Court OKs Arrest on 'Reasonable' Grounds

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police have authority to arrest suspects on charges that later fall apart, so long as officers had a second, valid reason for the detention.

The 8-0 ruling sets aside a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Jerome Alford. Two Washington State Patrol officers had arrested him for tape recording their conversation during a traffic stop in November 1997.

During the traffic stop, Alford told the officers he had case law showing the taping was legal, but police arrested him anyway partly for separate reasons, which they did not tell him, that he appeared to be impersonating a police officer.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the arrest was improper, ruling that the separate charges were not sufficiently "closely related" to the initial offense for which he was arrested. But in an opinion Monday by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court disagreed.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-bad-arrests,0,6114863.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Khephra]

1. kick

[Khephra]

2. Last kick

Dunno why no one is biting on this one.

:shrug:

[ahimsa]

7. Maybe because of the details..

..in the story. It seems the guy was driving around with flashing lights on his car and police scanners inside, pulling over to "assist" people in disabled vehicles. It's headed back to the 9th to make sense of that and it may end up in Scalia's inbox yet again. I don't think we can conclude anything draconically new about the SCOTUS at this point with this case.

[displacedtexan]

3. Ah, the Supreme W. Court strikes again!

And look at the numbers!

8-0?

The argumentation must have been much stronger on the "secret secondary arrest evidence" side.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Court needs to be purged (forced out or whatever)

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

5. So...

... if the cops don't like your response to them, they can arrest you and not tell you why? Not have a strong case against you but arrest you anyway? Where is the threshold on this?

[bemildred]

6. Leona Helmsley has taken over the legal system.

Laws are for the "little people". Cops and the rich an powerful
can do what they like.

[Ready2Snap]

8. Reasonable Grounds ?

What are they talking about- reasonable grounds?
The AP article states: Under Washington state law, officers are not required to state the reasons for an arrest.
They don't have to give any reason! And I thought Texas was scary!
Even scarier was Scalia's statement:
"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.
"...but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest."!!! The mind boggles.

Is this the beginning of the United Fascist States of America?
God help us if Bush gets this guy elevated to Chief Justice.

[brentspeak]

10. If Stevens, Breyer, and Suter voted for it

you've got to believe that there was some merit to the decision. They are not "fascist" justices.

[Lizzie Borden]

9. KICK!!!

:scared: :kick: :scared: :kick: :scared: