"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
news:SMednTR1zq3tSqLcRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
> Matt wrote:
> >"Fly Guy" wrote:
> >> Do you care if there is due process involved?
> >
> > Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then
they
> > would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to
keep me
> > on the list. Is that not due process?
>
> AMENDMENT V
>
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
> actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
> subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb;
> nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
> process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
> without just compensation.
>
> To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
> all that stuff with warrants and judges.
>
> miguel
> --
So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's right)
and still meet the due process requirements.
Due process has a vague legal definition.
Matt
|