Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Damn spel check; make that statutes At the kind of events, or activities, that I cover there is usually a lawyer, if not a team. More often than not, they will be there with a book of statuettes to point to the boys in blue what the legal rights are. Lately, the DoJ, has been having its own observers on the ground, in causal uniform, with a DoJ patch on their shirts and hats. This was an outcome of the persistent tense relations between the LAPD and the public. But I don't want anybody to think that I'm anti police from my commentaries. In my case I've seen them hold the line between a melee to an outright meltdown, without the use of force, that is nothing short of miraculous. The LAPD Labor Detail in particular, is a model used by the rest of the country. Their ability to mediate on the spot and diffuse a situation, I'm beginning to think, is worthy of a photographic essay. Slobodan Dimitrov Marc James Small wrote: > > The US Supreme Court has, on at least several occasions, held that the > police have the right to ask you your name and for identification, day or > night, without the need for probable cause that you are involved in any > improper activity. And, if you have identification, you are required to > show this to them, be it as little as an envelope with your address on it. > > Beyond that, the muddy waters start moiling and roiling. The above is > FEDERAL law; many states have tighter standards but none can have ones > more favorable to the police than the Federal standards. > > If a police officer asks you to stop, you must generally do so. (At four > in the morning, an anonymous voice blaring out of the dark to "halt!" could > probably be ignored but I'd not go much further than that.) > > But, beyond that, a police officer needs to have "probable cause" to stop > you save for a reasonably established road-block. If a crime has been > committed, or is reasonably believed to be in progress, the police may stop > everyone until they can identify them. > > The Supreme Court detests the police's distinction between "detained" and > "arrested". If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest, whether or > not those magic words are uttered by Sergeant Murphy or Lieutenant Arsat or > whoever. The police will splutter and moan, and the local courts will find > a work-around to protect the image of the Force but, in the end, if you > cannot leave, you are under arrest. > > I am not aware of any "24-hour rule", at least here in Virginia. Here, if > you are arrested, you must be charged "in a reasonable time"; our local > courts normally accord the police two to four hours to get to a magistrate > and to swear out the warrant. And, if you are drunk or on drugs, you can > be held until you have sobered up, normally six hours or so. But that is it. > > The standards are simply set out, but their application in a given set of > circumstances is much tougher, as Brian has repeated set out. One thing to > bear in mind is that the Courts, including the US Supreme Court, will > always give the police a LOT more leeway at 3 in the morning than they have > at 3 in the afternoon, though all Courts deny doing so and become upset if > you argue this before them, even if you then win the case. > > So, a public event at 12 noon is under a far more stringent standard to be > observed by the minions of the law than would be a chance encounter on a > back alley-way at 2:22 in the AM. > > Marc > > msmall@infi.net FAX: +276/343-7315 > Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html