It could be, but it's a pretty significant change that I wasn't comfortable with.
Personally, I'm inclined to blame the political-bias of the author, but that's just my personal feeling about it. Admittedly, I can be a bit touchy about that sort of thing.
However, SPD (and other shadowtalk posters) served a purpose in the past- to show the perspective of the other side of things, to explain why things are the way they are. He (they) also nicely illustrated the difference between a civil (government operated) police force and the corporate contracted police forces.
Those purpose has been lost and I felt it was important.
EDIT: Of course there is also the political bias of the shadow author to consider (the character who's voice the article is in as apposed to the actual freelancer who write the section). But one of the main purposes of shadowtalk is to off-set those character biases with other points-of view. This was not done, in my less than humble opinion.
Full Version: [SprawlSG] Policing in the '60s
| QUOTE (Peter Pan) |
| hell, one of the campus cops at my alma matter (a small liberal arts college) has a TOW missile... |
We don't even have such a thing as "campus cops" here in Germany...
| QUOTE (Peter Pan @ Sep 10 2003, 07:39 PM) |
| hell, one of the campus cops at my alma matter (a small liberal arts college) has a TOW missile... |
Yeah, but how many confirmed kills does he have? UPD?
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Okay, first off- sorry about the delay in my response here. I recently got my hands on Season 3 of Babylon 5, so I've been a bit distracted. |
Completely off-topic...
...I miss that show.
Seasons 1 through 3 are available on DVD...
Prior to the patriot act I've seen a few applications of "Police Rights" that most people consider to be "no-nos", but are legal (or at least have held up in court ).
1. Florida 1978: State patrol in co-operation with DEA, local sheriff departments, US Customs and INS setup a series or inspection points on the major roadways leading north from the Orlando area. chase cars were positioned to cover the south bound lanes, these vehicles were positioned in camoflaged bolt holes and such. On the north bound side drivers first encountered signs stating "Narcotics Inspection and Taxation Station Ahead". This was followed up by signs and cones further up the road where ID, registration, & insurance checks were performed in one lane and in the outside lane a sign directed vehicles carrying narcotics to pull over to the shoulder. Those vehicles that did not pull over to the shoulder were subjected to dog searches inside and outside of the vehicle at another checkpoint only a few hundred yards down the road. Some smugglers were caught at these 2 points, but the majority were caught when they turned around after seeing the 1st sign. I observed this happening as part of the Navy's support of coastal drug interdiction. It's my understanding that this was a monthly occurance during the late '70s and early '80s.
2. A Gentleman from Ohio, who owned a small landscaping business, was detained for 6 weeks on the belief that he was a drug dealer. In addition to this the state of Georgia and the DEA confiscated his home, his personal cars, his business and it's vehicles and equipment. They also confiscated the $30,000 in cash that he was carrying. He was "busted" during a layover at the Atlanta airport where he had to change to a local commuter flight to reach his final destination. Which was a town in south GA. where the region's largest landscape floral market is located. The probable cause for his being taken in to custody was that he was a: black, b: had declared he was transporting large amounts of cash at the time he checked in for his flight from Columbus Ohio, c: his deceased brother inlaw had a record as a drug dealer in Illinois. Under the RICO act, all of his assets were charged in drug trafficing. These charges against his assets were not dropped after the investigation into his activities was dropped. Note he was never charged with a crime. He has been all the way to the US Supreme court with this; their final ruling was that his assets were not citizens of the US and therefore could not be afforded rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the US. They additionally ruled that his assets had to provide their own legal representation in court, thus preventing him for retaining an attorney on their behalf to represent them.
3. On numerous occassions here in Nebraska, children have been recruited by law enforcement to "test" local stores and shops that sell alcohol and tobacco. Many of these kids, after performing this service have then been charged/ticketed for purchasing those same materials. The evidence used against them were the "tested" store's/shop's video surveillance tapes of the "test". The same practice has been used to nail kids in the schools for dealing/buying drugs on school property where the penalties are doubled.
After the Patriot Act things appear to have gotten even more draconian, around here at least. My kids (all under the age of 15 years) were to be subjected to strip and cavity searches at the airport, this summer, prior to boarding for a flight to Atlanta to visit their grand parents. They were flagged for this abuse, because their grandmother purchased their tickets from her end and had them mailed to the kids here. Fortunately, I'm known to several of the security personnel that were on duty at the time and a Federal prosecutor was in line behind us to board the same flight.
