Man jailed a month & counting for not stating full name.

Man jailed a month & counting for not stating full name.

freetalklive.com

The following is an excerpt from the radio show:

"Sam has been in jail... he is in his fourth week now in jail behind bars. The judge has said he's staying there indefinitely until he cooperates and gives them his legal name... which by the way they already know who he is, because they've got his fingerprints; they ran those through a system." ... "They've already identified him." ... "He is exercising his right to remain silent and he's definitely in jail for it."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally Sam Dodson was arrested for having a camera in a public courtroom lobby, which the judge had made a rule against. However since Sam chose to exercise his Miranda right to remain silent, he has been punished with an indefinite jail sentence by judge order.

Sam was attending as a media spectator to a court date, according to the radio show, where the man was going to court also for bringing a camera into the courtroom lobby. That man did state his name and was released within an hour.

This story shows America is not quite as free as they say and in fact if you exercize your rights the police will put you in prison indefinitely. Very pathetic. Also pathetic is that mainstream news has no interest in the story whatsoever. America is obviously not a place with freedom of speech while Sam is behind bars.

freetalklive.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think there making the point of, well here is your rights, but it's really do as we say, and you'll be fine, just give up your rights first.

Fine moment in time seeing these things come to be, fine moment indeed.

Give up your rights, see how easy it is, now your released, oh what you want your rights, you stay in jail indefinately. Welcome to 2009, where sht just keeps piling on.

You have a right to remain silent, but you don't have the right to withold giving them your name if you're arrested.

Perhaps he should of just had a convenient memory lapse like all the CEO's of corrupt corporations do when TSHTF? This judge and his sentence makes a mockery out of the law and peoples rights under the constitution.

Now that they do know his full name, it's just muscle flexing bully tactics.

This is definitely a case when the punishment is cruel and unusual. Excessive to say the least. No wonder people end up with an aversion to 'authority'.

IMHO they are authoritatively *edit*!

IRM

[edit on 8/5/09 by InfaRedMan]




Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Due to profanity, im sure your post will be removed, shortly.

Yep though, there flexing muscles, now more then ever, this is but a cough in a patient with lung cancer!

Think about it, what's been going on, rights, dismissed as if to avoid altercations with police, you must stand for your rights or you will surely lose them, though, as time will tell, you will ineveitably lose them, but a good fight it will be sure to be!

A future promised with hope and prosperity will soon bring pain and suffering, every time. How do people keep missing this major historic redundancy!

Why is that link trying to get me to DL an MP3? - got a link to the page where you got that text from? - just saying that I ain't DLing just anything with an interesting title, there be malware in them there hills.

You also have the right to refuse a breathalizer test but, if you refuse, your license will automatically be suspended for 6 months.

Same thing happened to me with the breathalyzer test. I asked the officer what would happen if I didn't breathe in the machine and if I should and he would only tell me he couldn't advise me. I was released that night and given my license back but nobody ever told me that it was suspended. I drove around for 4 months until I found out it was suspended when I went to court. It's a big corrupt system IMO. I applaud this man for not giving his name out just to exercise this right and I hope he gets a good attourney to represent him after it's said and done. Maybe this judge will get thrown from his throne.

The man is proving a point, he is showing that when it comes to rights he will win at the end and will not give up.

Plain and simple, he already got what he wanted, media attention I imagine that is plenty of civil right lawyers that will take his case for publicity.

I wish him good luck for standing up for his rights.

Originally posted by marg6043
I wish him good luck for standing up for his rights.

You don't have the right to not provide your name when you're arrested.

Originally posted by Estharik
Same thing happened to me with the breathalyzer test. I asked the officer what would happen if I didn't breathe in the machine and if I should and he would only tell me he couldn't advise me. I was released that night and given my license back but nobody ever told me that it was suspended. I drove around for 4 months until I found out it was suspended when I went to court. It's a big corrupt system IMO. I applaud this man for not giving his name out just to exercise this right and I hope he gets a good attourney to represent him after it's said and done. Maybe this judge will get thrown from his throne.

How could you not know that would happen? I knew that from Driver's Ed, almost 20 years ago.

But I do have some advice, at least if you're in Illinois:

If you get pulled over and think you've had enough to drink that the Breathalyzer will tag you, tell the officer you respectfully refuse to take any tests or answer any questions and state, very clearly, that you want a lawyer right from the outset.

Aside from bringing you in for basic processing, there's not a bloody thing they can do to you except suspend your license. Suspension is a lot easier to get past than a revocation, which is what you'd face if you blow a .08 or higher.

Just make sure you say it loudly and clearly enough for the dash-cam microphones to pick it up, and at least try to feign some measure of respect.

Of course if they're not equipped with dash-cams (many cops still aren't) you may just be screwed, and buy yourself a ticket to nightstick-sodomy-land.

Cops aren't in it for "us" anymore. I've known dozens of officers throughout my life, and I can count the number of good, honest, true public servants on one hand. Most of the rest seem to see only "cops vs. everyone else", and take perverse delight in their abuses of power.

reply to post by Schaden


Says who, that is what he did and now he is proving a point, guess what that is what identification is for. is already stated that he didn't resisted arrest and got fingerprinted and his identification establish.

So this a fight between him and the judge that is not taking very kindly to having his authority challenged.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by marg6043
I wish him good luck for standing up for his rights.

You don't have the right to not provide your name when you're arrested.

Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Occurs, is so easy for people to forget their civil and constitutional rights in this nation with so much government manipulation.

The man obviously knows his rights to the letter and what he is challenging is the judge decision over his rights.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


quite simply put, I was never told. I didn't think to look up the laws on DUI when I decided to go out drinking. My fault yes, but instead of handing me my license back he should have kept it. When I go tto court the prosecutor was puzzled why I still had my ID on me and why I was driving. It wasn't brought up to the judge thankfully but the way the prosecutor reacted made me think there was a step the officer missed.... like telling me if I didn't blow, I can't drive because my license would be suspended.

Originally posted by marg6043
Says who

Established legal precedent.

Originally posted by marg6043So this a fight between him and the judge that is not taking very kindly to having his authority challenged.

Nothing good will come of it. If he just gave in, and stated his name for the record, he'd probably be released in a day. He's wasting his time for nothing.
It's stupid to fight the law when you can't win. The guy in jail is being obstinate and hurting no one but himself. I don't see any important principle here.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.

You're wrong. Giving the police your name isn't self-incrimination.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by marg6043
I wish him good luck for standing up for his rights.

You don't have the right to not provide your name when you're arrested.

I was arrested for DUI and when I was at the police station they wanted to draw my blood to get an accurate reading which I refused. The officer had 6 other officers walk into the room military style stomping their boots to scare me into the test I guess. I refused a second time and they held me down and took my blood anyway.

So no, you really cant refuse a test

It really depends on the state.

Some states will consider it an illegal act to withhold your name when asked for it, others won't.

Even the ACLU, in their tips for what to do upon encounters/arrests by the police have a small "quick reference" on the what to and what not to do's.

See Below an excerp:

2. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.

Source from ACLU

Now, while I think it's a BS scenario, if he is in a state where it is in fact illegal, then the Judge is doing more than flexing his muscles, but also abiding by the law, even if the judge doesn't agree with it, he has to uphold it.



AB1

[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]