Slashdot Mirror
Drunk Driver Mugshots Featured On Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "Get yourself a DUI and your mugshot may get some exposure on Facebook. That is, if you get caught in New Jersey by Evesham Township's police, which have begun posting mugshots of arrested people, convicted or not, on its Facebook page. Now, we know that if you get arrested, your privacy is pretty much limited to the brand of your underpants, but the local police department has started a controversy and may find itself in hot water. How much value does a public mugshot on Facebook have to the public? What privacy rights do you have if you get arrested?"
and may find itself with a lawsuit for millions which tax payers will have to pay up while the police department will suffer no ill effects.
Fixed.
Newsday has been publishing DUI arrestees' mugshots on their website for at least the last few years.
It's always confirmation bias!
What privacy rights do you have if you get arrested?
I suppose thats depends on what you get arrested for, but I would assume in most cases - all of them?
The question is, do they tag you in the picture?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
... they're not tagging the people in photos! A shame.
The scurge of facebook strike again.
The people who frequent facebook are insignificant therefore their opinion is too.
It matters not what they think as Evesham Police Department is unlikely to assist during harvesting season on Farmville therefore they will move along and, presumably, get off the lawn.
Ohio has (or had if they discontinued it, not sure) a law where repeat convicted offenders of DUI laws get a special yellow license plate with red letters, contrasting the normal colors of Ohio license plates. The biggest difference between that and this is those are served upon convictions.
Not so sure about arrests. I mean, there's really nothing you're going to do to refute a breathalyzer, but due process has to be respected.
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
How can you say that with a straight face? If the mug shots are part of the public record - that's that. How they're made public is irrelevant. If you don't liek it - get the law changed to make arrests NOT part of the public recored - but nobody will want that will they?
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
But it'll still be a while before someone sues for an exorbant amount of damages because of "psychological damage" and "lost job because I got angry at teasing and punched someone".
And then money will come out of police department and into someone's pocket. And then 'everyone' is happy.
or even common sense?
I hope they pay thru the nose on lawsuits until the next century.
this is a horrible precedent!
(contrast this to the recent series of stories where the police seem to believe its 'illegal' to take pics of THEM. while. on. duty.)
doublespeak raised to a new art form.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's implying that criminals are somehow less than human and fair game for ridicule
They are fair game for ridicule. You don't think idiots who crawl into a bottle and then behind the wheel of a car are fair game for ridicule? How many innocent do they place in harms way?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's implying that alleged criminals are somehow less than human
FTFY, because until the charges are proved in court, simply being arrested could mean any number of things that fall well short of being guilty of an actual offence. Unfortunately, by posting mugshots to the internet (read "the public domain"), it ensures that these people will be forever linked to a crime they may or may not have even committed.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
The Smoking Gun has been posting police photos since about 10 years ago already. That does not change any questions about privacy, but this is hardly 'news'.
So then wait for them to be convicted in court, and then ridicule away. Is due process really such an inconvenience for you?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Arrests are already a matter of public record, are they not?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Because FaceBook has such incredibly great security there is no way this could ever be abused by a bored high school kid who decided to post pictures of his teachers there.
Absolutely no possible way this could ever be abused. None whatsoever. Therefore, this is a great idea.
Yes, because everyone who was ever arrested for a DUI was guilty. Thanks for clearing that up.
Moron.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
For good and for bad, getting arrested is a matter of the public record. (You wouldn't want to be arrested and held secretly, would you?) For some, the fact of public disclosure and "loss of face" is reason enough not to do bad things. For the innocent, it's our society's willingness to ostracize someone based merely on accusation that is the problem, not the posting of the picture.
Somewhat relatedly, recent studies have shown that 44% of men would be unwilling to help a lost child because of the ease of which false accusations could ruin their lives. Maybe it's our knee-jerk judgmental culture that needs to be fixed instead.
The problem here is not the fact that the photos are being presented on Facebook. They're public record. Local newspapers have printed booking photos since the beginning of Local Newspapers (or maybe the beginning of booking photos).
The problem is with us, the public. We react to this as if it is a shame to the person. We really need to be working to change the public mindset with the reminder of "Innocent until proven guilty". The proper response to these photos is "Huh. Joe got arrested for DUI. I wonder how it's gonna turn out?" That's how we need to get people thinking. At that point, all this Facebook crap doesn't matter.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but getting arrested and being CONVICTED are different things, yes? What exactly gives them the right to publish these on Facebook before you've been convicted of a crime? Sure, I guess if you are later convicted that's somewhat okay (though they are giant douches for it), but when you've merely been arrested? That seems a little draconian to me. That seems like a slander lawsuit waiting to happen.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
I could see where that could be a bit problematic.