1. Florida 1978: State patrol in co-operation with DEA, local sheriff departments, US Customs and INS setup a series or inspection points on the major roadways leading north from the Orlando area. chase cars were positioned to cover the south bound lanes, these vehicles were positioned in camoflaged bolt holes and such. On the north bound side drivers first encountered signs stating "Narcotics Inspection and Taxation Station Ahead". This was followed up by signs and cones further up the road where ID, registration, & insurance checks were performed in one lane and in the outside lane a sign directed vehicles carrying narcotics to pull over to the shoulder. Those vehicles that did not pull over to the shoulder were subjected to dog searches inside and outside of the vehicle at another checkpoint only a few hundred yards down the road. Some smugglers were caught at these 2 points, but the majority were caught when they turned around after seeing the 1st sign. I observed this happening as part of the Navy's support of coastal drug interdiction. It's my understanding that this was a monthly occurance during the late '70s and early '80s.
2. A Gentleman from Ohio, who owned a small landscaping business, was detained for 6 weeks on the belief that he was a drug dealer. In addition to this the state of Georgia and the DEA confiscated his home, his personal cars, his business and it's vehicles and equipment. They also confiscated the $30,000 in cash that he was carrying. He was "busted" during a layover at the Atlanta airport where he had to change to a local commuter flight to reach his final destination. Which was a town in south GA. where the region's largest landscape floral market is located. The probable cause for his being taken in to custody was that he was a: black, b: had declared he was transporting large amounts of cash at the time he checked in for his flight from Columbus Ohio, c: his deceased brother inlaw had a record as a drug dealer in Illinois. Under the RICO act, all of his assets were charged in drug trafficing. These charges against his assets were not dropped after the investigation into his activities was dropped. Note he was never charged with a crime. He has been all the way to the US Supreme court with this; their final ruling was that his assets were not citizens of the US and therefore could not be afforded rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the US. They additionally ruled that his assets had to provide their own legal representation in court, thus preventing him for retaining an attorney on their behalf to represent them.
3. On numerous occassions here in Nebraska, children have been recruited by law enforcement to "test" local stores and shops that sell alcohol and tobacco. Many of these kids, after performing this service have then been charged/ticketed for purchasing those same materials. The evidence used against them were the "tested" store's/shop's video surveillance tapes of the "test". The same practice has been used to nail kids in the schools for dealing/buying drugs on school property where the penalties are doubled.
After the Patriot Act things appear to have gotten even more draconian, around here at least. My kids (all under the age of 15 years) were to be subjected to strip and cavity searches at the airport, this summer, prior to boarding for a flight to Atlanta to visit their grand parents. They were flagged for this abuse, because their grandmother purchased their tickets from her end and had them mailed to the kids here. Fortunately, I'm known to several of the security personnel that were on duty at the time and a Federal prosecutor was in line behind us to board the same flight.
Okay, lets talk about these situations you're presenting CeaDawg.
THE ROAD BLOCK:
This event is perfectly legal, perfectly fair and a fairly standard practice. Here is why-
Signs were put up warning drivers in advance that they would be entering a checkpoint. Drivers had the opportunity to turn off and not drive into the check point. Therefor anyone driving into the check point does so willingly and in doing so gives consent to be contacted. Based upon that contact, evidence justifying a further search may result.
For those drivers who turn off- well simply turning away from the check point is NOT probable cause to stop them, however no evedence at all is needed for law enforcement to follow someone for a short distance and visually check for violations (it's called "plain sight"). If a violation is found (any will do, even a cracked windshield, a tail light out, whatever) the officer has probable cause to stop the person. An officer who is well versed in traffic law (like say, a state patrolman) will usually have no difficulty in finding a violation on most vehicles.
If a person enters the checkpoint area and then does not follow the orders given to them (or the cones or signs set up or whatever), they are committing (at the least) a traffic violation, which is probable cause to stop them.
THE GUY FROM OHIO:
Sorry, but I'm just not buying into this one. Not as it is presented anyway.
I can see a dozen ways this would be legal if just a little bit more information was provided. What you are not providing (and probably do not have access to yourself) is if there was additional information the law enfrocement officers had that led to this person being contacted and detained and which led to the seizure of his properties.
I'm fairly suspicious of the idea that it would play out as described even at the level of a small, isolated town police force (it's possible, but unlikely). However, even if it did, the US Supreme Court would NOT put up with that kind of thing. They have ruled on the standards for probable cause for detaining someone and for seizure of property- and what you've described does not fit.
However, I find it no surprise that the events would be portrayed the way they were. The police are not required to tell the media (or even the suspect) all the evidence they have that led to the detention- they are only required to tell the defendant's attorney and the court. Based upon the information you provided, at least 3 seperate courts have upheld this case, which is a very clear sign that the evidence was there.
The media's goal is to generate higher ratings and circulation, not to inform the public of the facts- nothing short of a major disaster boosts ratings and circulation better than a scandal (police scandals are one of the best), and the media is not usually shy about leaving a few peices of key information out of the public's knowledge in order to make things appear more sinister. I see it happen all the time.
Nor is this person likely to tell the full story when he tries to win support for himself. He is very likely to leave a few things out.
Now, it was stated that his being black was the only reason for him to be contacted. That would be illegal, and even the few police that are racist are smart enough not to do that (those who are not smart enough not to do that don't last long).
