The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Texas Court decision and engaged in some ridicule of the court while they were at it. Yes, the very same Supreme Court you know and love. So how bad was the case you ask?
Nathan Newman tells us about the it.
". . . a teenager was suspected in a murder but the police had no evidence to get an arrest warrant. Despite this, they pulled the teenage out of his home, handcuffed him in his underwear, and marched him half-naked and barefoot to the police station. This illegal arrest was justified by the police by the fact that when the teen was told to come along, he said "O.K."
The top Texas Court endorsed this theory on the idea that the teenager should have realized he was free to go at any time, because "a reasonable person" in his position "would not believe that being put in handcuffs was a significant restriction on his freedom of movement" and since the teen did not struggle with the police, he obviously thought being in jail was fine with him."
Right. And pigs fly.
The court said
Contrary to the the state court's view, the opinion said, "a group of police officers rousing an adolescent out of bed in the middle of the night with the words `we need to go and talk' presents no option but `to go.' "
"As for the lack of resistance," the court added, "failure to struggle with a cohort of deputy sheriffs is not a waiver of Fourth Amendment protection, which does not require the perversity of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer."
They're different in Texas.
No comments:
Post a Comment