Cite, please.
Yes, you’re well advised to change the subject.
Cant give you any advice on getting off the charge or charges, but if this was me, then war would have been declared. Find out who the snitches were, and report them to the IRS and INS.
Shit like this should not be rewarded , it should have a cost attached to it.
Declan
I’ve had presciptions for vicodin and xanax; vicodin is way more debiltating than xanax, YMMV.
YMMV indeed.
But in Texas a public place includes private property that can be accessible to others. So in practice it’s not much different than other states.
Yes, snitches get snitches is much more important than keeping dangerous intoxicated drivers off the road.
Uh, yeah. Please.
I’d love to tell you whether or not what you did was legal, but I can’t hack my way through the wall of text to find out, myself.
Well, in Texas you can be arrested for operating a merry-go-round when you’re drunk. But that’s legal here in New York.
FREEDOM!
That dictionary definition doesn’t support your claim.
Especially if the can you kick is a beer can.
He told you why in his post -
Florida
In line with Pennsylvania v. Bruder, post Mcarty;
Held: Bruder was not entitled to a recitation of his constitutional rights prior to arrest, and his roadside responses to questioning were admissible. The rule of Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 – that ordinary traffic stops do not involve custody for the purposes of Miranda – governs this case. Although unquestionably a seizure, this stop had the same noncoercive aspects as the Berkemer detention: a single police officer asking Bruder a modest number of questions and requesting him to perform simple tests in a location visible to passing motorists.
Unless FL requires them, Bruder controls.
Such tests are NON testimonial in nature, and police have a right to take them once arrested for DUI.
An anonymous tip “may” provide the basis for an investigative detention, more commonly known as a Terry stop., see Florida v. J.L.
“J.L.”…
The Justice League!?
Not word for word but it does say free of arbitrary control. Few would argue that the government telling you you can’t do things on your own property that don’t hurt anyone or the public good doesn’t constitute arbitrary control.
Also, if you look at the philosophical definition of crime, it refers to actions that harm other people or the public good. When the government starts criminalizing things that aren’t actually crimes…
What, you mean like rushing home after you’ve been mixing Xanax and alcohol to slug down more beer in your driveway just because fuck cops, and not at all to attempt to fool a breathalyzer? Yeah, that totally is just asserting your rights and can’t affect anyone else!
No, unnamed juvenile’s initials, J.L.
The supreme court does that, as in New Jersey v. TLO.
You should slap your momma for not teaching you how to read.
Someone actually named their kid Justice League? That is awesome.
So it’s a constitutional violation to prohibit the ingestion of heroin in your own home?
No, you don’t have to be read your rights even after you’re arrested. You can be arrested and stuffed into a police car and taken to jail and charged and go to trial and get convicted and sentenced and end up in the big house, all without once getting read your Miranda rights.
What the cops won’t do is question you before they read you your Miranda rights. If they don’t need to question you to establish a case against you, they don’t ever have to read you your rights. And ordering you to pee in a cup isn’t questioning you. Neither is chit-chatting with you before they arrest you.
It is a widely believed myth that the cops have to read you your rights after they arrest you, but that is, in fact, a myth.
In his defense he did say “in a free country it’s a fundamental right”, you can believe something to be a fundamental right in a free country but it not be viewed as a constitutional violation to inhibit that right.
Quick and dirty example would be, in the 1960s you might feel in a free country it’s a fundamental right for all adults to vote, and it’s a constitutional violation for any government to try and hinder voting rights–but up until legislation and some supporting court cases governments were routinely able to put up all kinds of barriers to voting. That doesn’t mean necessarily that voting isn’t a fundamental right, it just meant that in that place and time it wasn’t protected as such.
And is it actually illegal to ingest heroin in your own home? I thought it was normally illegal to transport, sell, or possess heroin–is it illegal to use it? If the police search my house and find no heroin, but have proof that I’ve “used it”, is that a crime in and of itself without the transport/sell/possession aspect? (I’m just curious on that, I genuinely don’t know the answer.)