His being black can be part of a greater amount of evidence the leads to his contact, but only under very limited circomstances. If, for example, a reliable informant told the police "On the three PM flight from Atlanta to Chicago there will be a black man in his mid-thirties wearing a mustache, glasses and a brown coat. He will be carrying a shipment of drugs." The police can look for a person matching that description at that time and place. In that case, his being black is part of a description and therefor can be used as part of the reason for contacting him.
By itself, his race cannot be the reason for a stop. Had that been the sole reason for his being stopped, the case would have been thrown out in court.
For the record- in order for a case to get to the US Supreme Court, it has to pass through a minimum of two other courts:
-The state trial court
-The state appeals court
-(sometimes a state supreme court)
-(sometimes a US appeals court)
-And then the US Supreme Court.
If it was a federal case that it would pass through two courtrooms before the Supreme Court:
-the federal trial cout
-the federal appeals court
-then the US Supreme Court.
Each one of those courts operates independantly of the others. The idea that so many seperate courts would let something that they've ruled against in the past go on is just not within the realm of beleivability.
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this case as it is portrayed here. (Note for the record, I am not accusing you of attempting to misrepresent the case, I'm just pointing out that odds are that you do not have all the facts of the case).
ALCOHOL PURCHASING STINGS:
Calling bullshit on this one as well (again, not calling you a liar, just point out that you likely do not have all the facts).
Juveniles (or at least persons under 21 years of age) are used to conduct sting operations of businesses which sell alcohol and tobacco. This is not unusual or illegal. Usually police cadets or police explorer scouts are used for the sting, but some jurisdictions recruit in other ways. An officer will give money and instructions to the juvenile, the juvenile will go into the store and attempt to purchase the alcohol or tobacco. It is illegal for the store to make the sale, so if the juvenile is able to make the purchase, the juvenile then reports to the officer (who is waiting just around the corner). The juvenile turns over the alcohol or tobacco to the officer and the officer goes into the store to serve a criminal summons to the clerk who made the sale.
I've participated in these stings myself. It is completely legal, fairly common, and easy to do. Most stores will not make the sale and you'd never know the sting was attempted (except that some PDs will send the owner a letter congratulating them on their compliance with the law- some store owners will throw these away, some will proudly post then in the store as a warning to juveniles).
The PD would have no reason to file charges on the juvenile (who is helping them), but if they did, the juvenile would get out of it because it would be a clear situation of entrapment. EXCEPT....
Except:
-If the juvenile fails to turn (some or all of) the alcohol or tobacco over to the officer in accordance with procedures and the law
-If the juvenile attempts such a sting on their own (not acting under authority and orders of a police officer)
-If the juvenile comes back later, after the sting, and purchases alcohol or tobacco, in which case they are breaking the law and the sting is not at all related to the violation.
Oh, one more possibility- the officer was waiting for the juvenile around the corner (out of sight) and as the juvenile was walking out of the store, another officer (one who did not know the sting operation was going on) approached and saw the juvenile- then made an arrest. In this case, it is the responsibility of the officer conducting the sting to step in and inform the arresting officer what is going on.
It is possible that a situation might occur where the juvenile is arrested and the officer conducting the sting doesn't find out about it (operating on a different radio channel) until the juvenile is in custody at the station or jail. In that case, it is the responsibility of the officer to contact the arresting officer, or the attorney's handling the case, or in necessary to testify in court and inform all related parties that it was all a misunderstanding. I can easily see it happening that way.
Once again, regardless of how this happened, by the time this hits the papers you're going to be missing a lot of the facts of the case.
THE ROAD BLOCK:
This event is perfectly legal, perfectly fair and a fairly standard practice. Here is why-
Signs were put up warning drivers in advance that they would be entering a checkpoint. Drivers had the opportunity to turn off and not drive into the check point. Therefor anyone driving into the check point does so willingly and in doing so gives consent to be contacted. Based upon that contact, evidence justifying a further search may result.
For those drivers who turn off- well simply turning away from the check point is NOT probable cause to stop them, however no evedence at all is needed for law enforcement to follow someone for a short distance and visually check for violations (it's called "plain sight"). If a violation is found (any will do, even a cracked windshield, a tail light out, whatever) the officer has probable cause to stop the person. An officer who is well versed in traffic law (like say, a state patrolman) will usually have no difficulty in finding a violation on most vehicles.
If a person enters the checkpoint area and then does not follow the orders given to them (or the cones or signs set up or whatever), they are committing (at the least) a traffic violation, which is probable cause to stop them.
THE GUY FROM OHIO:
Sorry, but I'm just not buying into this one. Not as it is presented anyway.
I can see a dozen ways this would be legal if just a little bit more information was provided. What you are not providing (and probably do not have access to yourself) is if there was additional information the law enfrocement officers had that led to this person being contacted and detained and which led to the seizure of his properties.
I'm fairly suspicious of the idea that it would play out as described even at the level of a small, isolated town police force (it's possible, but unlikely). However, even if it did, the US Supreme Court would NOT put up with that kind of thing. They have ruled on the standards for probable cause for detaining someone and for seizure of property- and what you've described does not fit.
However, I find it no surprise that the events would be portrayed the way they were. The police are not required to tell the media (or even the suspect) all the evidence they have that led to the detention- they are only required to tell the defendant's attorney and the court. Based upon the information you provided, at least 3 seperate courts have upheld this case, which is a very clear sign that the evidence was there.
The media's goal is to generate higher ratings and circulation, not to inform the public of the facts- nothing short of a major disaster boosts ratings and circulation better than a scandal (police scandals are one of the best), and the media is not usually shy about leaving a few peices of key information out of the public's knowledge in order to make things appear more sinister. I see it happen all the time.
Nor is this person likely to tell the full story when he tries to win support for himself. He is very likely to leave a few things out.
Now, it was stated that his being black was the only reason for him to be contacted. That would be illegal, and even the few police that are racist are smart enough not to do that (those who are not smart enough not to do that don't last long).
His being black can be part of a greater amount of evidence the leads to his contact, but only under very limited circomstances. If, for example, a reliable informant told the police "On the three PM flight from Atlanta to Chicago there will be a black man in his mid-thirties wearing a mustache, glasses and a brown coat. He will be carrying a shipment of drugs." The police can look for a person matching that description at that time and place. In that case, his being black is part of a description and therefor can be used as part of the reason for contacting him.
By itself, his race cannot be the reason for a stop. Had that been the sole reason for his being stopped, the case would have been thrown out in court.
For the record- in order for a case to get to the US Supreme Court, it has to pass through a minimum of two other courts:
-The state trial court
-The state appeals court
-(sometimes a state supreme court)
-(sometimes a US appeals court)
-And then the US Supreme Court.
If it was a federal case that it would pass through two courtrooms before the Supreme Court:
-the federal trial cout
-the federal appeals court
-then the US Supreme Court.
Each one of those courts operates independantly of the others. The idea that so many seperate courts would let something that they've ruled against in the past go on is just not within the realm of beleivability.
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this case as it is portrayed here. (Note for the record, I am not accusing you of attempting to misrepresent the case, I'm just pointing out that odds are that you do not have all the facts of the case).
ALCOHOL PURCHASING STINGS:
Calling bullshit on this one as well (again, not calling you a liar, just point out that you likely do not have all the facts).
Juveniles (or at least persons under 21 years of age) are used to conduct sting operations of businesses which sell alcohol and tobacco. This is not unusual or illegal. Usually police cadets or police explorer scouts are used for the sting, but some jurisdictions recruit in other ways. An officer will give money and instructions to the juvenile, the juvenile will go into the store and attempt to purchase the alcohol or tobacco. It is illegal for the store to make the sale, so if the juvenile is able to make the purchase, the juvenile then reports to the officer (who is waiting just around the corner). The juvenile turns over the alcohol or tobacco to the officer and the officer goes into the store to serve a criminal summons to the clerk who made the sale.
I've participated in these stings myself. It is completely legal, fairly common, and easy to do. Most stores will not make the sale and you'd never know the sting was attempted (except that some PDs will send the owner a letter congratulating them on their compliance with the law- some store owners will throw these away, some will proudly post then in the store as a warning to juveniles).
The PD would have no reason to file charges on the juvenile (who is helping them), but if they did, the juvenile would get out of it because it would be a clear situation of entrapment. EXCEPT....
Except:
-If the juvenile fails to turn (some or all of) the alcohol or tobacco over to the officer in accordance with procedures and the law
-If the juvenile attempts such a sting on their own (not acting under authority and orders of a police officer)
-If the juvenile comes back later, after the sting, and purchases alcohol or tobacco, in which case they are breaking the law and the sting is not at all related to the violation.
Oh, one more possibility- the officer was waiting for the juvenile around the corner (out of sight) and as the juvenile was walking out of the store, another officer (one who did not know the sting operation was going on) approached and saw the juvenile- then made an arrest. In this case, it is the responsibility of the officer conducting the sting to step in and inform the arresting officer what is going on.
It is possible that a situation might occur where the juvenile is arrested and the officer conducting the sting doesn't find out about it (operating on a different radio channel) until the juvenile is in custody at the station or jail. In that case, it is the responsibility of the officer to contact the arresting officer, or the attorney's handling the case, or in necessary to testify in court and inform all related parties that it was all a misunderstanding. I can easily see it happening that way.
Once again, regardless of how this happened, by the time this hits the papers you're going to be missing a lot of the facts of the case.
Being a european, it's been very interesting reading your police stories.
