 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass [sic] our People..." The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
It used to be said that the little things were what made life worth living. Now, however, it's the little things in life that can get you handcuffed and hauled off to jail.
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 that the arrest and incarceration of Texas mother Gail Atwater for a seat belt violation that carried a maximum $50 fine was just okey-dokey with them. After terrorizing Atwater's children through his ballistic response to their mother's objections to his obnoxious behavior, Officer Bart Turek has had his bullying behavior "vindicated" by the highest court in the land.
Unfortunately -- despite the majority opinion's assurances -- such out-of-proportion reactions are hardly atypical in this country. The notion that punishments should fit the crime long ago became a dusty relic on the trash-heap of modern politics.
The Court's "reasoning" upholding Turek's unconscionable behavior is instructive in understanding the other abuses of law that continue to expand throughout our society. (A PDF link to the Court's decision is available at: this page.)
One can only blink in amazement at the kinds of statements offered by the majority of justices to justify this soiling of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Majority Opinion, p. 26: "In her [Atwater's] case, the physical incidents of arrest were merely gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment. Atwater's claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it specific to her case."
Translation: Turek acted like a jerk, arbitrarily abusing his authority. Atwater's case is far superior to the City's defense...but we're going to ignore that inconvenient fact and do what we bloody well please, anyway. So there. Nyah.
Majority Opinion, p. 27. "It is not merely that we cannot expect every police officer to know the details of frequently complex penalty schemes,...('[O]fficers in the field frequently have neither the time nor the competence to determine the severity of the offense for which they are considering arresting a person'), but that penalties for ostensibly identical conduct can vary on account of facts difficult (if not impossible) to know at the scene of the arrest."
Translation: "Ignorance of the law" is no excuse for you, the average citizen, but, what the hey? It's fine if cops are too ignorant of the hundreds of thousands of laws strangling this country or too stupid to use common sense. What's a few excesses among friends?
Majority Opinion, p. 33. "...but just as surely the country is not confronting anything like an epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests."
Translation: Abuses by the police are O.K. and don't need to be corrected or reined in, just as long as there is no "epidemic" of such bad behavior...or as long as we bury our heads to the true nature of what is happening in the everyday world from which we, the Supremes, are so well insulated by our exalted positions as your masters.
The Majority Opinion's ruling relies far too heavily on tradition, precedents, and case law while revealing an appalling blindness to the most basic of moral principles. To bolster their case, the justices prattle on, citing historical arrests for minor transgressions of laws that should never have been passed in the first place! Some of the behaviors subject to arrest in prior centuries that the justices believe sanction Atwater's treatment include: cursing, drinking, gambling, Sabbath breaking, playing cards, dice, and other games, fortune-telling, juggling, and unlicensed acting and selling. The justices excel at microscopic examination of trees while totally missing the existence of the forest through which they aimlessly wander.
The majority of the justices have, in this decision, planted the seeds for a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the citizens -- who supposedly are the ultimate source of power in this nation -- they have handed that sad minority of police who thrive on the exercise of raw power a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
In the words of the dissenting opinion:
Dissenting, p. 7. "Giving police officers constitutional carte blanche to effect an arrest whenever there is probable cause to believe a fine-only misdemeanor has been committed is irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment's command that seizures be reasonable."
P. 13, "Although the Fourth Amendment expressly requires that the latter course [arresting a driver, searching and impounding the car] be a reasonable and proportional response to the circumstances of the offense, the majority [of the Court] gives officers unfettered discretion to choose that course without articulating a single reason why such action is appropriate." (Emphasis added.)
P. 14, "The Court neglects the Fourth Amendment's express command in the name of administrative ease."
In other words, the Majority believes that lest we "inconvenience" the cops by asking them to think and to judge a situation, why, let's simply let them act willy-nilly depending upon the wild urgings of their baser emotional reactions.
As mentioned above, the majority of justices believes there is no "epidemic" of police abuses requiring correction. In passing, they mention the arrest and handcuffing of a young girl on a Washington, D.C., subway for the horrendous crime of eating french fries in a location where food was not permitted. They also quote an ACLU brief that details "arrests for littering, riding a bicycle without a bell or gong, operating a business without a license, and 'walking as to create a hazard.'" (p. 33)
Fuhgetaboutit, they're telling us. No need bothering to object any longer to being cuffed and arrested for such dire threats to public safety. We won't lift a finger to help you.
But, of course, this is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The justices apparently operate under the delusion that if a law exists criminalizing a particular behavior and probable cause exists that the law was violated, then no deeper issues need to be explored. Anything goes...for the cops.
The only behaviors that should be illegal in this country -- the only laws that are just and justifiable -- are actions that threaten or use physical force (either directly or indirectly) against an unwilling person. Robbery, theft, assault, rape, fraud and the like are the clearest examples of this principle. The police should only be authorized to make arrests that protect our rights against violation. They should never have the power to arrest, harass, or otherwise intimidate citizens engaged in peaceful, voluntary behavior.
In Atwater's case, she was arrested for violating seat belt laws, laws that are morally improper, in the first place. She drove on a street that should not be owned by the State, in the first place. Her situation is hardly singular.
It requires little imagination to follow the slippery slope the Supreme Court has placed us on. Smoking in a (government-mandated) no-smoking zone; purchasing a banned full-flow toilet or outlawed top-loading washer; recharging your own car's air-conditioner with Freon; jaywalking; parking in the wrong spot; improper disposal of a can of bug spray; painting your living room without a permit; placing unauthorized vinyl siding on a "historic" home; failing to recycle your garbage; spitting on the sidewalk; cursing around women and children...
Well, you can already be tossed in the clink for most of those dastardly deeds.
Unjust law enforcement logically follows from unjust laws.
Ninety-nine years in jail for growing too many marijuana plants. Felony charges for daring to defend yourself with a gun. Loss of freedom for failing to move some trees on a golf course or dumping dirt on a field. Imprisonment for trying to hold on to a bit more of your own money rather than "voluntarily" surrendering it all to the IRS. Denial of employment for objecting to the use of a national ID card.
Politicians revel in micromanaging the smallest, most intimate details of our lives.
Making it illegal to ingest certain chemicals (the War on Drugs). Outlawing self-defense (tens-of-thousands of unconstitutional gun laws). Denying freedom of association (e.g., affirmative action, anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws). Legalizing theft and slavery (taxes of all kinds, laws and regulations of mutually voluntary actions, violations of prior restraint). Voiding probable cause (traffic check points). Destroying due process (asset forfeiture). Weakening freedom of expression (Internet censorship).
The list is as endless as the arrogance of lawmakers, executives, judges, and those who enforce their orders and edicts on a hapless and cowed citizenry.
Our modern Supreme Court has done virtually nothing to reign in unjust laws or attempt to restore Constitutional supremacy and respect for the rule of law. Now, with the Atwater debacle, they have completed the circle and removed the last impediment to unjust enforcement of those unjust laws.
Hold on tightly. The rough ride ahead has barely begun...
