating anything to the effect of "armed and dangerous").
The Appellate Court found that the stop was justified because of the felony warrant for a firearm and credible evidence that the guy they were looking for was armed and dangerous, a fact omitted by the trial court.
The Supreme Court had to agree that the “felony possession of a firearm” factual finding was clearly erroneous because no witness testified as to those words. It was, in fact, a warrant for a violation of probation.
The dissenting opinion shows just how dangerous this ruling is.
I agree with the majority that the police have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves. There must be, however, some restrictions placed on the intent. In my view, there are several potential unconscionable ramifications to the majority opinion. For instance, if a suspect with an outstanding warrant is talking to his neighbor’s family near the property line, can the police now detain the entire family as part of the encounter with the suspect? If the suspect is waiting at a bus stop with six other strangers, can they all be detained? If the same suspect is observed leaving a house and stopped in the front yard, can the police now seize everyone in the house to ensure that no one will shoot them while they question the suspect? What if the suspect is detained in a neighborhood known to have a high incident of crime, can the police now seize everyone in the entire neighborhood to ensure their safety while they detain the suspect? There simply is no definition of who is a ‘‘companion’’ in the majority opinion. I would require more than mere ‘‘guilt by association.’’ Ever mindful of Franklin’s admonition, we cannot use the omnipresent specter of safety as a guise to authorize government intrusion.This is a law enforcement blank check. This allows police to use spurious reasons to detain people they just don't want around -- like eyewitnesses and photographers. This allows police to perform en masse detentions and gives them the opportunity to root around from something more than weak obstruction/interference charges. This eliminates the public's right to live their lives unmolested by law enforcement officers. This makes simply existing "guilt by association." If a criminal is arrested in your yard, you and everyone in your house and every rubbernecker on the street can be detained by officers in order to ensure their safety.
Just as troubling is the amount of creative thinking the court had to engage in to reach this horrific decision. Facts are no longer facts. Facts are just something to be considered or discarded at the court's whim.
It is certainly very curious that the Supreme Court would take the extraordinary step of clarifying “factual findings” by the trial court in an effort to support the conviction, when the clear record below – the words said by the judge in open court – would support a reversal…The Connecticut Supreme Court has delivered its public into the hands of a police state. Anyone, anywhere can be detained for absolutely no reason at all, and when they complain or file lawsuits, this ruling will allow officer safety to override all other concerns. If any facts are actually considered, they'll be filtered through law enforcement sensibilities.
Where does it stop? Are facts only facts as long as they’re convenient? Are rights only rights as long as they don’t get in the way of governmental authority?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrests, association, connecticut, connecticut supreme court, police
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Cops should be required to be subect to malpractice
And have a law enforcement license that can be disciplined just like a doctor or a lawyer.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No guessing needed
If someone isn't being detained, or charged with something, then a cop doesn't really have many (legal) tools they can use to stop them from videotaping them. However, now that they can detain everyone in the area, if someone refuses to stop recording, the cops can just detain them as 'potential accomplices', or something along those lines, and flat out take the camera/phone away from them, and there's nothing they can do about it.
It goes without saying but, hopefully this one can, and will, be appealed higher, and this insane ruling overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No guessing needed
Delete everything after people and you have a point. Those in power simply couldn't care less with the people. When you see those morons criticizing North Korea just tell them to fix their own damn glass ceiling before throwing stones at others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No guessing needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the only right we have is to be abused by people who are supposed to protect us.
They do not need to tell the truth, and the adjudicators can just make up any narrative they need to keep the powers that be from any justice for abusing their position.
Of course few will say anything now, because it will only be used against "Bad People"(tm) and the "Good People"(tm) have nothing to fear... until a cop decides they aren't "Good People"(tm) and the court who is supposed to be impartial railroads them down the road... and they suddenly understand they have no rights they imagined they have... and they gleefully supported these things coming to pass.
Land of the "Free" * indeed...