Regarding speed checks: here in Sweden if you call the police and ask where they have their radar set up at the moment, they are required by law to tell you. This has evolved into a cellphone service that automatically sends you information of any police radar in the area you are in. (As far as I know, this doesn't apply to any other check-points though)
Regarding speed checks: here in Sweden if you call the police and ask where they have their radar set up at the moment, they are required by law to tell you. This has evolved into a cellphone service that automatically sends you information of any police radar in the area you are in. (As far as I know, this doesn't apply to any other check-points though)
That's very interesting, and I can see the police actually liking the idea.
In the 1970s when CB radios were popular, police at first got angry when someone on a CB radio would announce the location of a radar officer.
Until we realized that when the CB announcement is made, everyone with a CB slows down. Half the cars without a CB radio are smart enough to notice that the cars with radios slowed down and so they slow down as well. We realized that the CB announcement was helping us to slow down speeders, without us every having to lift a finger. Efficiency.
Besides, there is no shortage of wildly stupid people out there who will pass a marked police car while doing 30 MPH over the speed limit, and then say "Gee Officer, I didn't see you." We call it D.W.H.U.A. (Driving With Head Up Ass).
Frankly though, I don't see how anyone can complain about being caught for speeding by a hidden officer (not that it would stop them- some people think that anything which makes it possible for them to get caught is "not fair"). They're traveling on a public roadway, with no expectation of privacy- it's a public place, anyone can see them go by. There is nothing unfair about it- they know the speed limit (it's posted or mandated by law that they are responsible for knowing), if they choose to speed, they take their chances.
In the 1970s when CB radios were popular, police at first got angry when someone on a CB radio would announce the location of a radar officer.
Until we realized that when the CB announcement is made, everyone with a CB slows down. Half the cars without a CB radio are smart enough to notice that the cars with radios slowed down and so they slow down as well. We realized that the CB announcement was helping us to slow down speeders, without us every having to lift a finger. Efficiency.
Besides, there is no shortage of wildly stupid people out there who will pass a marked police car while doing 30 MPH over the speed limit, and then say "Gee Officer, I didn't see you." We call it D.W.H.U.A. (Driving With Head Up Ass).
Frankly though, I don't see how anyone can complain about being caught for speeding by a hidden officer (not that it would stop them- some people think that anything which makes it possible for them to get caught is "not fair"). They're traveling on a public roadway, with no expectation of privacy- it's a public place, anyone can see them go by. There is nothing unfair about it- they know the speed limit (it's posted or mandated by law that they are responsible for knowing), if they choose to speed, they take their chances.
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Frankly though, I don't see how anyone can complain about being caught for speeding by a hidden officer |
Oh my favourites are the ones that bitch and moan about being caught by permanent/stationary speed cameras who they seem to consider it totally unfair. For gods sake people, if you don't break the law and speed limits then you don't get done. Simple as that.
Agree 100% with Squire on RL police practices, although I have a feeling that the SR 2060s has seen Patriot Acts I through XVIII and police can at least get away with, if they aren't directly authorized to, for example, holding anyone in custody indefinitely.
People who megacorps care about (pretty much any corper with a high lifestyle) might be safer from this, but poor people could be put into custody and be everything but tortured to confess, only to be released after a few weeks: "So you didn't commit this crime, but don't think for a second we aren't on to you."
Regarding speeding fines: Beat that. At least those guys don't start whining about the fines, "Waaahhhh, I only get $6,800,000 this year because of the fine *sob sob* Plus $10 million in dividends and stock options worth $5 million". They wouldn't get a lot of empathy.
People who megacorps care about (pretty much any corper with a high lifestyle) might be safer from this, but poor people could be put into custody and be everything but tortured to confess, only to be released after a few weeks: "So you didn't commit this crime, but don't think for a second we aren't on to you."
Regarding speeding fines: Beat that. At least those guys don't start whining about the fines, "Waaahhhh, I only get $6,800,000 this year because of the fine *sob sob* Plus $10 million in dividends and stock options worth $5 million". They wouldn't get a lot of empathy.
I just got my hands on the Lone Star book. Found it at the local Book and Music Exchange. Once it is digested I may have something useful to add.
Nice info on the ticket. I thought paying 101.50 in court costs was a bitch.
Nice info on the ticket. I thought paying 101.50 in court costs was a bitch.
I dunno, it's in corporate interests to look after their employees (to a degree) or more to the point ask (nicely or not) the guys charged with the job, in SR UCAS usually the KE or LS, to do it. So, basically, if you look middle-class, can provide a SIN and aren't caught doing something blatantly illegal you're likely fairly safe from the cops.
Fail to fulfill the two latter conditions, though, and chances are you're in Shit Creek up to your nose.
Kinda like how police states do things, really. Don't buck the system and be nice to the cops and you're fairly safe, do it and the rest of your life is going to be very unpleasant.
Of course, all that only applies in the parts of the city (or whatever) the cops bother to (or dare to) patrol - in the poorer parts you're likely mostly on your own and best off not having anything to do with the random patrol car.