Posting pictures of people who have been arrested but not convicted would seem to be very dodgy territory, the police could be exposing themselves to all sorts of law suits. While the police generally try their hardest to do a good job, mistakes can be made. Putting up pictures of people who are later released without charge might still cause those people complications in their lives, whether it is over-zealous local vigilantes, or employers.
A friend of mine is a primary school teacher. He had to break up a fight between two ten year old boys a couple of years ago. As he was separating them, one of the parents arrived (end of school day) and then claimed my friend had assaulted her son. This all took a couple of months to sort out, nearly finished my friend's professional career. He was proved completely innocent, classic case of an insane parent believing their little Jimmy never did any wrong. My friend was incredibly stressed and depressed throughout, years of hard work possibly destroyed by one stupid parent, and ended up moving town to take up work in another school where he is very successful, has been promoted twice.
I can only imagine what might have happened to him if his pictures had been on Facebook for those two months with the caption "suspected child assault". He would have been under intense psychological pressure, and perhaps local parents might withdraw their children from his care, or pressurise his head teacher to sack him, or even taken illegal direct vigilante action. And then at the end after they'd ruined his life they'd find out he was innocent. Even if they gave him his backpay and reinstated him in his old job, he could have been in a very bad way psychologically if he'd been attacked as a result of this, maybe rumours would have spread that couldn't be stopped (his neighbours in his street saying "well he was proved innocent but I don't want my kids near his house" etc).
Posting pictures of arrested but not convicted folk in any circumstance, whether on Facebook, or a town billboard, or in the local paper - no - I think this is difficult territory.
...unless you're posting photographs of the police acting in an assinine manner, then, of course, you'll get arrested for violating their privacy.
You have the right to due process before the state takes away your life, liberty or property. You do not have the right to due process before the community can ridicule you. See, there's this thing called the 1st amendment. It means I can tell you and others what I think about you.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, since the AC that I was responding to said criminals not the accused it's a safe assumption he was bemoaning the fact that we ridicule criminals after they are convicted for their crimes.
Jackass.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Mugshots are already public domain, so I can only suspect this is just for publicity. They are trying to make it look like a lot of cops are doing something more than showing up after crimes to file a report, falling asleep in their patrol cars on the side of the road, talking on cell phones, causing wrecks (had to throw this one in there since I've been rear ended by one), beating up old people, harassing and beating up kids, racial profiling, ambushing people on a dark lonely roads for minor traffic violations like driving 3 over the limit, engaging in illegal activities, etc. There are many good cops out there, but it seems to be overshadowed by all of the negative, and made cheap by all the publicity stunts such as taking criminals from jail and parading them down the street for the press and then bringing them back.
You have the right to due process before the state takes away your life, liberty or property. You do not have the right to due process before the community can ridicule you. See, there's this thing called the 1st amendment. It means I can tell you and others what I think about you.
The local government is bound by the same constitution as everyone else, so your premise that the community has first amendment rights to slander a person before the slander becomes fact due to inapplicability of the law is false.
As part of the "save the children" panic, the supreme court has already decided that such listings "aren't punishment", which is why they say they can be applied retroactively, after conviction. Without the (ridiculous, sophist) determination that such listings do no harm in and of themselves, the ex post facto prohibitions would come into play (as they actually should, of course.)
Consequently, I doubt that any listing of arrest subjects will be determined to be damaging or harmful, or that they require a conviction.
Shaming - permanent and otherwise - is part of America's new commitment to retribution over rehabilitation, and its support for the creation of a permanent rock-bottom lower class. The public is all for it; they love the drama and the fuckarosis that it all engenders, and it is a very rare citizen indeed that has any concept of how and why these things are wrong.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"...it ensures that these people will be forever linked to a crime they may or may not have even committed."
Or, they did do it and the reporting agency simply misreported the information. I was arrested (big deal, fuck you) for one thing, but the arrest report (the one that makes it into the state website) was listing a crime I had never even been charged with, let alone committed.
Regardless of whether or not it was accurate, in the minds of John Q. Public, it is not only accurate, but accurate forever because web caches do not take corrections.
But that is OK, because I've come to realize that none of it really matters, except to the people that really don't matter to ME.
I mean, why not?
I've never done DUI, but in this day and age where potential employers look up the background of people on the internet, such a thing could wreck a person's chance of getting a job. Youths do foolish things. It's inevitable. How many of us have not made some big mistakes? How many of us would want to have to pay for them for the rest of our lives? Not many I bet.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
Releasing an arrest record is not slander. Newspapers have been publishing police blotters for decades. Arrests are a matter of public record. Get over it.