* - "Free" is just a word, you have no rights unless we decide to let you have them and we will take it away when it suits us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
-From "Me and Bobby McGee"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and their definition of "vicinity" is... ?
I want it defined in meters, centimeters and milimeters please.
if not defined, i think they assume that "vicinity" means something on the order of, let's say... 15000 kilometers?
This should make sure that everyone on Earth (diameter: ~12700km) and in orbit can be arrested just because they want to.
Verizon Math^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Fascist Logic at its best
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the officers have a reason to fear.
I foresee many assaults on police officers by bystanders now in trying to escape this situation.
What a bunch of idiot judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now the officers have a reason to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now the officers have a reason to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the ruling is too broad, it's more designed to prevent morons from stopping and distracting police officers who are not just investigating someone they suspect but also because they don't know who you are.
Don't always assume that decisions like this are 100% wrong. There are legitimate concerns for officers to be concerned with their own safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So someone sitting in judgement can accept a lie and make it fact and there is no downside, no recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, that would seem to be the case.
US V Reynolds a case where 'experts lied' and once the truth was discovered it was not reopened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tis much more humorous (in that gallows sort of way) to see how you don't bother to expand or show proof to back up your positions.
They have every right to detain you until they can confirm your identity and involvement with that person you're walking with.
Good Citizen Tanaka - you posted on TechDirt and these posts were seen in the proximity of posts of Alternatives(). Please come with us because we have a few questions.
designed to prevent morons from stopping and distracting police officers
Errrr - STOPPING a police officer would fall under existing law. Care to justify why present law isn't good enough and police need MORE authority? Or are you just going to tuck your tail between your legs and scuttle off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kenichi tanaka
Did you even read the same article, its not about the law is designed to do, its about what now the law can be used for
'While the ruling is too broad,'
Ah so you did read the article, so what's your point? That the law is poorly thought out maybe?. Well that is what is being said.
Or is it that that's not how the intention of the law turned out?
Kinda the point of the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I could care less that the officer(s) don't know who I am.
That's exactly THEIR fucking problem.
For the record, I don't know them EITHER. And because I don't know them, I don't trust them.
It's becoming more and more obvious that a badge and gun do not in any way, equate to someone I can trust.
If their jobs are "hard" and they can be so easily distracted, well, I've said it before - they can find another line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they don't. They have to suspect you, in particular, of something.
"it's more designed to prevent morons from stopping and distracting police officers"
Then it's pointless, because we already have plenty of other laws that prohibit that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then it's pointless, because we already have plenty of other laws that prohibit that.
Criminal distraction of a police officer? Gosh I hope not. Now, there are laws regarding interference with an investigation, interfering with an arrest, etc. but I hope criminal distraction is not really a thing. Billboards can be distracting, cars driving past on the freeway while they are giving someone a ticket, a waving American flag can catch someone's eye.
If the police are so crippled by ADHD that they need laws to keep people from distracting them, we need to hire more competent officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The crime here was a parole violation. It's pretty much impossible for me to violate someone else's parole. And guess what: They also don't know if anyone else in the universe was involved.
HOWEVER. In reading the opinion, it seems that the "detainment" consisted of the officers simply telling the companion to "stop, come here". At that point the companion started running away. I would have a hard time saying that the officers were not justified. Especially after he dropped a bag containing a white substance (which turned out to be cocaine.) Running from officers is pretty much considered to be automatically suspicious enough for them to detain you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't have any citations, but I'm pretty sure courts have decided that is not true. If it were, there would basically be no protection against unjust detention, because cops could tell anyone they want to "stop, come here" and if they do then they've got them, and if they don't they can chase them down and arrest them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, how about walking away without running?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Wardlow
"The court concluded that flight alone, even in a high-crime neighborhood, did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminality. Noting this Court's precedents establishing a person's right to avoid police contact, the court adopted the reasoning of other lower courts which had decided that flight from the police was a manner of exercising one's right to avoid a police encounter. "
This guy contradicts Wikipedia's account of Wardlow so I'm not sure what to think about him (I would tend to trust WP over some guy I've never heard of). He lists several other cases and concludes that running, by itself, isn't probable cause (or articulable suspicion or whatever the standard is for stopping someone), but if police can find some other circumstance to couple with it, then they may have enough cause.