Fail to fulfill the two latter conditions, though, and chances are you're in Shit Creek up to your nose.
Kinda like how police states do things, really. Don't buck the system and be nice to the cops and you're fairly safe, do it and the rest of your life is going to be very unpleasant.
Of course, all that only applies in the parts of the city (or whatever) the cops bother to (or dare to) patrol - in the poorer parts you're likely mostly on your own and best off not having anything to do with the random patrol car.
Watchman is probably right about the 6th world. Different rules there.
If I recall correctly, the SINless have no civil rights in the UCAS. (Sadly, I cannot cite a source, so take that with a grain of salt).
In the RL USA, everyone has civil rights. They could be in the country illegally, and have committed horrible mass murder on national televison, and still will receive the same rights and legal protections as Joe Yuppie from Bethesda.
In the 6th World, with the SINless having no civil rights- well, that means that LS can pretty much do whatever they want to the SINless, as long as they keep a reasonably low profile about it. SINless guy pisses you off- beat him to a pulp and leave him on the side of the road.
Hell, LS can pick up a SINless guy who's causing problems and lock them up without trial. As long as they're reasonably subtle about it, they could probably get a way with it (and assuming they don't let the SINless guy make phone calls or write letters).
LS would still have to be careful of the media- a beating on trid would still be bad for the department, but unless it hits the evening news, no one is going to care except the SINless, and when they complain about it, and no one will really care about their complaints.
If I recall correctly, the SINless have no civil rights in the UCAS. (Sadly, I cannot cite a source, so take that with a grain of salt).
In the RL USA, everyone has civil rights. They could be in the country illegally, and have committed horrible mass murder on national televison, and still will receive the same rights and legal protections as Joe Yuppie from Bethesda.
In the 6th World, with the SINless having no civil rights- well, that means that LS can pretty much do whatever they want to the SINless, as long as they keep a reasonably low profile about it. SINless guy pisses you off- beat him to a pulp and leave him on the side of the road.
Hell, LS can pick up a SINless guy who's causing problems and lock them up without trial. As long as they're reasonably subtle about it, they could probably get a way with it (and assuming they don't let the SINless guy make phone calls or write letters).
LS would still have to be careful of the media- a beating on trid would still be bad for the department, but unless it hits the evening news, no one is going to care except the SINless, and when they complain about it, and no one will really care about their complaints.
| QUOTE (CeaDawg) |
| 2. A Gentleman from Ohio, who owned a small landscaping business, was detained for 6 weeks on the belief that he was a drug dealer. In addition to this the state of Georgia and the DEA confiscated his home, his personal cars, his business and it's vehicles and equipment. They also confiscated the $30,000 in cash that he was carrying. He was "busted" during a layover at the Atlanta airport where he had to change to a local commuter flight to reach his final destination. Which was a town in south GA. where the region's largest landscape floral market is located. The probable cause for his being taken in to custody was that he was a: black, b: had declared he was transporting large amounts of cash at the time he checked in for his flight from Columbus Ohio, c: his deceased brother inlaw had a record as a drug dealer in Illinois. Under the RICO act, all of his assets were charged in drug trafficing. These charges against his assets were not dropped after the investigation into his activities was dropped. Note he was never charged with a crime. He has been all the way to the US Supreme court with this; their final ruling was that his assets were not citizens of the US and therefore could not be afforded rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the US. They additionally ruled that his assets had to provide their own legal representation in court, thus preventing him for retaining an attorney on their behalf to represent them. |
Actually, there is a story very similar to the one you describe but the man was caucasian and only his money was taken (to the tune of 30,000) but the Atlanta PD. The justification sited was that he had a very short turn around time (about 6 hours). This is called civil asset forfeiture. The man tried to get his money back but never made it out of local courts. The supreme court ruled (Bennis vs. Michigan) that you can be deprived of property if it is used in a crime without your consent or knowledge. They also ruled that if you are charged with a civil offense (no possible jail time) that you have no presumption of innocence. no right to an attorney and double jeopardy does not attach. If you are never charged you have precisely zero rights. You must prove that you earned every penny of money seized and that no crime has EVER been committed with the seized property and you have to do it all on your own dime. There are thousands of such incidents on file. Why are the police/prosecutors taking your stuff and never charging you? Why will no judge rule for you? Wait for it...............they get a cut. I'm not kidding. Look it up. In some jurisdictions the officers who seized the property get up to 25% of the value while prosecutors get a smaller share (10%). This has been upheld at the federal and state supreme court levels.
Fun huh?
| QUOTE |
| In the RL USA, everyone has civil rights. They could be in the country illegally, and have committed horrible mass murder on national televison, and still will receive the same rights and legal protections as Joe Yuppie from Bethesda. |
somebody should probably tell the people on extended free vacation in cuba curtesy of the american Government that they actualy DO have civil rights...
| QUOTE |
| xizor wrote: somebody should probably tell the people on extended free vacation in cuba curtesy of the american Government that they actualy DO have civil rights |
Not really. They're not Americans, they weren't taken into custody in the US, and they're not being held in the US- so US civil rights do not apply.
