[OldManMac]

Supreme Court gives approval to "Informational roadblocks" to collect tips about crimes



Tuesday, January 13, 2004

BY GINA HOLLAND
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave police leeway Tuesday to use random roadblocks to track down criminals.

Justices said in the 6-3 ruling that police checkpoint stops, when used to seek information about recent crimes, do not violate the privacy rights of other motorists.

The court overturned a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, which had ruled that it was not an emergency in 1997 when officers stopped cars at an intersection outside Chicago to pass out leaflets seeking information about a fatal hit-and-run.

Justice Stephen Breyer said that ``police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs.''

Three justices, however, expressed concerns that the ruling could open up motorists to police interference without yielding information about crimes.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed with part of Breyer's ruling.

``There is a valid and important distinction'' between seizing a person to determine whether he or she has committed a crime and seizing a person to ask whether that person ``has any information about an unknown person who committed a crime a week earlier,'' Stevens wrote.

The case was a follow-up to a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that roadblocks intended for drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution.

Breyer said that in this case, authorities were investigating a specific crime - and one that resulted in a death.

The Illinois checkpoints had been challenged by Robert Lidster, who was arrested and convicted of drunken driving after being stopped at a roadblock. The roadblock had been set up at the same spot and time of day that the hit-and-run took place, in hopes of getting tips. Authorities said that Lidster nearly hit an officer at the scene.

The ruling is a victory for Illinois and 14 other states which had asked the court to use the case to clarify how far police could go to seek information about crimes.

Breyer said that short stops, ``a very few minutes at most'' are not too intrusive on motorists. Police may hand out a flyer, or ask drivers to volunteer information about crimes, he said.

In the partial dissent, Stevens said that motorists will be trapped by the checkpoints.

``In contrast to pedestrians, who are free to keep walking when they encounter police officers handing out flyers or seeking information, motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as the officers choose to detain them,'' he wrote.

The delays ``may seem relatively innocuous to some, but annoying to others ... still other drivers may find an unpublicized roadblock at midnight on a Saturday somewhat alarming.''

The three dissenting justices said the case should have been sent back to Illinois courts for more consideration.

The case is Illinois v. Lidster, 02-1060.

[daimoni]

.

[theolein]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Keep America Free. Ride a Bicycle.

Can you prove that that bicycle is licenced, citizen? Are you riding with a helmet, citizen? Can you prove that you have never ridden your bicycle on the sidewalk, citizen? Non compliance with any of these regulations is punishable with indefinite detention and no access to legal aid, citizen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'm not sure what to make of this one. The idea itself is perfectly reasonable. If there is a crime in the area, it is not unreasonable for the police to stop motorists to hand out information and appeal for witnesses. The risk, however, is that limited authority can be expanded into a license to simply stop members of the public without cause. This kind of expansion of the law has happened before. There is a line in the dissent in Terry v. Ohio that talks about the hydraulic pressure of the law. What starts off as a small exception very soon becomes general practice. Terry itself (it's the stop and frisk case) is a good example. It started off as a narrow common-sense exception. Now it is pretty much license for the police to stop you wherever you are.

There is an old saying about difficult cases making bad law. The equities here are pretty evenly balanced, and it is a difficult case. I think the hysteria of the thread title is unwarranted. But I also think that this is an issue that should be watched carefully for future abuse.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The risk, however, is that limited authority can be expanded into a license to simply stop members of the public without cause. This kind of expansion of the law has happened before. There is a line in the dissent in Terry v. Ohio that talks about the hydraulic pressure of the law. What starts off as a small exception very soon becomes general practice.

Which is why I was opposed to the FBI getting unfettered access to people's financial records without a court order. The possibility of abuse of the authority obviates any benefits, in my opinion - and I don't consider the thread title to be hysterical. The path to a police state is paved with small, innocuous "stones" such as this, and there is a always a "good reason" at the time to justify each stone being laid in place. Taken in context with all the other recent measures being enacted along these lines, how can anyone be faulted for feeling alarmed?

[davesimondotcom]

Is it me or is the Supreme Court all over the map these days?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not sure what to make of this one. The idea itself is perfectly reasonable. If there is a crime in the area, it is not unreasonable for the police to stop motorists to hand out information and appeal for witnesses. The risk, however, is that limited authority can be expanded into a license to simply stop members of the public without cause. This kind of expansion of the law has happened before. There is a line in the dissent in Terry v. Ohio that talks about the hydraulic pressure of the law. What starts off as a small exception very soon becomes general practice. Terry itself (it's the stop and frisk case) is a good example. It started off as a narrow common-sense exception. Now it is pretty much license for the police to stop you wherever you are.

There is an old saying about difficult cases making bad law. The equities here are pretty evenly balanced, and it is a difficult case. I think the hysteria of the thread title is unwarranted. But I also think that this is an issue that should be watched carefully for future abuse.

I beg to differ on your assertion that it is not unreasonable for the police to motorists to hand out information and appeal for witnesses. There are many other methods available to accomplish this, especially in an age where information can be dispersed globally in an extremely short time frame. To stop motorists just because they happen to be in an area where a crime was committed, I submit, is not even effective, and is just an exercise to give the impression that the police are doing something, no matter how ineffectual, towards solving the crime. If one is out shopping, and just happens to drive through an area where a crime was committed, how could it be concluded that individual had knowledge of the crime? If one is driving home from work, how could it be concluded that individual had knowledge of a crime in the area? This is more like throwing darts at a distant board, instead of doing proper police work, which involves investigation of actual forensic evidence. I would submit that most people are uncomfortable when pulled over by the police, especially when they have done nothing wrong. To pull someone over in an attempt to find a needle in a haystack is uncalled for.

You admit that this presents a potential for abuse; I don't see anything hysterical about that abuse.

One of my favorite quotes, which illustrates clearly what happens when the government abuses its power;

First They Came for the Jews


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller



Our government already has too much power that is ineffectualy used, and the government is growing at a more rapid pace under King George than under any previous administration. IIRC, the largest federal agency is now the Homeland Security Department. To me, that's not hysterical; that's frightening!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I beg to differ on your assertion that it is not unreasonable for the police to motorists to hand out information and appeal for witnesses. There are many other methods available to accomplish this, especially in an age where information can be dispersed globally in an extremely short time frame. To stop motorists just because they happen to be in an area where a crime was committed, I submit, is not even effective, and is just an exercise to give the impression that the police are doing something, no matter how ineffectual, towards solving the crime. If one is out shopping, and just happens to drive through an area where a crime was committed, how could it be concluded that individual had knowledge of the crime? If one is driving home from work, how could it be concluded that individual had knowledge of a crime in the area? This is more like throwing darts at a distant board, instead of doing proper police work, which involves investigation of actual forensic evidence. I would submit that most people are uncomfortable when pulled over by the police, especially when they have done nothing wrong. To pull someone over in an attempt to find a needle in a haystack is uncalled for.

Crimes aren't always solved by forensic evidence. Witnesses are also crucial. It's not unreasonable to think that people in an area might be witnesses. Most people have daily routines. If I drive along a certain road on my way home from work on one day, it's not unreasonable for the police to suppose that if they talk to commuters the next day, they have a reasonable chance of being able to ask me if I saw anything.

Look at it this way. Suppose a person is killed in their house. Is it unreasonable for the police to go talk to the neighbors to ask them if they saw or heard anything? That's really the same thing as asking motorists the same question.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Look at it this way. Suppose a person is killed in their house. Is it unreasonable for the police to go talk to the neighbors to ask them if they saw or heard anything? That's really the same thing as asking motorists the same question.

It's not really the same thing, no. You don't have to answer the door if you don't wish to speak to the police. The vehicle roadblocks are not a matter of choice.

I think a much better technique was used to apprehend this maniac from Georgia last week, when they used electronic highway message boards to flash the alert and description to motorists. It worked.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
It's not really the same thing, no. You don't have to answer the door if you don't wish to speak to the police. The vehicle roadblocks are not a matter of choice.

Actually, you could still refuse to answer questions even if you are stopped. The police can't ever force you to answer their questions. So yes, the analogy holds. The police asking motorist is really no more invasive of privacy than the police asking neighbors.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Crimes aren't always solved by forensic evidence. Witnesses are also crucial. It's not unreasonable to think that people in an area might be witnesses. Most people have daily routines. If I drive along a certain road on my way home from work on one day, it's not unreasonable for the police to suppose that if they talk to commuters the next day, they have a reasonable chance of being able to ask me if I saw anything.

