----- Original Message ----- From: "Petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <measl@mfn.org>; <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them
on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.
Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
Uh, no. If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and.... putting it. You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The point you are missing is that typically the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the case will get tossed. Big deal. Probable cause to arrest exists where facts and circumstances within officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed; it is not necessary that the officer possess knowledge of acts sufficient to establish guilt, but more than mere suspicion is required. I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh, at least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members. there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce. There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens. The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the judicial system. Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.
Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans IIRC).
Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't
To you the only "questionable" areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments? Interesting. that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was mentioned) decision. [Firearms rights are being taken away by the power to tax... The power to tax is the power to destroy... McCulloch v. Maryland blah blah blah] provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp. Chicago does this. It requires registration for all handguns. No registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so. It's been challenged over and over. It stands. And will. The rest of this drivel deleted. (Is Detweiller back or what? If so, he's violating his consent decree).