Supreme court says cops don't have to tell you why they are arresting you.
 

http://courttv.com/news/2004/1213/arrests_ap.html

"A predictable consequence ... is not ... that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest," Scalia wrote.

1984 will soon be classed as a non-fiction book

like next year ...

no, no, and no.


Next....

It is a State law and the State law was upheld...and FYI many states have the same/similar law...and have had for many years.

A person that has been arrested does not have a need to know...from the arresting officer...what he/she is being arrested for. When you are booked you will receive a copy of the booking...and/or your bonds person will... and/or you will at arraignment. Basically...it is a non issue.

UH its a good thing you somehow magically know the details of the case and what the booking documentation was.

and it was such a "non-issue" the supreme court heard arguments and ruled on it.

:1orglaugh

Thats very fucked up

And if you buy the bullshit scalia is selling in that article I have some swamp land you may be interested in.

Such as this...

"Scalia also noted that a ruling to the contrary would deter officers from providing reasons for their arrest, as they did in Alford's case,"


Wich is complete and utter bullshit.

A ruling to the contrary would have detered them from filing charges that will eventually fall though so they can detain you long enough to set up new charges.

You're a joke :1orglaugh

Re-read my post. It is basically a non-issue if the arresting officer informs you of what he/she is arresting you for...as you will learn what you are being arrested for...as I explained...and is SOP for officers in many states.

I don't have to reread it. I already read it once and rebuted it then had a good laugh at you.

It would not necessarily have deterred the arrest...as they could have just as easily arrested him for "impersonating an officer" (this was there secondary reason for the arrest) and under State Law the arresting officers are not required to tell him what he is being arrested for.

You did not rebut anything in my post...zero...nada.

Its not about HIS case, its about the fact that a federal court made a ruling that can be pointed at in all other courts....

If you cant see how this can be abused your pretty slow in the head.

Yea I did.... the smiley was all that was needed to rebut that bullshit for anyone with a half a brain and some knowledge of how supreme court rulings are used and abused.

I will repeat...many states and maybe even most states...arresting officers are not required to inform you of the reason that you are being arrested. Even if an arresting officer provides you with reason A...when they book you they can add reasons B-C-D etc. In addition it is really immaterial what reason an arresting officer provides you...if they choose to provide you with a reason...as it is not they that charge you...it is the DA's office that levies charges and the DA may add to or subtract from whatever the arresting officers arrested you for.

Keyword being states.


God your thick.

yaaay another pissing contest on gfy.

I assume that you are aware that this was a State Case that was challenged in the Federal Courts...so yes the keyword is "states".

Invoking your father ??? :winkwink:

Give up. TheKing is always right... :1orglaugh

Post from TheKing:

" I repeat" , "re-read my post" , " as I previously stated ", and so on .... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Must be wonderfull to live in a fantasy world where the supreme courts ruling on a state case only effects that state.

You are all dismissed!!!! :moon

this is insane:feels-hot :feels-hot i hate what america is coming to

LOL !!!!

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/mcking.gif

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/king.gif

What fucking difference does it make what states it affects. The fact is...it is a non-issue...if an arresting officer provides you with a reason for the arrest...or doesn't provide you with a reason for the arrest.

This ruling does not affect what America is coming to...as this has been SOP for the police for many, many years.

The being told is a non-issue.

THE RULING IS AN ISSUE....

Notice the thread is "Supreme court says..." not "State laws say..."

This is not the same thing as Upholding a state law.

(This is like talking to a wall. Except less fun.)

KISS...and explain to me why you place importance upon an arresting officer...providing a reason for the arrest.

For many years arresting officers have not provided a reason to the arrestee for an arrest (unless they chose to) and this ruling just affirms that they do not have to.

You don't understand the court system. Please go read about it becasue you're really getting on my nerves. This thread was never ment to be about cops not telling you shit. Its about the SUPREME COURT ruling on that issue.

Theres a big difference between a state law and a supreme court ruling on a state law. You don't seem to grasp that concept and keep trying to keep the argument on what cops do in specific states.


It affirms somthing lots of poeple DON'T agree with.
Thats the fucking point. Not weather or not cops were already doing it.

You are trying to argue a point IM NOT ARGUING ABOUT and I guess you keep doing it to save face or somthing... but I'm done responding to it.

We are fucked :BangBang:

Hmm...to remind you what the topic title is "Supreme court says cops don't have to tell you why they are arresting you."

It appears that I have been on point in all of my posts. Now...KISS...and exlain why you have a concern about an arresting officer not providing an arresttee with a reason for the arrest.

First it was the id marks a printer made when it was used, now this...

What exactly are you folks doing when not posting on GFY that this kind of stuff is a threat to you or your way of life?

Bad people need to be put away and if living in a free society means a few inconveinences for good people along the way - that's really not that high of a price to pay.

I agree as long as it's only a few inconveniences, but what if it gets worse?

I know this and have for a loooooooong time, and see you do also..... but you have a few on this board believe what they want 2 believe, or interpret things in such way 2 fit there agenda

They are slowly taking aquaring more power, the problem is some of the cops will abuse it.

yep , thats about what George W wants you to think .
Im glad Im in canada ;)

It does not matter what the Supreme court or constitution says. The local Judges will do the fuck what ever they want and you just have to spend the big bucks to stop them..

:glugglug

Hmm, im moving somewhere sunny!

Really tho, I never ever considered leaving the country, but lately, i have been thinking about it. Things like this just keep piling up. Before you know it we will have random home searches without warrants. I see it comming in the next 10 years.