Posted on 01/06/2014 3:00:20 PM PST by lowbridge
Pretty much.
In my old age as a single man, I have become enamored of booze, drugs, whores and the right to move around when I can.
I want Chief Heim, ON TV, to recite the oath he took to take his position. He is the beginning of an Obama jack booted thug. He should have known these civilians were doing wrong. The Sheriff in Berks Co. should arrest his ass and take over.
The courts have recently been ruling that when someone is detained by the police that the individual is essentially in custody. In other words, if one is not free to go, or even if one would reasonably believe that to be the case, that person is entitled to be informed of their rights etc.
I’m sure this case will hinge on what the police led the person to believe regarding how “voluntary” their detention and submission to tests was.
I think it would matter if it was an unreasonable request or a reasonable request. At a traffic stop in South Carolina I was asked by LEO's; "May I look in the back of your truck?" This I considered an unreasonable request and told them no. The deputies implied the could look anyways and I asked them if a judge would deem their "probable cause" justifiable, or give them a suspension. They let me leave without escalating it any further. Two years later while driving through Columbia, I got into another traffic stop. A bank had just been robbed and the LEO's were checking all vehicles leaving the area for the suspect. The LEO asked if he could check the back of my truck. Absolutely! This I considered a reasonable request. There was someone armed and dangerous on the loose, and I wanted to make sure they weren't in the back of my truck.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
“Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”
The courts have previously ruled that cops can lie their asses off, and it is entirely up to the citizen to weigh their legal options, with or without competant legal advise.
Kind of the flip side to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
Welcome to the police state!
Good for him. Making them pay is the only way to stop it.
Makes sense.
I think that is true. The reason goes beyond just a desire to have subjects for their study. The study will have no scientific validity whatever if people are able to "self-select" with regard to participation.
The reason is obvious; people who have any reason whatever to believe that they may be guilty of driving while impaired would, if sufficiently sober to do so, decline to participate. This would cause a dramatic under-reporting of the situation that is supposedly being studied.
There is no way to run such an experiment while relying on volunteers.
If those who designed and operated the study are unaware of this, then they are scientifically incompetent.
If they were aware, then they are scientifically unethical. If they were aware and failed to explain this factor to the enforcement agencies whose authority they abused, then they are guilty of a fraud.
If they were aware and DID explain this factor to the authorities, then the authorities are dangerously incompetent.
” Unconstitutional if refusal has negative
consequences. If not, ???”
Consequences are implied, and the officer knew it, the chief knew it, every thinking being knows it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.