The subject was the Fourth Amendment as related to Florida Highway Patrol traffic stops, where you are required to "show your papers" or risk arrest. These are disguised as a "good thing", but in reality, you have been seized by law enforcement for unreasonable cause. According to the Fourth Amendment, you can be seized or searched for reasonable cause.
Debating was local talk show host, Burnie Thompson and Assistant Professor Michael Gaddis. This was the first in an ongoing series. It was held at 10:00 a.m. and the audience was mostly comprised of students; however, there was a following a Thompson's who attended. It was worth taking a few hours off for the listeners who call in commuting. And Thompson, in my opinion, won hands down, if applause was to be gauged.
Thompson believes (does this sound biased?) as I do, that government should take a giant step back where it belongs, and as far as the FHP (Florida Highway Patrol), they are overstepping their duties (and not performing them), for a 5% arrest rate. His contention is that these stops are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Gaddis, on the other hand, didn't quite make his point. He believes the inconvenience is tolerable; that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be manipulated and changed at will.
The Bay Patriots were in attendance as well, and were distributing pocket Constitutions, one of which will be a permanent fixture on my dashboard in case I am stopped, to remind the FHP officer who detains me, that I know he is trampling my rights.
In an interesting conversation outside with a former law enforcement officer, I found that if recognized at these stops, fellow law enforcement officers of any jurisdiction, no matter if they are drunk or if their vehicles need work to be safe, are waved through. The Brotherhood exists.
Am I surprised? No. Not at all.
After the debate, I suggested to Gaddis, who will be holding these debates on a regular basis, that they do one on jury nullification, a powerful tool of the citizen juror which is little known. No judge wants his decision to be overridden by his jury. Yet, this is an important part of American law, well hidden from the public. And the judge isn't going to relinquish his omnipotence in the courtroom.
If you scroll through the subjects of my older posts, you will find something on jury nullification. If you are impatient, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification and then explore further.
No comments:
Post a Comment