Look at it this way. Suppose a person is killed in their house. Is it unreasonable for the police to go talk to the neighbors to ask them if they saw or heard anything? That's really the same thing as asking motorists the same question.

I agree 100% that witnesses are crucial. I also agree 100% that is very appropriate to look for those witnesses. Where you and I differ is in the efficacy of the methods used. Asking a neighbor, who has a higher chance of having witnessed something, due to the neighbor's permanent proximity to the crime, is far different, and far more effective, than asking hundreds of people who just happened to drive by a certain area. We have television, radio, newspapers, the internet, and the water cooler, to disseminate requests for information on a particular crime. We don't need to have police checkpoints.

Beyond that, you have already agreed that this presents a potential for abuse, and that alone should be reason to not permit it. Stop trying to derail the issue.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, you could still refuse to answer questions even if you are stopped. The police can't ever force you to answer their questions. So yes, the analogy holds. The police asking motorist is really no more invasive of privacy than the police asking neighbors.

and how many of these stopped vehicles will be subsequently searched, as "part of the investigation"?

just asking.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I agree 100% that witnesses are crucial. I also agree 100% that is very appropriate to look for those witnesses. Where you and I differ is in the efficacy of the methods used. Asking a neighbor, who has a higher chance of having witnessed something, due to the neighbor's permanent proximity to the crime, is far different, and far more effective, than asking hundreds of people who just happened to drive by a certain area. We have television, radio, newspapers, the internet, and the water cooler, to disseminate requests for information on a particular crime. We don't need to have police checkpoints.

Beyond that, you have already agreed that this presents a potential for abuse, and that alone should be reason to not permit it. Stop trying to derail the issue.

Paragraph one is debatable. People can differ on what is reasonable or not.

Paragraph two is just authoritarian. You are trying to shut me up because you disagree with me. Have you been taking lessons from Lerkfish?

I don't agree that a potential for abuse is reason enough to derail this. Anything the police does is open to abuse. The way we respond to that danger is by appropriate checks. The Court built in some limits to this. My concern is that later courts will expand those limits. So I'd keep a close eye on how this plays out, but not necessarily overreact just yet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and how many of these stopped vehicles will be subsequently searched, as "part of the investigation"?

just asking.

The police would still have to have probable cause for that.

[OldManMac]

I'm always fascinated when people refer to "checks and balances", as if they're cast in stone. They mean absolutely nothing when they're ignored by the party in power.

When should I "over react?" When I find myself in a situation where I'm no longer free because of my political or religious beliefs?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The police would still have to have probable cause for that.

wouldn't the act of stopping the vehicle provide a more complete visual inspection of the contents, leading to more incidents of "probable cause"?

Are you telling me if they stop a vehicle to ask about a crime in the area, and they smell alcohol or pot smoke they just wave the car on by?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are you telling me if they stop a vehicle to ask about a crime in the area, and they smell alcohol or pot smoke they just wave the car on by?

Should they?

[edits to add] Would you really want a car driving around where the police know the occupants may be intoxicated?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The police would still have to have probable cause for that.

Shouldn't they have to have "probable cause" for detaining U. S. citizens indefinitely and holding them incommunicado?

Oh, I forgot; you live in a perfect world, where everything is always done "by the book".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Should they?

I'm just giving that as an example....of things that would not be noticed by normal police operations necessarily. I'm not using it as a moral judgement of what should be legal or not....my point is a logistical one:

My point is that if those people were driving safely without violations or would normally have been in a position to provide "probable cause", this new procedure would increase the incidents of "probable cause", wouldn't you agree?
It introduces a more invasive opportunity for police to monitor citizens and find that probable cause.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Shouldn't they have to have "probable cause" for detaining U. S. citizens indefinitely and holding them incommunicado?

Oh, I forgot; you live in a perfect world, where everything is always done "by the book".

No, I live in an imperfect world that realizes that most issues can be debated. This one is no different. In fact, I find it closer than most.