I was arrested for a crime I didn't commit. Police blotter was on Page 2. Guess which page it was reported on when the Grand Jury kicked the charges against me? Oh, that's right, it wasn't reported at all. Such is life. I bet if you were in my shoes you'd sue, wouldn't you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Police do make mistakes sometimes. The legal process tries to sort this out.
My neighbor was just arrested and had their mug shots on the nightly news and written up by the local news for suspected meth and related paraphernalia. So obviously everyone thinks there was some involved as thats what the news said relayed to them by the police spokesperson.
Problem is, there wasn't any. It was only suspected (due to past boyfriends) and they found nothing and had to release her later that night but the persona damage is still done to her and to the neighborhood.
So I'm not really sure how I feel about this as DUI is slightly different when arrested. And I don't see how FB is any different than the nightly news or papers.
Mugshots are public records, just like arrest reports. All the police department is doing is making those records readily accessible. There is a company that gathers mugshots and arrest reports and publishes them in a flier called "Who's in jail" and sells them for $1.00 each at convenience stores. This is no different and actually prevents people from making money on the misfortune and stupidity of others.
No. You don't understand what the constitution is: It is the enabling document for the federal government; it has some effect upon states, particularly in the bill of rights (amendments 1-10), and where states are mentioned explicitly (e.g. ex post facto laws), but it doesn't really go into great depth. In fact, it explicitly hands off a lot of legal territory to the states.
From there, states have (or can have) their own constitution, which describes how that state handles various issues -- which may not be very similar at all to another state. The only catch here is that the states are required to recognize the laws of the other states when issues cross borders.
Local government is then bound by the state rules, which may vary, and only the federal rules that over-ride.
Generally speaking, though, the constitution (the one we usually talk about) is a federal document.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As if the general public needed another reason to be suspicious and distrustful of law enforcement.
insightful. if I had MP's I'd mod you up.
regardless of how right or wrong you think this is: exactly HOW is this going to endear the public any more to the police? they already have a credibility problem. instead of trying to avoid conflict, they seem to be a magnet for it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
But that doesn't mean there aren't limits to it. It is one thing for arrests to be public record. The details and photos are published and the news reports on them as it sees fit. It is quite another for the police force to be running what is effectively its own propaganda campaign. They are posting these pictures and heavily implying guilt based on that. Well I can see a couple of situations where I'd have a real problem with it:
1) If I was arrested incorrectly. If I got nailed for a DUI I'd be furious if the police were plastering my picture around before a trial. I personally don't drink so I am confident I'd be acquitted (or more likely charges would be dropped) as there'd be no evidence. However the damage could already be done if the police have been telling people I'm a drunk driver. Believe me there'd be a lawsuit.
2) If someone was arrested and this happened, they might use it as a way to try and use it to derail proceedings because the jury pool had been tainted. After all if the people use Facebook maybe they've seen these pictures and are going to presuppose guilt. This is an increasing problem as a lot of people use Facebook these days. Could make it difficult to find an impartial jury and give good grounds for appeal, which might just lead to a judge tossing the case.
I'm completely ok, and in support of arrests being public record. However I am not in support of police saying "Look at this guy we arrested! He's clearly guilty, we are going to post his picture to shame him!" This is NOT the job of the police. The investigate crimes and make arrests, that is all.
...but it sure seems unethical. The police seem to be posting these pictures only to (a) humiliate and shame those arrested, (b) forever stigmatize those people by way of distributing (downloadable) pictures that will now live on in digital form in the public domain, in one form or another, forever. Who knows where they might end up. Sounds like a good way to potentially ruin someone's life over an *alleged* night of over-indulgence and bad judgment.
There is "being available in the public record," and there is "put on worldwide public display with a big scarlet 'A' for Alcoholic on their chests." They're going over the line here.
Because they can?
Negative public exposure could easily be considered a punishment, and punishment can't be administered unless you have been convicted of a crime. I know this is about DUI, but in general, in any sane media climate, a mugshot should never be shown of a person who is merely arrested and not convicted! I could understand if media some times can't tell the difference between arrested and convicted, but the police? Publishing images of *convicted* people on a facebook page is more acceptable, but still debatable. For a DUI there probably won't be a lynch mob adding to the punishment, but for another crime (say child molestation) it would be a completely different story.
Shame. Community opinion is or can be a strong motivator. Knowing that if you get caught DUI, not only do you face fines and restrictions on your driving but everybody in your community will know about it, is an added deterance. IIRC, this has been done in local newspapers before and has been shown to cut down on the number of drunk drivers.
Why? The American public has allowed all manner of listings without any conviction, police or judicial action.
Just offhand: No-fly lists; No-buy lists; Gun owner lists; "offender" lists; land owner lists; boat owner lists; etc.
Unfortunately, the average citizen fails to anticipate what one seemingly harmless or seemingly desirable invasion of privacy means in terms of enabling behavior when an obviously harmful one comes around.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So if the local law enforcement organization in your municipality were to do thesame sort of thing, what would be the repercussions where you live? Obviously we have heard from the US, but what about other countries?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Sorry but it's called the "Police Blotter" that many newspapers used to run where they reported the names of those arrested by the Police. All that's happened here is that the department has taken it upon themselves to publish a bad photo of those arrested for a specific crime.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
GUI: Governance Under the Influence. Why isn't this a crime too? PUI: Parenting Under the Influence. Or this? Seriously, given that one beer or glass of wine can be enough to get you into trouble, this offense can bite the otherwise resposible too. People make mistakes, less repeat or habitual offenses, and deserve a chance to correct and carry on without it following them around as if the had a "scarlet letter" embroidered on their lapel for some extended durration. So, IMHO, this facebook issue is hightly problematic and overly judgmental given there is still due process.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has been posting mugshots for years. I still have the screencap that one time a co-worker got busted (and no, he never came back to work)...
http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Mugshot
ON DELETE CASCADE
>The notion that "driving is a privilege, not a right" has been twisted and abused so that if you are accused by the state of a DUI offense, >you either have to incriminate yourself or suffer a punishment for not incriminating yourself. On a MVR (motor vehicle record) the charge >for refusing a breathalyzer is quite similar to the charge for having taken and failed a breathalyzer. DUI, certain asset forfeiture laws, >and maybe sexual harassment are the only crimes where the accused must demonstrate innocence. None of this is compatible with a reasonable >interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, yet it goes on, because it's "for our own good" or something. Personally, I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers. When a police officer suspects impaired driving, and they pull you over and suspect you are drunk, I have no problem with asking for a breathalyzer. And if you refuse, I have no problem with assuming that the driver, was in fact drunk. Blowing on a breathalyzer is not a big deal. It is not some infringement on your rights to blow a little air into a straw. No reasonable person would refuse such a trivial request unless they had something to hide. >Criminals generally do not believe that they will get caught. If they believe that they will certainly get caught they tend not to do the crime. I'm not so sure about that. Every choice in life is made by weighing the benefits vs. the risks. While the risk of getting caught surely enters a criminals mind, so surely must the risk of the punishment if they are caught. For example, if drunk drivers were shot on the spot after failing a breathalyzer test, I imagine this would have an impact on drunk driving rates, even though it has no impact on your chances of being caught.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Pretty sure the bill of rights says we have to save the cruel and unusual punishment until after the conviction... Oh that's right, we're all guilty until proven innocent, cary on.
Bingo. You can legitimately be arrested for something you haven't done, in fact the UK police will generally arrest you "on suspicion of x" if there isn't some pretty concrete evidence. In this case they could arrest you on suspicion of drink driving if they saw you take a gulp of beer and get in a car, brethalyse you, find you're well under the limit and send you on your way. No reason to get all social networking on your arse.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
How is this any different than the hundreds if not thousands of local and county law enforcement agencies that post all booking info with photos on their website.
An arrest, guilty or not, is public record and have been reported for, well, pretty much ever.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
I was arrested for a DUI early this year. Admittedly, I had gone off the deep end and was overdrinking. However, I was NOT driving drunk. My wife was concerned and called the police reporting that I was, on a Sunday morning. In reality, I had a single drink, then hit the road. . I got home before the cops. I was knocking back straight bourbon IN MY HOUSE. . I was cuffed, my BAC was .1. I spent eight hours detained.
.
My trial is next week. My wife is testifying that she saw me drinking in the house. The cop says he saw no such thing. My lawyer says it's far from a slam dunk, since it's a DUI.
.
I've been forced to breathe into a hyper-sensitive device to start my car for five months. It can lock up the ignition because I've used mouthwash, or because I had a couple of beers within the last couple of hours. It also locks out if I pull into the garage, I shut the car off, and it wants a test anyway. No doubt the judge will have all the details at my hearing. It costs me 75 bucks a month.
.
There's nothing worse than being accused of something politically incorrect. Even if the charges are tossed, I'm out almost two thousand bucks.
.
So no, I don't think this is a good idea.
Sorry for replying to myself but I feel I need to clarify.
There is a need for arrest records to be public in a free society -- so people cannot be "disappeared". However, the information in the public record should reflect that need.
For example:
Name, etc: [...]
Arrested on [...]
Charged with [...] on [...] / [_] Not charged / [_] Charges withdrawn
Released on [...] / [_] Still in custody
Went to trial on [...]
Verdict of [...] on [...]
With all fields being kept up to date after the fact.
Especially I don't see the need to have the reason for the arrest public unless the person is found guilty by a court of law.
To illustrate:
1. A policeman arrests you for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 4 year old girl.
2. You are taken to the station, photographed and fingerprinted.
3. Turns out to be a case of of mistaken identity, you are not the suspect they were looking for, you just happened to drive a similar car.
4. You are let go with an apology.
5. The facts of the arrest are public record, the apology is not. Enjoy being ostracized.
Probably would only work in the local/regional court, but:
Judge: "Any reason you think you would be biased for or against this defendant?"
Jury candidate #1: "Well, I'm pretty sure I saw him pop up in my facebook newsfeed for driving drunk."
Defense Lawyer: "Dismissed."
Would work best when the defendant is charged with something vaguely related but not the same as DUI, like disorderly conduct or domestic violence.
There have been a lot of posts trying to make a distinction between "it is fine to shame someone, even if they aren't convicted" to "this only makes sense once someone is convicted."
In any/all cases, there is absolutely no positive value that comes out of this practice, as it relates to DUI. Child molesters... yeah, but drunk drivers?
What does one get out of this?
Let's say that instead of posting a picture, one placed a permanent mark on the person's forehead such that the public can now identify that person as having been involved with potential DUI or flat out convicted of it.
Would it make the person stop drinking and driving if he had to permanently carry the stigma of it?
Why stop if you're going to be vilified for the rest of time anyway?
If one does stop, is it fair to keep punishing that person for correcting his mistake?
And with the Internet these days, it _is_ forever. Sure, it might not be at the fore of your community's thinking, but a quick search and bang... get to relive being outed as irresponsible and dangerous.
This doesn't prevent it from happening again.
This doesn't shame someone into stopping.
It is purely vengeance, with no value what-so-ever OTHER THAN to scare the populace into compliance (the efficacy of which is suspect).
So, if your police practice such things, you may want to call up and ask why they're spending time and money on something that has no redeeming value.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
... is possibly too much, after all, a person is still considered innocent until guilty.
But.
I see no problem with this if they're convicted. DUI doesn't have any social stigma associated with it anymore, and that's an outrage, considering the thousands of people killed each year by drunk drivers. If a little shame stops someone from getting behind the wheel after too much to drink, more power to this sheriff.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
How do you feel about "Wanted" posters?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
>Same here. I just want them to be arrested and prosecuted based on observable behavior, such as the way that they drive.
>A dangerous driver who disregards safety is not exactly difficult to detect. On the plus side, doing things this way might
>accomplish more towards addressing the dangerous drivers who are quite sober but just aggressive and/or stupid.
The rub is, I think driving drunk and swerving over the lines a couple of times should be punished much more heavily than driving sober and swerving over the line a few times. Why? Because I suspect a person who is driving drunk is a far far greater threat to the public than someone who is unimpaired. To me, it is like randomly firing a firearm in the air in a crowded area.
>Then I'd rather you lobby for the repealing of the Fifth Amendment. That's a damn sight better than simply ignoring it.
That is a rather extreme position. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? I like the 5th amendment, and think it should be respected in nearly all cases. But not this one. Just like the 1st amendment doesn't apply in all cases, like yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
>A concept that is totally unrelated in subject but completely related in principle is the notion of a "free speech zone".
>You see, that's a clever way to get around the First Amendment. That was also perpetrated by someone who did not want to honestly
>lobby for the repealing of the First Amendment and instead wanted to play clever word games to effectively ignore it.
I agree with you on the concept of "free speech zones". But as the example I pointed out before illustrates, there are valid limitations on the 1st amendment. I don't think "free speech zones" are one of them, but there are, in fact, limitations on the 1st amendment. Likewise I think there are valid limitations on the 5th amendment. If blowing in a straw was somehow an imposition, or somehow infringed upon rights or discriminated against people, I could see why it would be a valid 5th amendment issue. But it doesn't.
Let me ask you this: If a device were invented that could determine a person's blood alcohol level without touching them, would you be against /that/ sort of device being used without consent? Suppose we had a device that could, remotely, detect the amount of alcohol in a person's perspiration, and thus infer their intoxication level? I don't see how it would be much different than a radar gun used to detect speeding.
>If it means throwing out 200+ years of jurisprudence and American traditions of freedom, if it means weakening the highest
>law of the land, then so be it as long as we catch a few drunks, right?
I do not believe that requiring a breathalyzer on demand as a requirement for driving significantly weakens anything.
>The difference is that in any other criminal matter, you are not punished for refusing to incriminate yourself. When the
>cop asks you to blow into a tube, he is asking you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the way our system is supposed
>to work. It's the cop's job to gather evidence that you have committed a crime. The fact that we really don't like this
>particular crime is not a good reason to change this. That's the sort of reactive emotional thinking that is a complete
>departure from the wisdom of "innocent until proven guilty".
