Tuesday, August 21, 2007

ACLU No Longer Interested

***UPDATE***

The ACLU believes that, in light of the Asheville Police Department's Press Release, it is no longer a Constitutional issue and they cannot help us.

3 comments:

Susan said...

Hi guys. Still rooting for you both. I've been following your freeway blogging extravaganza and am trying to help get the word out so you can get some kind of resolution. Do you have an email address you'd like to post on here?

I was going to send an email to a couple of lawyers to see if they could recommend someone locally for you but I don't know how they can contact you should they be able to help.

Susan
susan@easybakecoven.net

Anonymous said...

Bullshit. ACLU is so full of crap. At what point do we have people who represent the people of this country, not for profit but for seeking truth. GOD I AM SO SICK OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND THE JERKS WHO WORK THERE SAYING THEY ARE *FOR* US BUT DO MORE HARM *TO* US.
I hope you find someone who is worthy of taking this case.
Yvette Coil
coilptsd@gmail.com
(Husband, disabled war veteran/war resister, arrested in public library for counter recruiting - banned from library for 2 years, fined and told to pay court costs)

sam said...

I am not a lawyer, but they ARRESTED Mr. Phillips for an INFRACTION!! This is a violation of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable seizure)! This is ABSOLUTELY a constitutional case!!!

If an officer can identify and cite for an infraction, he or she is not allowed to do anything else, particularly not arrest.

----------
(This is case law from Oregon)
from:http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Oyqm-3H4cMYJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3D9th%26navby%3Dcase%26no%3D9335405+arrestable+offense+fare&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The length and scope of detention must be justified by the circumstances authorizing its initiation. See Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 16, 19 (1968). Thus, when an officer has obtained sufficient information to issue a citation, a continued detention without probable cause to arrest for a crime is unreasonable. United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90-91 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (finding that an individual stopped for jaywalking may be detained "only the time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic citation"); see also McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that aarrest requires "objective evidence which would allow a reasonable officer to deduce that a particular individual has committed or is in the process of committing a criminal offense");
United States v. Jennings, 468 F.2d 111, 115 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that, after an initial investigative inquiry on the street is completed, continued detention of an individual for fingerprinting and photographing is constitutionally invalid without probable cause to arrest).
---------
To repeat, "Thus, when an officer has obtained sufficient information to issue a citation, a continued detention without probable cause to arrest for a crime is unreasonable."

Am I missing something? Possibly. Could ask the ACLU about this please?

-Sam Robertson
(samgeribo@yahoo.com)