A reader's comment below the article:
Quote:
|
… in the absence of: no probable cause, no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or will be committed…” Say, doesn’t this fit right into Hale v Henkel 201 US 43 @ 89 or sumpn? I’m sure that case cuts both ways …. properly invoked. :-). Seems this gentleman may have just become Charlie Bucket, if he plays his cards right — he has all the aces, at the moment. Key word: “Jurisdiction.”
|
I looked it up since I was curious.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...1/43/case.html
From the Ruling....
Page 201 U. S. 74
Quote:
|
.. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
|
and in Page 201 U. S. 89 .......
Quote:
|
......but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way -- namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis."
|
I like this language!