Quote: (07-19-2015 11:45 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:
Quote: (07-19-2015 11:11 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:
Like most cops you know nothing about Constitutional law. Google Supreme Court , Atwater vs City of Largo Vista. Read the ruling of the majority and then come back here and admit you do not know what the fuck you were talking about before. I am a patent attorney not a criminal attorney , but this constitution case had huge implications on criminal procedure . Like most cops you don't know much about law so I understand you ignorance of major Supreme Court rulings but do some basic research and reading comprehension before you insult me when it is you who are wrong on the facts, misrepresent what I wrote , and ignorant of major constitutional issues germane to your profession.
Atlanta, you're better off sticking to patent law than trying to tell guys their own profession they've done for so many years.
Nobody is misrepresenting anything, you said it, you own it - "Any violation of criminal law, including traffic violations and misdemeanors, is an arrestable offense in any state".
You apparently don't even know what category of law most traffic violations fall in, so the rest of your stuff is suspect already.
Boatloads of non-arrestable misdemeanors in my state too. I don't have the arrogance to pretend to have studied all the laws in every state, but you're making such arrogant sweeping statements, one state is all I need to prove you wrong. You are aware that States can have restrictions on police stronger than the Supreme Court restrictions right? The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on police, not the ceiling.
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The majority conceded that "If we were to derive a rule exclusively to address the uncontested facts of this case, Atwater might well prevail." The majority also acknowledged specific directness in its actual opinion, "suggesting that courts look with 'disfavor' on such legislative enactments 'as interfering with the constitutional liberties of the subject'." Furthermore, the majority decision concluded that "warrantless misdemeanor arrests [may not] need constitutional attention," and that "It is of course easier to devise a minor-offense limitation by statute than to derive one through the Constitution" Thus, the court rejected adopting a new Constitutional law rule by focusing on administrability concerns.[11] It then held that probable cause was the issue and that that standard had been met.[11]
Police routinely exercise discretion in their work. Requiring the police to decide whether a crime is a fine-only crime, for which he could not arrest the suspect, in the heat of the moment ultimately exposes the police to greater legal consequences—either exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, or personal liability for violating the suspect's constitutional rights. Balancing of Fourth Amendment interests through "probable cause" and "extraordinary" circumstances has been delineated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Given the choice to abandon or abridge the requirement of probable cause for arrest in the case of fine-only misdemeanors, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment imposed the same standard for all crimes: probable cause.
The Court's decision in this case ultimately involved the extent of law-enforcement discretion in exercising their duties. After asking in oral argument, "how bad the problem is out there?" the court admonished Atwater's counsel's failure to provide it with "indications of comparably foolish, warrantless misdemeanor arrests." The majority opinion ultimately emphasized a specific view that "Multiplied many times over, the costs to society of such underenforcement could easily outweigh the costs to defendants of being needlessly arrested and booked.
A question based on this precedent was on the Bar which I passed, read what I posted above and you will see it is quite clear you can be arrested for any violation of any criminal infraction even if the criminal infraction is not punishable by more than a fine. This holds in every state and territory of our United States. Because you are not a lawyer let me break it down for you, the court majority held that basically police discretion in making arrests was more important than people being arrested for minor offences even if those offences ultimately were only punishable by a fine.
That is the Supreme Court precedent, that is the law in our country, based on our Constitution as interpreted by the court. I said it , I own it , and unless you can provide a superseding law or court precedent I just owned you on this discussion of the law.
Furthermore you made this whole discussion adversarial by insinuating that I attempted to mislead the readers of this forum, or was "snow jobbed and bought it" when I clearly stated I was providing context for the forum as to the root of actions of the protesters at the political rally, I also stated that I thought the protesters overreacted.
Lastly I informed the readers of this forum that the story about the arrest and subsequent death in custody of the police protester were on Reason.com along with the video of her arrest. I made it clear that that is where I read the story, and that I was not there so I did not know what happened.
Do not insult me, misconstrue my previous statements, and assume to tell me the law when you do not know it and expect me to bow the fuck down because you were a fucking cop for 20 years. You don't know shit about the constitution, you have not been to law school, you did not pass the bar and have been wrong about ever or willfully untruthful throughout this discussion. Good day sir. I said good day sir!(sarcasm)