I feel you're putting the wrong interpretation on this ruling. The ruling
is one of constitutional law, it says that the 4th amendment (protection
against unreasonable search and seizure) does not prevent the police from
arresting someone using handcuffs, even if the offense was minor. They
still must have reasonable cause, etc.
I see this as part of the "State's rights" movement, which I'm heartily in
favor of.
In other words, the state and local governments should be tasked with
regulating the police, _not_ the federal government !
If the thought of being arrested for not wearing your seat belt upsets you,
get ahold of your state legislator and get them to either repeal the seat
belt law, or specify the maximum penalty. BTW, regulating the LAPD has been
a major issue in the last several LA mayor elections ...
Randall
erl@unix.mail.virginia.edu wrote :
>
> This ruling by the Supreme Court smacks of all repressive police states,
> from the former Soviet Union to many South American nations. I am utterly
> stunned that they upheld the rights of the police to conduct such
> unsupported search-and-siezure behaviour.
///
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
///
|