At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
----- Original Message -----
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower
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.
Uh, no.
If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for
----- Original Message ----- From: "Petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:38 AM Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime probablity 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....
As a lawyer (and I strongly suspect based on your writing here over the years that you're not this kind of lawyer) if someone came to you wanting to sue the NYPD over whatever the legalese is for "false imprisonment" and had documents to prove that they'd been arrested for wearing purple oxfords on blue flue tuesday, would you buy a new BMW or a Mercedes?
Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of 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.
I was trying to stay away from "terms of art" where possible, since while I know what the english words "reasonable suspicion" mean, I know they are also used in a lot of cop and lawyer shows, as well as by cops and lawyers,
Neither, because that case would be unlikely to net much more than $10,000 in settlement. Hell, the guy who was violated with a baton and has effectively no colon anymore got a measely few million from the city. I have done white collar crime work, some related to forced disclosures, but false imprisonment cases are usually civil cases against private defendants. It's very hard to get a jurisdiction to pay for "injusticies" committed where duly sworn law enforcement officials were acting in an official capacity. therefore they are overloaded terms and not always in scope. Granted.
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,
least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members.
I am seriously thinking about Law School, and several times during this "conversation" I have made it clear that (1) I am not a lawyer. (2) I am not speaking from a position of educated authority. I am speaking from *my* reading of the Constitution and discussions with lawyers and Cops, as well as other stuff I've read and thought about over the years. I've made it evident
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 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.
Really? You mean *that's* why I couldn't find a gun store in Chicago the whole 7 years I lived there?
And it was the early 80s during the Byrne administration that new firearms registrations were halted (although rumor had it that if you knew the right
at that I do not believe this is the way things *are*, but rather what *I* believe would work better. You overestimate the average contextual awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think. [...] people, or had a good enough reason you could still get one registered. Of course, that is normal for Chicago). Registration started in 1968, the law stoping registration apparently came into effect in 1982. http://user.mc.net/~chevelle/handgunbans.htm I stand corrected. I had confused the 1968 date with the cesasation of registration issuances.