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=1143
Anyway, how about walking away without running?
Probably you're on much safer ground walking, though I'm not sure what I think about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"fleeing in a high crime area"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did, thank you. That's a disappointing ruling. By now I think it should be clear that people living in a high crime area have very good reasons to avoid interacting with police, whether or not they're guilty of anything. With that said, my advice would be to walk away. Regardless of the legal situation, it attracts a lot less attention than running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that's okay, we'll defend your rights along with ours even if you are too chickenshit to do so...
no thanks necessary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong. There is no law in the United States that requires anyone to carry ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle or flying on a commercial air flight.
24 states currently have stop-and-identify laws, but even in those states the police MUST have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Walking with someone (even if there is reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime) does not meet that bar.
The police cannot detain you for simply failing to identify yourself.
You have a really bad habit of thinking that anything you agree with is legal and anything you dislike is illegal. That's not the way it works in the real world, so please stop it and try educating yourself about our legal system a little more. It really makes you look foolish at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
24 states currently have stop-and-identify laws, but even in those states the police MUST have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Walking with someone (even if there is reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime) does not meet that bar.
But now in Connecticut there's no bar, as long as they think there might be a legitimate target in the area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oops. 23 states then.
Although, if Connecticut's law ever gets challenged in Federal court I'm thinking it would probably be overturned. I'd like to say that it's positive it would, but I'm not that confident about such things anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a law, just a court ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I stand corrected...again.
***(mumbles something incoherent about them damn pedantic Techdirt readers)***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm definitely in that club. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aren't they just loverly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In what possible way can the article above be considered an "assumption". Or is that just your word for somebody else's opinion that you don't agree with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ken tanaka
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd pay to watch that, after the stupidity of this rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whim of the Court
That is already the case. You don't even have to be a cop to have a casual relationship with the "truth" - just being a lawyer is good enough because lawyers can't lie in Court. They can only preform misconduct.
2 cases in Wisconsin that never got to any appellate level - a guy has been running a business of under 50 employees and in previous lawsuits claimed via his own affidavit he was the General Manager of the business. In the 1st of the 2 lawsuits when asked via interrogatory if he knew who the owners were he claimed he did not. In the 2nd lawsuit said guy claimed he was the 50% owner.
No perjury charges for him because the claims were filed by lawyers - he was never "on the stand".
Such deception issues are long term - the ABA in 1995 published in May issue "The Lies Have It" where the 40+ year Milwaukee DA E. Micheal McCann pointed out that they just don't bother with civil felonies for perjury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you ever get tired of blaming the victim? Really, your excuse wouldn't sound out of place coming from the aggressor in an abusive relationship. 'Well if they wouldn't aggravate me, I wouldn't have had to smack them around so much! It's their own fault for not doing what I told them, and for not showing me proper respect!'
Also, learn to use the 'Reply to this' function, it's really not that difficult to figure out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They voided the 4th Amendment that they need a ACTUAL reason to stop and detain someone more than they were NEXT to someone we thought might have done something wrong.
That they can scoop up and hassle anyone in the area that might happen to be filming is an added bonus for them getting away with murder. Or did you miss that magically NYPD managed to find charges against the person who filmed them murdering a man over selling loose cigarettes.
In CT they now have no reason to justify any stop of anyone, and the public have no recourse even if you show they lie about their reasons. Because a court can just assume the actual facts aren't relevant, and insert their own made up facts in place of actual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kenichi
Then one of them got falsely accused of sexual assault by a girl they met at a bar and got a front-row seat to the circus of law enforcement. He was eventually acquitted after spending thousands of dollars and having his reputation ruined due to the police leaking 'facts' about the case that were later proven false. After being embarrassed in court when the judge tossed most of their evidence as unsound, the cops decided to stop and harass him for no reason frequently. Eventually he transferred schools out of state to start over.