Now whether or not international law, treaties and the Genevia Conventions apply is a matter that can be debated. But US civil rights simply do not apply outside of the US.
| QUOTE |
| Necro Tech wrote: Why are the police/prosecutors taking your stuff and never charging you? Why will no judge rule for you? Wait for it...............they get a cut. I'm not kidding. Look it up. In some jurisdictions the officers who seized the property get up to 25% of the value while prosecutors get a smaller share (10%). This has been upheld at the federal and state supreme court levels. |
Um, sorry but no.
That is absolutely untrue for the US (other nations might be different).
Seized money or property must be held in evidence until the trial(s) are completed. Then is can be distributed to the accounts that receive seized money.
Seized money cannot be given to individuals (especially those that participated in any way in the seizure), the money can't even go into the police department or court's accounts. It either goes into special accounts that are very limited in how they can be used (such as only for anti-drug education) or it goes into the local, state or federal government's general fund (which means it never goes to the police department or courts, let alone any individuals instead it goes toward things like street repairs, art, and paying the power bill for all those street lights the government so nicely provides).
Seized property is generally auctioned off (at rediculously low prices) with the proceeds distributed in the same way as seized money.
Many places have very strict rules that prevent police officers from purchasing seized property (even if said property was seized in another state). So, for example, officers would not be able to seize a vehicle, then wait for it to come up for auction and buy it.
Such limitations often extend not only to the officer, but also to his/her entire family.
Here in Denver, the PD has a policy forbidding officers from purchasing items seized, repossessed or forfeit in any way (yes that means that Denver Police officers are forbidden to even buy things at a pawn shop).
| QUOTE |
| The supreme court ruled (Bennis vs. Michigan) that you can be deprived of property if it is used in a crime without your consent or knowledge |
That is true, but the government agency that seized the property must show in court that said property was used in a crime. If the seizing agency is unable to do that, the property must be returned.
Being found not guilty in court does not negate the property seizure. Not being charged does not negate the property seizure. But the seizing agency still must show in a court hearing that the property was used (or intended to be used) in the commission of a crime. If the seizing agency is unable to do so, the property must be returned.
| QUOTE |
| You must prove that you earned every penny of money seized and that no crime has EVER been committed with the seized property and you have to do it all on your own dime. |
Not entirely true.
The burden of proof in those hearings is on the seizing agency. They have to prove that is was used in criminal activity. All you have to do is keep them from proving it was used in criminal activity. If they fail to prove it was used in criminal activity, they must return the property.
Now there may be issues with proving that the property is yours. They can't return it to you until there is some degree of confidence that they are returing property to the rightful owner (you can see all the ways that could be a problem).
I'll give you an example scenario:
Bob purchases a car from Fred. Bob does not bother to ensure that Fred signed the title over to him and in fact, Fred never did sign the title over to Bob. Bob also does not get plates for the car, but rather drives the car using the plates Fred had. One day Bob gets pulled over because he's driving a little too fast. The officer notices a mirror, razor blade and straw on the dash board, all of which have white powdery resedue on them. The officer then searches Bob's car and finds several large bags of white powerder in the car which he reasonably believes is cocaine.
The officer arrests Bob and impounds Bob's car.
Later the white powder is tested and determined to be baking powder, not cocain.
Bob is released from custody with no charges filed. The car was not used in comission of a crime, so it is also set to be released.
So Bob shows up at the impound lot to pick up his car. But the impound lot won't give Bob his car because the Department of Motor Vehicle files show that the car belongs to Fred. Bob pulls out the title and says "See, it is my car, I have the title" and the impound lot attendant looks at the title and says "No, this shows that Fred owns the car."
The impound lot is required to hold the car until the owner picks it up and all legal documentation shows that Fred is the legal owner.
Sucks to be Bob, he should have made sure the title was filled out and that the car was registered in his own name.
The impound lot will make reasonable attempts to contact Fred and let him know his car is waiting to be picked up at the pound. Without Fred proving his identity, then letting them know that he sold the car to Bob, the impound lot is legally required to hold the car until Fred comes to get it.
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| That is absolutely untrue for the US (other nations might be different). Seized money or property must be held in evidence until the trial(s) are completed. Then is can be distributed to the accounts that receive seized money. |
Actually this is untrue. That is what the reform act was about in 2000. The house passed a resolution that would change the burden of proof to the agency as well as removing the 10% bond the owner had to pay to contest the seizure. Civil asset forfeiture (Not criminal) means the property is guilty, not the person. There is no hearing unless the owner pays the 10% of the value of the property. They take your 300,000$ house and its costs 30,000$ for the hearing. As with most things, this varies from state to state. I'm glad to see that Colorado is a lot more forward thinking. In New York and California this is not the case. I didn't mean to imply that the officers got a check from seized money or that they could take property for free but the money can be used to pay their expenses, outfit the stations, increase their fleet of vehicles, pay their overtime, outfit their labs and generally supplement their budget buy buying equipment for themselves. A prosecutor in New York is actually driving a seized car as his city car. Cheap way to drive a Porche I guess.
