| |
Supreme Court rules that your must identify yourself to police!!
by Decius at 1:19 pm EDT, Jun 21, 2004 |
] A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people
] are required to identify themselves when asked to do so
] by police, and rejected arguments that it violates their
] constitutional rights to privacy and to remain silent. There are very serious problems with this ruling. For example, the Supreme court has ruled that I am not required to identify myself when distributing political pamphlets. This ruling seems to contradict that ruling. |
| |
RE: Supreme Court rules that your must identify yourself to police!!
by Acidus at 7:38 pm EDT, Jun 21, 2004 |
Decius wrote:
] ] A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people
] ] are required to identify themselves when asked to do so
] ] by police, and rejected arguments that it violates their
] ] constitutional rights to privacy and to remain silent.
]
] There are very serious problems with this ruling. For example,
] the Supreme court has ruled that I am not required to identify
] myself when distributing political pamphlets. This ruling
] seems to contradict that ruling. I felt this was not the best case to push a ruling with. |
|
| | |
RE: Supreme Court rules that your must identify yourself to police!!
by ophten at 12:33 pm EDT, Jun 22, 2004 |
Restricting investigative bodies access to informational data by requiring them to meet the same burden of proof necessary for search warrants would be more potent than allowing people to refuse to offer identifying information. |
|
| |
RE: Supreme Court rules that your must identify yourself to police!!
by skullaria at 11:18 pm EDT, Jun 22, 2004 |
Let's arrest all the alzheimers patients that can't remember who they are! Decius wrote:
] ] A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people
] ] are required to identify themselves when asked to do so
] ] by police, and rejected arguments that it violates their
] ] constitutional rights to privacy and to remain silent.
]
] There are very serious problems with this ruling. For example,
] the Supreme court has ruled that I am not required to identify
] myself when distributing political pamphlets. This ruling
] seems to contradict that ruling. |
|
|
|
