On 10/16/05, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah..., but, Frank, "The guy had a camera, and was clearly taking > pictures", so we had probable cause. With probable cause we do not need > no stinking warrant, and your protestations are just a bunch of crap.
sorry, tom, but probable cause does not give rise to a right of search and seizure. it gives rise to the right to arrest - indeed, for a peace officer, it's a duty to arrest. only after the arrest do the cops have the right to search and confiscate property ~unless the person agreed to allow the police to search them~. in terms of "the guy had a camera and was clearly taking pictures", that is reasonable cause for nothing. they must be for of a sexual nature intended for the gratification of others. if they can't make out both elements of the offense, no rpg, no arrest, no seizure. unless one agrees to voluntarily hand over the goods. > Without probable cause, you just say "I want to talk to my attorney > before I allow that." And stick to it. Anything they do after that > without your attorney present is not admissionable in court. again, tom, i'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. you can say "i want my lawyer present before i talk or co-operate", but after saying that you can change your mind, waive your right to counsel, and spill the beans. you don't have to explicitely waive that right; the implicit waiver of opening your mouth and yapping will suffice. all that is important is that once arrested (or in some cases, once you become a prime suspect), you're given your "right to counsel" (in the US, called the miranda warning). > That does > not stop them from screwing with you but it keeps them from getting an > unwarranted (pun intended) conviction. (US law, may not work elsewhere) correct > The thing missed by many is that cops can do about anything they want > to. If you fight back you are resisting arrest which gives them > permission to get really shitty. absolutely right. they can also lie on the stand about what they said to you, and what you said to them. who's the judge going to believe? > All you can do is quietly play by the > rules, then when it gets to the referee (judge) he calls a foul and lets > you go. good luck with that. > The cops then complain that the courts will not let them do > their job. > > The one thing that I have found never to work is telling a cop he is > wrong. Then it becomes a game of "Power, Power, who has the Power". > Guess who that is. > > And just to say something positive about this whole issue. Sometimes > when the cops disagree with a new law they become overly zealous in > enforcing it in the hopes that will get it repealed. There is a slight > possibility that is what we are seeing down in Texas. > i suspect that the intent of this law is to stop people with cell phone cameras from surrepticiously taking suggestive photos in public places and posting them on the web. a good intent, i suppose, but yet another example of politicians giving in to a few shrill voices with a poorly thought out law that is so wide in scope that police and other authorities see it as a way to increase their already awesome powers at the expense of the freedoms of the general public. it happens all the time... -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
