A continued detention without reason may be an UNreasonable seizure. An officer can not simply keep a motorist at bay because they feel like it. The SC has stated that a traffic stop must last no longer than the time it takes to conduct it. “A traffic stop must last no longer then the purpose to effectuate the stop”, you can key that phrase in for some law.
Most traffic stops are considered to be what are known as “Terry Stops”, from the case of Terry v. Ohio, cited in Berkmer v. McCarty.
An investigative detention must last only as long as it takes to conduct business.
This is State v. Robinette II, I was remanded from the US SC. Here, but in Robinette 1 better, the OSC discusses if the officer was justified in detaining Robinette to ask if he has any drugs in the car. Under FL v. Royer, it was pemitted, even though the question is not related to the purpose of the stop. NOW, while there is no case that “specifically”
states it is an UNreasonable seizure to continue asking the SAME question over, the law is still that would be UNreasonable under the 4th AM.
page 10:
…In the case at bar, we find that, pursuant to Royer and Brown, Officer
Newsome was justified in briefly detaining Robinette in order to ask him whether
he was carrying any illegal drugs or weapons pursuant to the drug interdiction
policy, because such a policy promotes the public interest in quelling the drug
trade…
The syllabus concerns the Ohio Constitution though.
That would fall under the Establishment Clause, not free exercise clause.
In a sense that would make attendees a “Captive audience”, even if no govt. official objected.
If the prayer were secular in nature, and not any religion, like christian, it would probably be permitted, even over objection, but of course 1st AM law is at times very complicated.
Average Joes tell the government to suck it every day. No surprise that one of the most influential and huge corporations in the country armed with teams of lawyers had no problem doing it.
Probably unconsitutional because he’s speaking on behalf of the government, even if you are not compellled. It’s your government, you pay taxes to it, and in that way you are “compelled” to support it.
Well, no, you can’t just blow off constitutional interpretation and then make one. If you want to make an argument, make it, don’t just go with your impulses.
Our government is well within its powers to do this, and it’s not inappropriate or anything near a violation of the constitution.
I specialize in that. You just be very vague, avoid key words like “Jesus” “Father” or “Goddess”, avoid overt references to any sort of Higher Power, and everyone thinks you agree with them. Parallel phrases make it poetical and prayer like; triplets help, too: “Let us take a moment to pause before we begin. Bow your heads if you like. We use this time to reflect on the purpose that brings us here today. Let us work to be wise, to be humble and to be grateful for the opportunity to do our work. Let us listen to each other with compassion and respect, dignity and grace, blah blah blah blah blah…”
And yes, prayer before City Council meetings is exceedingly common. They pray before House and Senate sessions in Washington, D.C., too. There, I believe they get around the establishment clause not by being nondenominational at each prayer, but by inviting people of different faiths to pray at some sessions. Still, there’s a Chaplain of the United States Senate, and one of the House, who just happen to have always been Christian, but it’s not a requirement. :rolleyes:
I am not familiar with that argument; I thought ‘national security’ was typical trotted out to inhibit the release of information, typically government information.
The word GOD is secular. Our state Motto (Ohio) is, “With God all things are possible”. The challenge from the ACLU was not that it was not secular per se, but was a quote from the Bible.
To say “Let us pray to Jesus” at every meeting would surely violate the 3 prong Lemon test.
There’s no violation here, just as there was no actual First Amendment violation in the case of the Maryland legislator who told the Ravens to shut up Brendan Ayanbadejo.
There’s a more basic reason you’re wrong, colonial: no jurisdiction actually criminalizes shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The fact that the Constitution does not protect certain conduct does not mean the conduct is illegal. It means if the government could make it illegal if it wanted to. It hasn’t.
*(Justice Holmes was) using a commonsense observation to illustrate the legal principle *
*that some forms of speech, such as that endangering public safety, **is not protected. *
*In the specific case of the false theater “fire” certainly no legislation would **be necessary *
*to secure conviction after Schenk, and I wonder if the centuries of common law prior to *Schenk left a hole which actually needed filling.
I interpret Holmes as saying legislation is not required in certain flagrant cases
such as the theater fire hypothetical.
Yelling “fire” in a theater is not so different from a fake bomb threat. Is Mr. RNATB
trying to tell us that before specific legislation was enacted prohibiting the specific
act of making fake bomb threats people who made such threats could not be prosecuted?
"In US law, endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.
The offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to others.
The law specifies several types of endangerment:
…Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others…"
And if the “death or grievous bodily harm” is too high a bar for the DA to get over, then maybe disorderly conduct will get the job done.
Oh, and I did find an ACLU type who would have it that "…merely falsely shouting
“fire” does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety (emphasis added)"
I find it impossible to believe that one may so capriciously risk others’ safety, and
this might be a good example of why the ACLU should not be allowed to have the
field to itself when it comes time to define the limits of free speech.
That’s laughably absurd. Even if a court has bought it.
It’s sad too, because it demeans religion, not just government, to make this claim. God isn’t about religion or belief? He’s just secular. Ho hum. It’s what religious people stooped to as an argument to save their precious little In God We Trust on coins - claiming that God is nothing special and has no meaning but an empty slogan. Yet they claim to be defending religion from secularism.