:: Netmarcos' Notes ::
Musings and rambling commentary on current events, politics, music, and other cultural issues mixed with a few personal references.
| [:: (re)search ::] | |
|---|---|
| :: google :: | |
| :: Dog Pile:: | |
| :: Charters of Freedom :: | |
| :: ThomasPaine.org :: | |
| [:: news and opinion ::] | |
| :: Opinion Journal :: | |
| :: National Review Online :: | |
| :: FOX :: | |
| :: MSNBC :: | |
| :: World Net Daily :: | |
| :: The Drudge Report:: | |
| :: InstaPundit :: | |
| [:: blogosphere ::] | |
| :: Day by Day Cartoon :: | |
| :: James Lileks :: | |
| :: ScrappleFace :: | |
| :: Moxie :: | |
| :: The Dissident Frogman:: | |
| :: Insignificant Thoughts:: | |
| :: Dave Barry :: | |
| [:: España ::] | |
| :: Atlas of Spain :: | |
| :: EL MUNDO :: | |
| :: DIALNET::Búsqueda de articulos científicos en español | |
| :: Prestige: exigimos responsabilidades | |
| [:: archive ::] | |
:: Monday, March 22, 2004 ::
Keep your eye on the Supreme Court today. If police ask who you are, do you have to say?Under Nevada law, a citizen must reveal his or her name to a police officer who has reasonable suspicion that the person might be involved in a crime. Even if the suspect is innocent, the mere act of refusing to identify oneself is - itself - a crime.
Analysts say the law creates a legal irony. If the police officer possessed enough evidence to place the suspect under arrest, the suspect would be given a Miranda warning that he or she had the right to remain silent. But if the police officer possessed only reasonable suspicion - not the higher standard of probable cause needed to justify an arrest - a suspect could be arrested and convicted merely for refusing to identify himself.
"Why should a criminal have more rights than an innocent person?" asks Harriet Cummings, a Nevada public defender who is part of the team challenging the law.
:: Mark 10:50 AM [+] ::
...
Comments:
Post a Comment