Your argument is absolute. Don't let the police do anything if there is any chance of abuse. The problem is that all police activities have a chance of abuse. But we do need a police, and we need them to be effective. So you always have to balance the rights of people to be free from police interferance with the rights of people to have a police force that will be effective enough to do their job. Where you draw that line is something that reasonable people can differ over.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not sure what to make of this one. The idea itself is perfectly reasonable. If there is a crime in the area, it is not unreasonable for the police to stop motorists to hand out information and appeal for witnesses. The risk, however, is that limited authority can be expanded into a license to simply stop members of the public without cause. This kind of expansion of the law has happened before. There is a line in the dissent in Terry v. Ohio that talks about the hydraulic pressure of the law. What starts off as a small exception very soon becomes general practice. Terry itself (it's the stop and frisk case) is a good example. It started off as a narrow common-sense exception. Now it is pretty much license for the police to stop you wherever you are.

There is an old saying about difficult cases making bad law. The equities here are pretty evenly balanced, and it is a difficult case. I think the hysteria of the thread title is unwarranted. But I also think that this is an issue that should be watched carefully for future abuse.

While I understand Karl's gut-level objection, I think that's a fair statement. There's a rational, if uncertain, basis for the roadblock in this particular case, but at the same time the practice is ripe for abuse. It's a tough one.

I read the opinion (it's only a few pages) and I think it's worth noting that the victim was known to have left work at the very same time and place that the "informational roadblock" occurred - it was a regular spot, not just any intersection. I can therefore understand why the police would see potential value in seeking information from motorists there.

I think it's also worth noting that the dissenters didn't necessarily disagree with the outcome - they questioned the majority's reasoning, but ultimately said that the case should be remanded to the state court for further consideration under the Brown test. Thus, not even Justices Stevens and Ginsburg thought it was a slam dunk either way.

That said, on a gut level I don't like it any more than Karl does. I'm troubled by the increasing presence of the police in our lives, and it's something I noticed before 9/11. It seems that one can no longer go to a public function, even an ordinary town fair, without encountering a team of Schwarzennegger wannabes who, one gets the feeling, are watching you and just itching for a chance to see some action. The same is true when one is driving. I hate that feeling of being watched, of feeling intimidated, of seeing them not as friendly community servants, but as menacing bullies.

I don't necessarily blame the cops - I've represented cops and can say from personal experience that there are some very good ones (and, unfortunately, some extremely bad ones). They've got a risky and almost thankless job. It's more a matter of tone. I think they need to soften the image a bit.

End of rant.

[Lerkfish]

I'm amazed when new incursions happen into the civilian population from law enforcement, and those who defend it bristle at the suggestion of potential abuse.

what's amazing is that I think we can all agree abuses of authority happen ALREADY at the present level of intrusion, why would anyone think they'd not occur at a higher level of intrusion?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:

That said, on a gut level I don't like it any more than Karl does. I'm troubled by the increasing presence of the police in our lives, and it's something I noticed before 9/11. It seems that one can no longer go to a public function, even an ordinary town fair, without encountering a team of Schwarzennegger wannabes who, one gets the feeling, are watching you and just itching for a chance to see some action. The same is true when one is driving. I hate that feeling of being watched, of feeling intimidated, of seeing them not as friendly community servants, but as menacing bullies.

I don't necessarily blame the cops - I've represented cops and can say from personal experience that there are some very good ones (and, unfortunately, some extremely bad ones). They've got a risky and almost thankless job. It's more a matter of tone. I think they need to soften the image a bit.

End of rant.

Actually, I agree with this. The cop swagger can be overdone, and I think it can also be quite counterproductive. I understand it in one sense. Being a police officer is a difficult and dangeous job. Projecting a certain aura of intimidation is a defense mechanism. But it can be overdone and cause even perfectly law-abiding citizens to view the police as the enemy to be feared and disliked. I think also there are some cops who simply get off on the feeling of power.

I think also more broadly this transformation from friendly public servants to menacing bullies is also partly the fault of legislatures and local government who simply pass too many criminal statutes and ordinances. That's why there is this feeling of always being watched. It's because it is inceasingly impossible to go about your life without this feeling that somewhere or another you are going to commit some infraction or another, even if only accidentally. And then, of course, there is some bored cop waiting behind every corner to catch you for it.

I'm generally not a very paranoid person, but police tactics certainly generate that feeling. Part of the problem is that so much of what the police you see every day do is try to catch people for trivial things like driving 30 in a 25 zone (which realistically should be 40 anyway) so they can raise revenue for the local government. If the police were seen more as guardians of society, and less like hall monitors, then I think people would be less suspicious.

Still, I think this particular case is reasonable.

[Sven G]

Eins, zwei, Polizei

Drei, vier, ein Glas Bier

Fünf, sechs, die alte Hex'

Sieben, acht, gute Nacht

Neun, zehn, auf Wiedersehen

The first line indeed seems to apply to our "new" times, sadly!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I agree with this. The cop swagger can be overdone, and I think it can also be quite counterproductive. I understand it in one sense. Being a police officer is a difficult and dangeous job. Projecting a certain aura of intimidation is a defense mechanism. But it can be overdone and cause even perfectly law-abiding citizens to view the police as the enemy to be feared and disliked. I think also there are some cops who simply get off on the feeling of power.

I think also more broadly this transformation from friendly public servants to menacing bullies is also partly the fault of legislatures and local government who simply pass too many criminal statutes and ordinances. That's why there is this feeling of always being watched. It's because it is inceasingly impossible to go about your life without this feeling that somewhere or another you are going to commit some infraction or another, even if only accidentally. And then, of course, there is some bored cop waiting behind every corner to catch you for it.

I'm generally not a very paranoid person, but police tactics certainly generate that feeling. Part of the problem is that so much of what the police you see every day do is try to catch people for trivial things like driving 30 in a 25 zone (which realistically should be 40 anyway) so they can raise revenue for the local government. If the police were seen more as guardians of society, and less like hall monitors, then I think people would be less suspicious.

Yes, "swagger" is one of the words I was looking for. I live in a pretty placid town yet some of the cops act as though there could be an outbreak of gang violence at any moment. It's off-putting.

I think that in addition to the petty infractions that we're saddled with, the drug wars have something to do with it. It's created a siege mentality, not to mention the fact that the police departments stand to gain financially.

Anyway, an interesting topic, but I've got to run . . . I just hope I don't get a ticket.

[kindbud]

*sides with Lerkfish on this issue*

Cops are supposed to keep traffic moving - not impede its flow. A simple orange sign beside the road near the crime scene would be just as effective as stopping car after car and asking the same questions.

The cops would love to have lawbreakers paraded in front of them, rather than having to seek them out. Just as you'd love for somebody else to do your job for you. I'm not asking you to like it, I'm just stating a fact: the cops will make more arrests while stopping motorists than they will by solving the original crime.

I watched an episode of COPS last night. The drug task force team was giddy as schoolgirls after raiding a million dollar home. They had taken the time to determine the home's property value before the raid, apparently. They didn't care about the 20 kilos of cocaine, they cared only about the seizing that real estate. It's a sad day when police are motivated by profit potential.

I saw an article in our local Charlotte newspaper yesterday. Seems the cops now have new BMW motorcycles to replace their Harley-Davidsons. Proudly noted was the fact that these BMWs were leased - and the future lease payments would be made from the sale of confiscated and seized assets. Reckon the cops are expecting crime to continue indefinitely.

You can have your property seized and then be found not-guilty of the crime. They don't have to return your property. I paid $750 to get my truck 'un-seized' after I didn't get convicted of simple possession. They made it clear that they didn't have to return my vehicle at all...since it was used to transport narcotics. Mind you, not that anyone was proven to have done so.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The police would still have to have probable cause for that.

No they don't. If a policeman asks a random person if they can look in their trunk, most people are probably going to say yes, if for no other reason than that they don't know they can say no. People are generally unaware of what their rights are when it comes to dealing with the police, they take for granted that if they don't break any laws they won't have to deal with it. The police know this and use it to their advantage in what I would consider an abuse of their power and position. I see a too high chance of abuse of this ruling to justify the good that it could do.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
No they don't. If a policeman asks a random person if they can look in their trunk, most people are probably going to say yes, if for no other reason than that they don't know they can say no. People are generally unaware of what their rights are when it comes to dealing with the police, they take for granted that if they don't break any laws they won't have to deal with it. The police know this and use it to their advantage in what I would consider an abuse of their power and position. I see a too high chance of abuse of this ruling to justify the good that it could do.

That's true, but it is a different issue, more related to the police swagger issue discussed above. The police have no right to demand to look in your trunk unless they have probable cause. However, they can ask and if you voluntarily open it, or say yes, that is a waiver of your rights. However, the Supreme Court has held that such a waiver has to be knowing and voluntary.

