Originally Posted By SuperDry "California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest." <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/warrantless-phone-searches/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/threatlev...earches/</a> The decision is disappointing. I could end up agreeing to disagree with Brown if he simply had a different opinion than mine, but his statements regarding the veto are total BS: "He also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not ... saying only that the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about." It's not as if someone asked him to write the law himself. What reached his desk was the result of a collaborative effort of both houses of the state legislature, presumably with testimony in committee, debate on the floor, and so on, with all points of view considered before the final bill was passed and forwarded to him. I highly suspect that there are a great many bills that are far more complex than this one that get his signature. "“The courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizure protections,” the governor wrote." He seems to have the whole process mixed up. Sure, the state Supreme Court is the final arbitrator that interprets the meaning of the constitution, statutes, and regulations passed. But what happens if the people decide they don't like the interpretation, or that their intent was indeed mis-interpreted by the court? Well, they amend or clarify the law so that the intent on the matter at hand is not open to interpretation, then that's that (assuming a statute or regulation doesn't conflict with the constitution). In this case, the people through the legislature attempted to do just that, but Gov. Brown says it's "too complicated" to be resolved through the legislative process.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< good Ol Moonbeam- never know what to expect >>> He's certainly had quite a career for a politician. He was Governor when I was in elementary school, and like the proverbial phoenix out of the ashes, is so once again.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Then what's your point? It certainly sounds like you're making a comment on the subject of this thread, as opposed to some random observation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Also, you actually should care if people other than yourself are subject to mistreatment and/or questionably constitutional practices.
Originally Posted By Labuda "I said I don't plan on ever getting arrested." I'm fairly certain that no one ever does. And mistaken identity can be an issue. Or false accusations.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Since I don't plan on getting arrested, whatevs.>> I'm confident that these individuals didn't plan on it, either: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...754.html</a> <> A former New York City narcotics detective testified in court that planting drugs on innocent people was common practice, a quick and easy way to boost arrest numbers. According to the New York Daily News, the practice is known among NYPD officers as “flaking,” and officers in Brooklyn and Queens narcotics squads were doing a whole lot of it. Stephen Anderson, the former detective, was snared along with a group of other officers for “flaking” four men in Queens back in 2008. He is now cooperating with prosecutor’s and is spilling the beans on the crooked practice of framings and false arrests, often to reach arrest quotas. "It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators," Anderson testified in Brooklyn Supreme Court last week. "It's almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they're going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway." The Drug Policy Alliance, a group that promotes alternatives to the war on drugs, issued a statement calling the case against the officers indicative of larger, systematic failures. “One of the consequences of the war on drugs is that police officers are pressured to make large numbers of arrests, and it’s easy for some of the less honest cops to plant evidence on innocent people,” said Gabriel Sayegh of the DPA. “The drug war inevitably leads to crooked policing — and quotas further incentivize such practices.” <> Enforcement quotas should be abolished. This is what quotas lead to, desperate cops planting evidence. And this latest veto by Gov Brown, which some have suggested is motivated by his courting of the police/law enforcement associations who hated the bill -- is very disturbing indeed.