All of those naive mouthpieces saw firsthand how being in the wrong place at the wrong time can strip away all of your rights, and we all heard stories about similar crap that had happened to friends like driving-while-black or having police trail you through a mall because you weren't dressed like you could afford to shop there.
The people brave enough to record the public actions of the police are crucial to maintaining our freedoms. It has been objectively proven that officer bullshit and mistreatment fall drastically when they know that eyes are on them, either with their own cameras or the public's. The argument that anyone 'in the vicinity' can be detained is pure bullshit. Police officers have NEVER BEEN SAFER in the history of the union, both in actual harm and reported incidents. At the same time, successful reports of excessive force are steadily rising because people now have evidence in these recordings that break the old 'your word against the cop' status quo.
You need some real world experience before your opinion on the subject carries any weight beyond petty trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well arn't YOU just a special snowflake?
Because YOU don't do something, no one else should either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what you're saying is that the police are so unprofessional that you have to treat them like animals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you ever hear of "involuntary detention"? The kind where they don't have to give you reason for your being taken off the streets? I mean, they don't even need to have one for any person, anytime, anywhere with this law. Just be walking the street with anyone the cops are supposedly looking for (but you didn't know that, did you?) and you're now part of the arrest sheet.
Problem is, they won't have to press charges because you're possibly an accessory to a crime, therefore a suspect until you're read your rights..but if you don't know what your legal status is, they won't tell you, either. Then they'll charge you with all kinds of stuff. Guaranteed to be entertaining to you when you didn't even you know you broke the law by walking down the street with a 'person of interest.'
Quick, someone call the SC and see if they have a spot on next term's calendar..this is a goodie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It must be crazy day because I totally agree with you. Some of the police in this country have become no more selective about their enforcement than a bear or an angry swarm of bees (I'll leave out the dragon because since they are imaginary we don't know if a dragon would actually use reason or if they too are just mindless machines ready to attack).
The point is, the police are not supposed to be like a bear you have been poking with a stick, they are supposed to not only be human, but to be held to a higher standard than everyone else. They should have more restraint than a person, not the same amount as an angry swarm of bees.
When police become rampaging animals, it is not a solution to get out of the way, they are supposed to be peace keepers and protecting us - if we have to avoid them to not get bitten, there is a serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This doesn't sound that strange to me.
I live in The Netherlands where police officers are sworn in by taken a "Oath of office". They [cops / law enforcement officers] are believed to tell the truth or truthfully describe what happened and not lie.
When there is a dispute over what has really happened in a specific situation a judge will try to reconstruct/establish what was really happened and if this can not be established or remains unclear, a judge will (very likely) rule in favor of the police officer as it has 'sworn to tell the truth' when he or she became a police officer.
Then a citizen must prove otherwise. But is nearly impossible when there are no cameras, sound recordings or reliable witnesses.
We all know that everyone lies (at least sometimes), and police officers are no exception to this rule.
However, proving this may be very difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'Believed to tell the truth', and 'Do tell the truth' are, unfortunately, not always one and the same, hence why people have increasingly taken to recording police, because when it's a cop's word against the accused, even if they're lying or just 'mis-remembering' what went down, the court will always take the cop's word as fact, with very few exceptions.
However, introduce video/audio evidence, and suddenly the public has a way to fight back, and give their 'version' of the incident equal weight(well, in some courts at least).
We all know that everyone lies (at least sometimes), and police officers are no exception to this rule.
Rather significant difference though: If I lie, the odds it's going to result in someone spending time behind bars, potentially for a long time, is pretty low, at best. If a cop lies however, there are all sorts of extremely unpleasant effects that can have, from fines, charges on the permanent record, to jail time, either short or long term.
However, proving this may be very difficult.
And this is why people are videotaping police, so that they can provide evidence if a cop lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops Can Detain.....
it's possible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cops Can Detain.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a citizen's arrest might hold. The cop is committing the felony crime of false imprisonment, perhaps false arrest, perhaps kidnapping.
Perhaps a few dozen incidents in which the cop attempts to detain the innocent and is summarily arrested by the by-standers (assuming the rest of the cops cooperate) in any given town might serve to warn the cops how to behave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's the stumbling block, cops would never co-operate with such a plan, either because they know they'd likely face a similar 'arrest' in the future due to their actions, or simply to 'protect' the privilege, 'one law for me, another for thee' state they enjoy.
Citizens arresting cops would muck that up terribly, and completely flip the balance of power, so you can be sure they'd never allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a citizen's arrest might hold.
I would like to think that's true, but I'm afraid it's a fantasy. If you commit violence against a cop and manage to survive the experience, you're going to jail. No court is going to consider a self-defense claim protecting yourself against arrest, even if it was an unjustified arrest (which in the jurisdiction of this court apparently no longer exists).
And if you try to arrest a cop the best you can hope for is a car ride in handcuffs, with other possible results including familiarity with the effects of one or more of the following: night sticks, pepper spray, tasers, and small arms fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except maybe Indiana, who has a law on the books allowing you to resist a false arrest up to and including shooting the officer in question. Good luck winning that case, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The rabbit trail to go down starts with John Bad Elk v US.
Here is a link http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems that regardless of what the courts decide, the law enforcement community is just going to do what it wants to anyway.
I could go for a constitutional amendment that basically says that law enforcement does NOT get a presumption of honesty and must prove (without coercive deal making to get witnesses to testify) with evidence, their contentions, and that lying, even by omission, by either law enforcement or prosecution causes an immediate and non optional detention and prosecution of those involved.
Submitted with the certainty that all of the holes in that theory will immediately be exposed by the community. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other cops cooperate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Totally impractical (even without the "rest of the cops cooperate".)
The police approached two men, told them to "come here", and the men started running, and one of them dropped a bag containing cocaine. So are you telling me that, as a bystander, you would correctly be able to determine that the police are allowed to detain THIS fleeing person but not THAT fleeing person? You would somehow know who they did and did not have a warrant to arrest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet police, whose primary concern should be the safety of the civilian population, kill more innocents than police are murdered. The police have voluntarily accepted a paid position to provide protection to us, but continually refuse to see those who are not police as being less than human.
It reaches the final irony of Orwell's Farm when the pigs are walking on two trotters, and claim "some four legs good, two legs better."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops should be required to be subect to malpractice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two advantages -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two advantages -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's wonderful...
Unfortunately I really don't see how it can be fixed -- it'll just come up in a different form somewhere else, probably in many other places. I only hope (which is very unlikely) that it's get's addressed at the Supreme Court level very soon and very swiftly, so there can be a little bit of reason left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hows about this scenario?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is filming police officers from a safe, respectable distance "provoking a confrontation"? Please explain.
Also, "LEARN TO THREADED MODE!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Marley sang "Stand up for your rights, " then he was murdered.
Had they not been videoed, it is unlikely they would have otherwise been revealed... Not that it really matters, because nothing really changes for the better.
We are apparently doomed until pushed to the point of moving about in legally armed groups willing to fight back against unjust, inhumane, insane behavior under color of authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If filming them provokes a confrontation, then something in that head of yours should be asking: why is he agitated? what is he doing wrong that he would not want the encounter to be documented? why exactly is recording the encounter provoking a confrontation?
Again, if the job's too hard, find another job. But stop complaining that being recorded is somehow causing problems. If they are not doing anything wrong, then they should have nothing to hide, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets repeat that about 100 times, LOUDLY:
IF YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!!
Good for the goose, good for the gander. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heck, the cops want to consider us presumed enemies, that goes both ways...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, we know you can't do this, and we know why you can't do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It never fails to astonish me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting someone across the street.