You can contest whether or not you felt compelled to open it. The court will look at the issue from an objective point of view. It will ask whether a reasonable person would have felt intimidated into opening it. FOr example, if the police screamed "open the trunk!" with their guns drawn, you might get away with it (i.e. any contraband might be excluded as evidence). However, if they ask you to open it, and especially if they tell you they don't have to (which, not being stupid, they usually will), then its a valid waiver of your 4th Amendment rights.

There are also other doctrines that can come into play dependeing on circumstances. There is search incident to arrest, plain view, inventory (i.e., they arrest you, tow the car, get a warrant, and search it), and so on. It's a complicated subject.

Personally, if I were stopped, I would probably say no to a search, even though I don't have anything to hide. However, I'm not sure I'd get into a fight over it.

[nonhuman]

There is a difference between you or I or most other people on this board who actually know something about the law and what our rights are, and the average person. Sure, some of them will know that they can refuse, or that they can challenge it in court if they felt they were coerced. But I think the average person either won't know what their rights are, or will be too cowed by the police to exercise them. Even if I'm wrong and these people are a minority, I think it's still our duty to protect them and their rights.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
There is a difference between you or I or most other people on this board who actually know something about the law and what our rights are, and the average person. Sure, some of them will know that they can refuse, or that they can challenge it in court if they felt they were coerced. But I think the average person either won't know what their rights are, or will be too cowed by the police to exercise them. Even if I'm wrong and these people are a minority, I think it's still our duty to protect them and their rights.

That's the theory behind the Miranda rights. However, it's not a cure-all. Most people waive their Miranda rights even after they are read them and supposedly understand the consequnces. It's human nature or maybe something we all learn as children. When confronted by authority, we try to explain our way out of trouble, and assume that being cooperative will make the authority figure let you go. The problem is that doesn't really work with a police officer.

Of course, the other side of this is that when you are talking about people who get as far as arguing this in front of a judge, you are talking about people who are generally factually guilty. Generally, the only way you can contest an illegal search is if they actually find something incriminating. So as I said earlier on, you are necessarily striking a balance here. You want the police to be effective, but not to get out of control. That is not a line that is easy to draw.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by kindbud:
*sides with Lerkfish on this issue*
......

Great post. I agree 1000%.

Its not that any potential for abuse is enough to justify not granting police the right, its that the potential for abuse is far far greater than the potential for solving the crime.

I can't think of anything that would be less effective, more abusive and more infuriating and effectively undermining to the relationship between cops and citizens than "information road blocks".

That has got to be about the laziest idea I've ever heard.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That has got to be about the laziest idea I've ever heard.

actually, the laziest idea is sting operations for streetwalking prostitutes....its not like they're hiding. They're trying to be seen..by clients.
Fooling them into thinking youre a client has got to be the laziest undercover operation ever. And the sweeps usually happen a week before the local elections for police chief.

sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine when "tough on law and order" incumbents round up "criminals" like prostitutes, and do little else.

[zigzag]

It's always useful to remember that, with respect to the law, these issues are multi-leveled. The first issue, which is what this particular ruling dealt with, is not whether the practice or policy is a good one, or even an effective one, but whether it passes Constitutional muster. Effectiveness is an element in that decision but only an element.

The next level is more legislative/public policy in nature, i.e. even if this practice passes Constitutional muster, should we allow it? Just because something is Constitutional doesn't mean a given legislature - the U.S. Congress, the states - has to allow it. If enough people got angry about it, they can lobby their legislatures to prohibit the practice.

The next level is more administrative in nature, i.e. even if both the Supreme Court and the legislature allow it, should the Chief of Police allow it? He doesn't have to, although we all know what the likely answer is.

So, one can say that the Supreme Court ruling was valid (or not) and at the same time say that the practice should be prohibited as a matter of public policy - they're two different things. Personally, I can appreciate the Court's reasoning, but at the same time I think it's probably a dubious idea and would prefer that it be prohibited.

On Miranda: surprisingly, a lot of law enforcement people like the rule, because it has a way of keeping their own officers in line and leaves less room for ambiguity about a suspect's rights. It doesn't always work in practice but by and large it's a good idea.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Supreme Court gives approval to "Informational roadblocks" to collect tips about crimes

Anyone know what it will be like to live in a Dictatorship?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Anyone know what it will be like to live in a Dictatorship?

don't worry, we'll all know, soon.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
don't worry, we'll all know, soon.

maybe Iceland will liberate us.