Can I get a link to that, this reform act? I'd like to read it. I know there is nothing similar to that here in Michigan, or else some poeple I know would be really happy.
here is a comprehensive website that addresses everything on the topic and included links to Federal websites details the actual statuettes I have been discussing plus the reform act, letters, testimonials etc. This should cover all your questions about state and federal laws and decisions on the subject.
I browsed breifly that site. I did find links to the laws for several states, but they were hosted by the site. Perhaps there are more and I missed them, perhaps not.
The site is clearly an anti-forfeiture site, and not an official source of information. The site's operators are probably well-meaning people, but what they have produced is clearly propagnada.
It being propaganda does not necessarily make it inaccurate. But they are trying to convince readers to agree with their views relating to forfeiture. Naturally facts which do not support their views will be omitted (particularly in regards to the horror stories) and facts which do support their views may be given a greater importance than they really have. All propaganda is like that, it's the nature of propaganda.
Laws from most states are available on-line and also at public libraries in that state. Additionally information can be gained from law-libraries which are in most courthouses and are open to the public (at least during certain times- and a fee may be required).
A wise person will seek confirmation from official sources (or at least additional sources) as to what the laws say and how they are applied before getting too excited about a propagnadist interpertation of events.
The site is clearly an anti-forfeiture site, and not an official source of information. The site's operators are probably well-meaning people, but what they have produced is clearly propagnada.
It being propaganda does not necessarily make it inaccurate. But they are trying to convince readers to agree with their views relating to forfeiture. Naturally facts which do not support their views will be omitted (particularly in regards to the horror stories) and facts which do support their views may be given a greater importance than they really have. All propaganda is like that, it's the nature of propaganda.
Laws from most states are available on-line and also at public libraries in that state. Additionally information can be gained from law-libraries which are in most courthouses and are open to the public (at least during certain times- and a fee may be required).
A wise person will seek confirmation from official sources (or at least additional sources) as to what the laws say and how they are applied before getting too excited about a propagnadist interpertation of events.
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| Being a european, it's been very interesting reading your police stories. Regarding speed checks: here in Sweden if you call the police and ask where they have their radar set up at the moment, they are required by law to tell you. This has evolved into a cellphone service that automatically sends you information of any police radar in the area you are in. (As far as I know, this doesn't apply to any other check-points though) |
In delaware they post all the upcoming checkpoint in the paper and on the net... You just have to pay attention, alot of bartenders print them out and take it in to give warning. Lets be trueful, in the US most of these stops are about drug interdiction. Just like teh seatbelt law...do you really think they care if you wear your belt???NO!!! BUT, if you dont we can pull you over, and with care with AUTOMATIC seatbelts they can stop you to see if you have you lapbelt. So basicly if your some long haired Hippy or black or some other "suspicious" type they dont really need a reason...
Here in Canada (well, Quebec at least), it is illegal to say where police radars are set. Although, often in the traffic news, they'll say "careful, there is a hair dryer at so and so", everyone knowing that the hair dryer is a police radar.
We have that in Sydney,
One particular radio station, during peak hour, (7am-9am, 3pm-7pm) will post the location of every speed camera wielding cop that the listeners care to ring in with.
It was taken to court and the Radio station argued that because the police were sitting in public owned assets, on public property, then the Public were allowed to find out. (or something like that, i cant remember the details
It won or at the very least, wasdropped by the police when they realised that their revenue hadnt really changed. Cause thats what alot of speed cops in Sydney are, revenue raising.
The City of Sydney parking inspectors went on strike because the council was enforcing (by firing, putting on probation), inspectors who werent writing out at least 20 tickets a day. It wasnt official policy, was never written down but was enforced, if i remember what I heard from one of them, as dereliction on the job, or improper workplace attitude
One particular radio station, during peak hour, (7am-9am, 3pm-7pm) will post the location of every speed camera wielding cop that the listeners care to ring in with.
It was taken to court and the Radio station argued that because the police were sitting in public owned assets, on public property, then the Public were allowed to find out. (or something like that, i cant remember the details
It won or at the very least, wasdropped by the police when they realised that their revenue hadnt really changed. Cause thats what alot of speed cops in Sydney are, revenue raising.
The City of Sydney parking inspectors went on strike because the council was enforcing (by firing, putting on probation), inspectors who werent writing out at least 20 tickets a day. It wasnt official policy, was never written down but was enforced, if i remember what I heard from one of them, as dereliction on the job, or improper workplace attitude
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.