Yes, you are correct in that you are being asked to prove that you are innocent, by being asked to cooperate with evidence gathering against yourself. But the reason why it's OK to change this for this situation is not because of the particular crime, but because the requested cooperation is TRIVIAL and does not have any negative effect on the suspect unless, of course, they actually are guilty.
But it is also important to note here that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BREATHALYZER TEST. My brother-in-law did this, and then got a lawyer to get him substantially reduced charges because of the lack of eviden
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The local government can't take away rights granted by the federal constitution. Federal law overrides state law.
Newspapers didn't go the extra step and post a picture, which makes this a slightly different story, especially when coupled with today's ultra sensitive attitude towards the possibility that someone has done something wrong.
Companies scour Facebook constantly looking for beer cups and people generally living their private life in FB albums; the problem with posting pictures is an extension of that. It's much easier to go "Hey, I know that guy!" when there's a picture associated with the name.
Civics 101...Libel and slander are not sanctioned under the 1st amendment.
I'm pretty sure he was saying local governments, within their own constitutions, cannot do things that violate the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment makes that clear. While states can do their own thing, especially when not specifically addressed in the Constitution (10th amendment), they can't do things that are unconstitutional at the federal level.
A good example would be Arizona cannot usurp the constitution on the 4th and 5th amendment, nor can they make laws that are clearly enumerated as powers of the federal government, just because they have an immigration problem. Yes, address the immigration problems, but no, don't violate the US Constitution while doing so. Otherwise, as we've seen, your new law gets struck down as, wait for it...unconstitutional.
Ignoring the constitutionality of "Cruel and Unusual", then I see no problem if Government Employees also be socially presented, for example Law Enforcement Officers. And let's also ignore the constitutional issue of "Innocent till proven guilty", lets put everyone on Facebook for any issue?
The idea that there is ever any right to privacy is shaky at best. The notion that a person under arrest is entitled to privacy is even worse. After all, arrest is a public function carried out by public employees, using public transportation and public jails and processing areas and based upon public reports. And in relation to drunk driving we are not yet anywhere near punitive enough in cases involving drunk driving.
...regarding seizures, and apparently little used, excusable homicide would appear to fit the bill - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Excusable+homicide. This indicates culpability but lack of ability to alter the situation.
Would this really be considered public shaming?
China recently just banned the decades old practice of public shaming by walking criminals down the street in front of the towns people.
Newspapers didn't go the extra step and post a picture
Yes they do. Our local newspaper has pictures of people in handcuffs all the time. They have pictures of them being loaded into the police car, pictures of them walking into the court house, pictures of them doing work details, etc, etc.
Companies scour Facebook constantly looking for beer cups and people generally living their private life in FB albums
So? Perhaps one ought not to live ones private life in a public forum if one wants to maintain his or her privacy?
It's much easier to go "Hey, I know that guy!" when there's a picture associated with the name.
What's your point?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are you sure about that?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
nor can they make laws that are clearly enumerated as powers of the federal government
No, but they can arrest people for breaking Federal law.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Common sense 101: Repeating a factual event (stewbacca was arrested at 10pm last night by the state police for DWI) is not libel or slander.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
With the % dipping lower and lower on what is legal as far as a breathalyzer is concerned, technically a guy that has one beer and leaves the bar a little too soon could be lumped in with a guy that drank 15+ drinks in a night. The only reason the law makers let over-reactionists lobby for unrealistic levels and pass laws as such is because, sad to say, drunk driving has become a money making industry for police, court, and probation department around the US.
RIDICULING stewbacca for an offense he didn't commit IS libel/slander. You can't call me a child molester or a drunk driver until I'm convicted as such.
New Jersey cops and traffic court judges, their patrons, have some of the most consistently, mind-blowingly arrogant attitudes you'll ever find.
I'm recalling some personal experience with Mendham, NJ. The cops put up signs saying "Speed and receive a free ticket."
I loved the universe when this arrogance backfired and some people actually paid no fines for tickets, by pointing out these official signs could easily be interpreted as meaning the ticket would cost nothing. The signs came down pretty quickly afterwards.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Yes I can. You are welcome to sue me if you can prove damages and think you might have a case. Good luck with that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Newspapers report the "Police Blotter" because it's news. It's not the police's job to report it.
This is the police taking a step further out of their purpose, to post pictures of people specifically to embarrass the arrested and flaunt their own power. And I find it pretty arrogant. Especially seeing how many police think they shouldn't even be videotaped while arresting people.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
The Police will probably say it's "Using public shame as a deterrent". But what I think it is, is to flaunt their power.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
It's a shame that your experience didn't show you how unfair and unethical it is. And, by the way, the fact that it has been happening for years and years doesn't make it right either.
