Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]S Dimitrov wrote: > > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html