http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/405326?R787332152
Editorial in the Houston Chronicle
"Dec. 14, 1999, 5:13PM
WHO'S IN JAIL? High court rules states can keep it a secret
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that states may withhold any and all information about the people that police arrest.
The ruling ostensibly allows states to protect the privacy of those who are arrested, but it also gives states the option of letting local police forces behave like a dictatorship's secret police.
The case involves a California law that lets news media, private detectives and professors have access to the names and addresses of arrestees, but not companies that sell the information or use it for marketing purposes.
That law, which the court upheld, is too restrictive of public information, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist's opinion says states may deny access to any information in their possession and, furthermore, may keep all information about arrests secret from everyone.
Texas has a law that restricts information about auto accidents. The law is in limbo pending a state judge's ruling on its constitutionality, but the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the California case sadly comes down on the side of restricted information.
In its broadest application, the court's ruling could weaken Americans' crucial rights to equal protection and a fair trial. If the police can arrest people without revealing that fact, the police can, in effect, cause people to disappear without a trace."
What happens when your outspoken neighbor disappears and his house is locked up? You can't get a writ of Habeas Corpus until you know the person is arrested.
"Face the ditch please."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
Editorial in the Houston Chronicle
"Dec. 14, 1999, 5:13PM
WHO'S IN JAIL? High court rules states can keep it a secret
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that states may withhold any and all information about the people that police arrest.
The ruling ostensibly allows states to protect the privacy of those who are arrested, but it also gives states the option of letting local police forces behave like a dictatorship's secret police.
The case involves a California law that lets news media, private detectives and professors have access to the names and addresses of arrestees, but not companies that sell the information or use it for marketing purposes.
That law, which the court upheld, is too restrictive of public information, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist's opinion says states may deny access to any information in their possession and, furthermore, may keep all information about arrests secret from everyone.
Texas has a law that restricts information about auto accidents. The law is in limbo pending a state judge's ruling on its constitutionality, but the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the California case sadly comes down on the side of restricted information.
In its broadest application, the court's ruling could weaken Americans' crucial rights to equal protection and a fair trial. If the police can arrest people without revealing that fact, the police can, in effect, cause people to disappear without a trace."
What happens when your outspoken neighbor disappears and his house is locked up? You can't get a writ of Habeas Corpus until you know the person is arrested.
"Face the ditch please."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
LawDog