What is it with me and food metaphors today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mass protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That isnt true..
Law is based on the reasoning of a group of persons WHO think Balance should go more to 1 side more then the other.
You are driving down the road and a police car Stops you..They SUGGEST that your rear light is not working,
(Standard protocol means you are NOT ALLOWED to leave the car so you cant CHECK)
And upon the Police leaving you,
You Check the light?
You go home and check the light?
You goto a mechanic and HE checks the light?
But the light IS/WAS working..
If we could get Everyone to be truthful, would that help?
Truth is in the perspective.
Police SAFETY??
Dont they have enough rights and abilities to Protect themselves already??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHAHA
If you think Obama is the problem, then you don't understand what is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serfs Up!
Whenever a serf comes into contact with a member of the governments self-entitled class it is imperative they bend and the knee and genuflect for their safety as it is well understood that serfs have no rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connecticut SC to Tourists - Stay the fuck away
Sorry Connecticut, but if your boys in blue did that to me, I'd have their badges and life's savings before I was done with those fucktards. I'd also have the judges de-benched for violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Connecticut SC to Tourists - Stay the fuck away
How would you accomplish all that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Officer Safety now has a name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They only Suspect your friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prisoner_population_rate_world_2012_map.png
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.
Gil Scott-Heron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges... Are they dumbest lifeform in the known universe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They who write the law, rule.
Finally, a law written by rich fascist crooks to legally allow the crooked cops on their payroll, to stop those pesky telephone-camera freaks from taking pictures of their criminal behavior and allow the victims no legal recourse from the false arrest and inevitable confiscation of their property.
Another triumph of American Justice over the forces of freedom and truth!!
There is no escaping the Grand Aquisition!!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authority w/o Liability => Tyranny
This court decision will only result in creeping abuses by police as they find they can act with impunity and indeed the government will protect their rights above those of the citizen.
It is long past time for a fresh and frank discussion about the role of government in society. To many in government now think they are the master and the citizen is their subject.
The flip side of this is that the good citizens of this state could have put a stop to it long ago, but so far don't seem to care. Maybe they are getting the government they deserve. Let everyone who objects move to some other state and take all their money with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Authority w/o Liability => Tyranny
Only recently in my life have I been able to discover that piece of the elephant. My partner is a single mother working a high-stress job to sustain herself and her daughter, and it's a lucky day that she can peer up over her files and look at something that isn't about keeping the company afloat. And then, when she does, she generally does not want to look at things that give additional cause for worry.
For me, Techdirt is often my daily dose of freak-out as I watch the integral cornerstones of my country disintegrate. I have the time to look at this stuff, to do research about the legalities or how these things have developed in prior eras. But that's a rare privilege. The Daily Show has commented on this: much of our nation's work force, while reasonable rational people who would doubtless find these developments concerning cannot afford to expend the time and thought for it.
We've managed to make our people too busy and too stressed to effectively carry out their civic duty of staying informed enough to rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Authority w/o Liability => Tyranny
And do you really think that this is a coincidence??
That inflation-induced poverty and work-place stress and daily bad news and universally crooked politicians and global Ebola epidemics and world pollution and openly bad cops and GMO ecology destruction and all the rest of the well-organized chaos that keeps everyone who is not already rich, in a state of near exhaustion and mental congestion could simply be due to natural causes.... is truly an optimist's pipe dream.
No fascist ruler-ship wants an intelligent, healthy, alert and well-informed population with time on their hands.
Fascism thrives on the kind of chaos that is modern life in America today. It does this by pretending to fight the very crisis it creates, using tax-payer's dollars to defeat tax-payer's demands.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Authority w/o Liability => Tyranny
But I'll say that the same forces that capture regulatory agencies also push our workforce harder, pays them less and makes life generally more miserable. So...not a coincidence, but not an Illuminati conspiracy either. Mostly big corporations figuring out every possible way to increase the profit margin in the short term at the expense of the long-term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to stop cell phone cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you kidding me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]