Arrests should never be public record. Conviction? I suppose. That and jail time being the price to pay.
It's not easy to devise a fair system, one that can be lenient at times and proactive against clear dangers to the public at large. This... pre-conviction punishment is just as outrageous as continued punishment as jail (lost of voting rights, sex offender lists, etc.).
None of them have been charged yet, but I heard that many of these people have been brought in as part of an investigation into child exploitation. On top of that, several of them are self-admited pedagogues, pediatricians or even podiatrists, but they are somehow allowed to continue working in positions which bring them into contact with school children on a regular basis.
Since this is all a matter of public record, can we publish these facts along with their photographs, home and work addresses next to a vaguely worded editorial about the evils of child abuse? That sounds pretty fair to me.
>If you think ruining a guy's life just because they drove after drinking 2 beers is good for society, then we disagree.
First of all, you are setting up a straw man here. I don't care how many beers someone has drunk. All that matters is whether or not they are legally intoxicated.
Secondly, if someone is legally intoxicated and operating a vehicle, they are running a very real, very serious risk of ruining other people's lives. There have been countless cases of drunk drivers killing and maiming innocent people because their intoxication prevented them from safely operating a vehicle. People who willfully do this should be punished very harshly. It is no different than playing Russian Roulette while pointing a firearm at innocent bystanders.
People who drink and drive are satisfying a purely selfish desire, and in so doing putting other people at great risk. This should be punished most harshly, in my opinion.
In my view, if you kill someone while driving drunk, it is murder. And if you are caught before you kill someone, it should be attempted murder.
>I personally prefer non-arbitrary laws to determine what "drunk" means. If drinking impairs our driving so much, .000001 should be illegal. Why is it ok to be .079 BAC, but not .08? Is there good science to back that up?
>then
I doubt the BAC to be considered intoxicated was arrived at in an arbitrary manner. In any case, you have to have a metric by which you can use to enforce the law. This metric has been set.
I direct you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png
I want you to read this article:
http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/208318/Ever_held_a_child_s_decapitated_head
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Yes, I am. The first issue is that the Sullivan Act isn't a ban on handguns. It requires a license to carry them. Those are two very different concepts; there is no provision against requiring a license specifically to carry a handgun (only to handguns does the Sullivan Act apply, after all) in the constitution, as you can see right here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Then, you have this, taken right from the Wikipedia article you linked:
Some question the constitutionality of the act, due to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the Supreme Court has only recently ruled that the Second Amendment prevents localities from enacting outright handgun bans, (See: Incorporation), the question of whether the Second Amendment provides grounds to invalidate local gun control laws like the Sullivan Act may be addressed given the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.
If you read that block of text, it makes clear that the question isn't whether the constitution supersedes local regulation, but rather what exactly the constitution means. You see, it's completely true that the local government cannot infringe on rights given in the constitution. The question is truly "What rights does the constitution grant, and where do the lines of those rights get drawn?"
So victims of drunk drivers shouldn't get involved in the discussion, but drunk drivers can?
Why don't we only let the slave owners talk about slavery?
Only rapers talk about rape?
You just basically don't want to get hassled to prevent harm to others. Basically you are saying , "I don't want to be troubled because it doesn't affect me". Nice attitude.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So wait, because you've been through it, and realise how terrible it is, you think everyone else should go through it as well?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
You have the right to due process before the state takes away your life, liberty or property. You do not have the right to due process before the community can ridicule you. See, there's this thing called the 1st amendment. It means I can tell you and others what I think about you.
I have the right to say "fuck you, you're a god damned idiot". That doesn't make this a good, worthy, or noble thing to do. Now, that's a hypothetical. I'm not actually trying to insult you or call you an idiot but I wanted to make a point. If I used my free speech in that manner, it would say little or nothing about you while revealing quite a bit about me.
Sure, you can insult people with no fear that the law will stop you because of the 1st Amendment. But tell me, do you really need to have the 1st Amendment repealed and laws of censorship enacted before you would think twice about insulting someone who is presumed innocent until convicted? And if so, is that because you really see something wrong with that practice and found self-restraint? But in that case why did it take a censorship law to change your behavior? That's why you can use the 1st Amendment to cover up any non-existant legal challenges to this behavior, but that will never escape the objections to it that don't involve using the government to censor you.
If you believe in due process at all then you honor the principles behind it even if there is no law compelling you to do so. I mean fuck, if you won't believe or honor anything except under the threat of the force of law, your beliefs and your honor are quite worthless.
