What are you guys opinions on the latest Supreme Court ruling where they voted to uphold Texas legislatures imposition of law that allows citizens to be detained and taken to jail for mere infractions (not misdameaners)?

I am personally outraged. I can only foresee the Racial/ infringement of rights violations that are going to be in the courts. HEre we go. Guess we do have a need for all the lawers.

I am so angered that one ruling can grant the police force such authority over the population that supports it. Our Forefathers had great ideals and execution, but near the turn of the century so much of their doing had begun to be undone....I am sure they would be dissapointed. Laws can take the form of a despot such as in cases like this...

 

Not sure about other states, but Ohio has a law against it. I was reading the Cincy Enquirer today and there is a state law that forbids the police from arresting people for minor traffic infractions unless there are a few other factors that have to be met (I can't remember exactly what they are), so it would make it really hard to get arrested for a traffic infraction in Ohio.

Later,
Roger

------------------
The early bird gets the worm, but the 2nd mouse gets the cheese.

2001 Black Lightning
Stock, but not for long...

1996 White Mustang Cobra
Offroad H-Pipe, MAC Mufflers, and a K&N

,
This PIC provided so that Chevy
and Dodge owners can see what
the front of a Lightning looks like.

My First Attempt At A Web Page
Roger's Lightning Page

 

hey, i'm a scofflaw when driving somwtimes too, but according to a report i heard yesterday, this woman/mother had been stopped three times before for this same offence--2 or 3 kids in the back of her minivan(?)--and she told the cop "no, i'm not going to put on their or my seatbelts". she ranted somemore and the cop felt justified in his actions. do you tell the cop you are going to keep on speeding when he stops you? people/kids die when not belted in and are thrown from cars.

 

LIGHTNINROD's comment is correct. In the state of Texas as well as some other states seatbelts are required. As usual the news media does not tell the whole story. She was a complete jerk about the whole thing, but then again if she ran into "you" and ejected one or all her children through the windshield cause they were not wearing seatbelts and died. Who would be at fault?

Moms like this don't need kids.



------------------
John Armstrong
2000 Red Lightning
#444 of 4966
Born 2/22/2000
Went home 3/6/2000

 

It's hard to let them hang out the windows with those damn seatbelts on...

 

The thing is, I bet 99% of us on this board who get pulled over were speeding. Even in TX, they _cannot_ arrest you for speeding. Now if you are doing 150 or so, they can say its reckless endangerment, racing, etc, and they can arrest you and impound your vehicle.

But on a speeding violation you cannot be arrested according to the law.

------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)--597rwhp/590rwtq
98 Saleen S351 #15--443rwhp/452rwtq
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.8)--364rwhp/447rwtq
00 Expedition XLT 5.4
http://hometown.aol.com/wa2fst/home.htm

 

TampaSVT,
You need to extend those seatbelts with ropes!

 

Despite her ignorance and blatent disregard for safety, I would hazard to guess this knee-jerk, pro-time out, soccer "mom" would sue said minivan manufacturer if and when one of her young'uns were catapulted through the windshield.

Darwinism

 

Holeshot,
Your just a tad misinformed. The ruling does not change anything in Tx. It simply upholds the law as it's been for decades. If it eases your mind any, most law enforcement agencies in Tx have policies outlining when their personnel can make an arrest for a traffic offense. Those policies are almost always more restrictive than the state law.

Out of curiosity, what action would you want the police to take when they stop the same driver on multiple occasions for the same offenses, such as not having a license or insurance?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/04/24/sc....03/index.html


"The 4th calls for a judgement call regarding what is unreasonable. If the search and seizure is unreasonable, then it violates the constitution.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. It is not a question of the validity of the Texas law, it is a question of what is a reasonable way to enforce the law.

Only if you think that a:

Handcuffing and and jailing is reasonable for the crime of not wearing a seatbelt

and b:

that if folks were not handcuffed and jailed for the crime, it would not be enforceable.

For instance, it would be difficult to enforce a law against murder if people were not arrested when caught.

So if and only if you agree that the framers would consider shackeling and jailing "reasonable" for minor, victimless crimes, then you would agree that the justices upheld the constitution.

Again, the question is not the vaidity of the law, but the constitutionality of an officer applying non-standard means of enforcing that law."

The law only clarifies the law in Texas. But I had no idea Texas had laws such as this. A law that allows arrest for any infraction is unreasonable seisure. Jefferson and Maddison are rolling in their graves. This has little to do with the actual case of what she was doing when, but more to do with the clarification that police forces have been give.

Call the NAACP. this one's gonna get real ugly now. Our current police force does NOT make me feel secure. Even though laws such as this differ from state to state, they must all follow the guidlines set by the founders. I fear a ruling such as this will only seek to precipitate lawmakers all over to further constrain our society for this elusive "common good"

booo hooooo

 

Dammit,
never been arrested, but the only laws I ever break are for speeding. looks like thats about to change real soon. HELP BAIL!

------------------

 

Hey Holeshot, you write: What part of her crime was victimless? The mother repeatedly ignored her responsibility to secure her children. You card carrying NAACP bleeding hearts from California always amaze me. You probably also believe we don’t have a right to bear arms at the same time you don’t want to be locked up for felony speeding (which of course are both victimless until there is one). Is there a victim when it is ATTEMPED murder? Help me understand.

 

we have to have laws. but we don't have to have too many, or everything will have a law attached to it. we need to get together and pick a number, like a thousand, and stick to it. then, if they want to make a new law, thats fine, just get rid of an old one. we have laws in Louisiana that date to 1699, and most are not inforced, unless they can prove you to be a voodoo witch, or something

 

disclaimer: yes, i am biased.

not sure about other states, but in UT an infraction is not a crime, but misdemeanors and felonies are. an individual may not be arrested for infractions, but only for misdemeanors and felonies. that said, traffic offenses in UT are still misdemeanors (there are a few exceptions that are infractions or felonies), meaning that they are arrestable offenses.

UT law also provides the option that an officer MAY issue a citation in lieu of an arrest (for misdemeanors only, no felonies), but it is up to the officer. the citation is virtually the same as being arrested but it allows the person the CONVENIENCE of not having to go to jail and post bail; instead the person simply has to promise to appear in court to resolve the problem. notice that it is a convenience measure (for both the suspect and the officer).

my first boss made this point when he pulled someone over for speeding (85+ in a 55--not a horribly egregious offense). the person speeding told my boss that since they were from out of the country they would refuse to pay the ticket and what could my boss do about it? he'd be long gone out of the country. my boss got a little annoyed at his condescending attitude an arrested the guy simply to require him to post bail. by posting the bail, that meant that if the guy didn't want to come to court to fight the ticket and just wanted to scoff at the law, then he would at least forfeit his bail money.

that said, i agree with a lot of folks who say that cops have ego trips and power/authority complexes. i see all the time. and the funny thing is when joe citizen wants me to do something i don't have the power to do and then complains that i won't help him. my response is usually to remind him that if i did what he was suggesting i would then be doing what everyone accuses government of doing: overstepping their authority, bullying, playing big brother, etc. it's funny that some bad apples ruin the barrel, but i agree that changes are necessary. unfortunately i'm not sure what those changes are (or i would suggest them).

holeshot--

please don't take this as a flame: is an arrest unreasonable? i like your comments about what is considered reasonable and what is not and i think you have pinpointed the issue for some people when you say "A law that allows arrest for any infraction is unreasonable seisure." however, i would disagree with the comment that there is confusion regarding what is considered an infraction versus a misdemeanor vs a felony. this is a local issue. for EXAMPLE: in MOST states traffic offenses (other than reckless driving, DUI, etc.) are infractions. however, in UT they are not; motor vehicle offenses are mostly misdemeanors. (i know, we are WAY behind on this issue, but no one can convince the state legislature to change the vehicle code to specify infraction instead of misdemeanor.) the big picture on this is that conduct that would be an infraction in one state may be a misdemeanor in another state--remember we're discussing all infractions, not just motor vehicle related ones. (this same principle of confusion also applies to the name of the offenses as well. in UT, for example, "criminal mischief" includes cutting the brake cables on someone's car so they can't stop; in another state "criminal mischief" may only mean graffiti or some much less grevious crime.)

the point? a blanket statement that "A law that allows arrest for any infraction is unreasonable seisure" must be made in context. if reckless driving or assualt were an infraction, would that statement still have the same merits? IF you make that statement only about TX law, then that may be a valid statement, but i would need to be certain that there are absolutely NO infractions that are related to emminent danger to persons or other safety related offenses (whether seatbelt use qualifies as such is a personal opinion, of course) before i would agree with your statement. i simply do not know what offenses are considered infractions under TX law. (but i know enough NOT to think that what is an infraction in UT is also an infraction in TX.) however, if such offenses were indeed infractions, and not misdemeanors, i would be in favor of a law allowing arrests for infractions. i don't care if you call it an infraction or a misdemeanor or a felony, i have no problem arresting someone for a safety related offense (e.g. reckless driving, DUI).

way too long. sorry.

------------------
"flexible hips mean higher steps"

2001 F-150 Supercab XLT 4x4 5.4L Auto
optional equipment: carpet delete, tow package, power adjustable pedals, "man"ual 4wd shift lever, law enforcement scanner, CB w/PA, spray-in Speedliner, Streamlight Stinger, Graco infant car seat
quickdraw.f150online.net
quickdrawf150@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by quickdraw (edited 04-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by quickdraw (edited 04-26-2001).]

 

RIGHT ON hurricane larry!