If I want the state to honor due process because due process is a sound principle, why would I suddenly consider it unsound when faced with a choice of whether I will personally honor due process? You see, that makes no sense. If I take a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude towards the state, then I'm a garden-variety hypocrite. I'd be a hypocrite because I would want it to represent principles that I myself refuse to even try to embody.
That kind of hypocrisy is the position of immature and self-serving people. Very simply, they want to be protected from a capricious state that can harm anyone it wants on a whim, because such a protection benefits them. They also want to be able to look down their nose at someone and judge that person as beneath them, because this (in one form or another) is extremely important to empty, hollow people who have no principles or nobility. For them there is only gratification and when they don't achieve it by making themselves higher, they do it by making someone else lower. So that also benefits them. By "benefit" I mean it feeds their childish mentality and makes sure they are never made to feel uncomfortable for having it. Thus, they give lip service to ideas like due process but routinely contradict it anytime they are not forced to honor it.
That's why this is about publically posting mugshots for arrests and not for convictions despite the fact that both approaches are equally practical. This and the whole "eighth-grade emotional level our nation is at" (to paraphrase Bill Hicks) is what you are defending.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Remember DUI is different then theft or whatever, the crime is driving with blood or breath over XX. In order to be charged with the DUI you have to either 1) Take and fail either a breath or blood test, 2) Refuse to take a test.
If it's #1 your only hope of getting off is by a technicality.
The only people who do #2 are people who are drunk enough to know they are wasted.
Which directly infringes on your right to carry, which the 2nd amendment explicitly denies the federal government the ability to do. And then there's incorporation to consider. There's no way around it: if I don't have a license, and the feds say I can't carry, there's the infringement, plain as day. This isn't a power that has ever been granted the feds. It is a power they have taken in an unauthorized and tyrannical mode, and which they enforce by coercion and/or violence.
In the case of the second amendment, there are two clauses. The first is prefatory, and contains no instructions to the government. This phrase is of historical interest, but it does not enable, or disable, any power or right.
The second is explicit: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The meaning of the words here have not changed in any significant way since the amendment was penned. To "infringe" means to affect in any way, even at the meanest boundaries; "shall not" still means "no"; "keep" and "carry" still mean exactly the same things; "Arms", while somewhat broader today, certainly included an extremely wide range of weapons and weapons platforms, and by standing alone, obviously allows for invention, as invention and improvement was the perfectly normal order of business at the time; and the phrase itself can be parsed by anyone who knows what those words mean, or can look them up and successfully take in a dictionary definition.
Even a moderately intelligent reader will realize that the meaning of the second phrase does not change one whit when one fiddles with the objects in the prefatory phrase; in other words, even if the prefatory phrase stated "in order that teddy bears may not be abducted by native Americans", the second phrase would still constrain the government from infringing in any way upon the keeping and carrying of arms - swords, caltrops, firearms, cannon, brass knuckles, etc. So the prefatory phrase is entirely irrelevant as to the powers of the federal government. In this way, it resembles the preamble to the constitution itself, which is also prefatory / explicatory, but embodies no allocation or restriction of powers.
Things only began to get foggy when legislators decided they wanted to do things the constitution forbids, but were too lazy and/or cowardly to attempt the appropriate procedure, which is defined in article five: amendment. Then we began to see idiot arguments like the shotgun argument in Miller; the attempt to incorporate the explicatory or prefatory phrase as if it was a filter (not to mention the complete misinterpretation of what "militia" means in this context); and then of course there is the painfully naive "living document" mental meltdown.
That's not how it works in the case of the 2nd. The second amendment consists of two explicit restrictions on the government from infringing upon keeping and carrying arms (not just guns, mind you, which are a single category of arms, but arms in general.) These rights are not granted - they are defined as pre-existing and entirely insulated from any interference from the government.
There is only one way that the government can legitimately create any infringing law (including licenses, etc.), and that is to instantiate the amendment process, and further, to succeed at it. Since they hav
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It sounds like things work differently here in the UK compared to the USA. We don't tend to have 'police blotters' in the local news (which I guess means photos of arrested people) and the booking log at the local jails certainly aren't public access. Generally people arrested but not yet charged are not reported on publicly: I think its only serious crimes of national interest that might get covered in the press.
What privacy rights do you have if you get arrested?
Doesn't seem like much. I got busted for being of age at a college party (hence, I MUST have had something to do with how the alcohol got there... I mean, if the police have no higher an education as the janitor, they gotta take the low hanging fruit). Haven't even had a court date yet, and they came an arrested me AGAIN because I didn't go get my fingerprints taken.
That's right, they get your prints for life FIRST, THEN you get to go to court. And this is the second time for me - Last time, a judge threw the case out, but the PA State Police kept the prints!