Oppose HB59

I have not read HP59, but if it says what you say it does, then the Legislature does mock the Constitution. I've said for a long time, the threat to your freedom will come from the right, not the left.

Re: "Oppose HB59."

Oppose it if you like, but don't misrepresent it.

HB 59 merely removes a requirement from current law that limits warrentless, probable-cause arrests to felonies and class A misdemeanors.

It would permit an arrest based on probable cause for any misdemeanor, not just the most serious.

HB 59 merely removes a requirement from current law that limits warrentless, probable-cause arrests to felonies and class A misdemeanors.
It would permit an arrest based on probable cause for any misdemeanor, not just the most serious.

Sounds just like what the Writer said, just reworded.
Since probable cause is so abused already (see grateful dead sticker) I find this just one more step towards a police state, welcomed by all those in the "if you have nothing to hide, then why would you care if someone rifled thru all you stuff on a fishing trip. Oh yeah long hair is probable cause in many Utah villages.

Esquire | 6:40 a.m.

If this bill does in fact violate the Fourth Amendment... you can be sure it won't stand. That's what Federal Courts and the Supreme Court are for (to decide when a law violates the Constitution). A good example is the Amendment California recently passed to THEIR State Constitution.

IF... it's actually "Unconstitutional"... a constitutional expert, or a group of constitutional experts (in the case of the Supreme Court)... will decide if it actually violates Constitutional Rights.

But don't just assume it does without even reading it... just because somebody who doesn't like it wrote a letter saying it does.

I personally think it's a bad idea whether it violates the 4th Amendment or not, so I hope it doesn't pass. But I don't go around ASSUMING stuff is "Unconstitutional" without even reading it or knowing anything about it.

BTW... It doesn't have to be "Unconstitutional" to be a bad idea.

I thought this was the week they'd be debating the official state bullet - or was that the official state hunting target (delicious deer).

Tired of having legislators create new laws every year. If they are not repealing they are causing more damage to our liberties and we should remove them from office.

The legislature has become a joke... and they did it to themselves.

They spend the whole session playing with bills like the state gun, the state pancake and the state jello mold, and hundreds of new laws we don't need.... and then in the last hours of the session they will have to rush to pass the STATE BUDGET... without reading it carefully, or debating it with time enough to really discuss it and find better answers to the problems they find.

This joke isn't funny anymore if you ask me.

Under The 14 Points of Fascism there lies the danger of obsession with crime and punishment (#12).
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
I don't think this is the area America wants to go at this moment.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah at last, a law in Utah that essentially allows police officers to arrest anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, (that's called to detain a person by the way), and get rid of all the illegal's in Utah, I have no problem with a law like that. Your HB 59 should never remove a requirement from current law, that limits warrentless, probable-cause arrests to felonies and class A misdemeanors. It should expand it. I don't care how upset those redneck Rush Limbaugh wannabe's tea party constitutionalist's get about it either. It's great to detain and then arrest if need be. That's my views.

Unfortunately for us, the constitutionality of anything is in the eye of the beholder or should I say "pocket",ie Citizens United. As for the State Legislature, for years it has been thowing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. This is why we vote for a constitutional amendment every voting year.

Peace | 11:31 a.m.

How do your "14 Points of Fascism" fit the Muslim Brotherhood and the fascist movement in Egypt?

They 14 points fit the revolutionaries in Egypt perfectly (not just on this one point). And yet the leftists in America defend the movement in Egypt... but have endless criticism for the comparatively mild "Right" in the United States and paint THEM as the "fascists"?

Yes, this does diminish the constitutional protection against the deprivation of liberty. Peace officers would no longer need "probable cause" to arrest someone. If this passes, they could arrest you with only a "reasonable cause." That is legally only above the level of a hunch.

Decide for yourselves.

Sample Class B misdemeanors: Illegal fireworks, gambling, writing a bad check, possessing a keg of beer, retail theft, possession of marijuana, road racing, failure of public official to disclose conflict of interest, disturb the legislature, do business without a license, damage a government survey marker, damage a road sign, fornication, false fire alarm, minor graffiti, let your kids sluff school, fishing w/o license.

Sample Class C misdemeanor: speed, leave your neighbors gate open, use vulgar language on a bus, misnumber your written checks, lie to avoid jury duty, abandon your campfire and it reignites without hurting, anything, give cigarettes to a minor, public urination, public intoxication.

Why are we creating more government intrusion and more laws? Why are we creating laws when existing ones (bribery. like the 13 million given out by the gov) aren't even enforced?

Who do you believe opposition to H.B. 59 protects?

With or without passage, no one may be arrested without probable cause [reasonable cause=probable cause] that the person being arrested [not detained] committed a crime.

Nothing in H.B. 59 permits law enforcement "to arrest anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever."

Do you really want immunity from arrest for shoplifters, graffiti "artists," and teens using vulgar language on a bus? Why handcuff law enforcement officers' ability to do the job for which we pay them so poorly?

It's unlikely that passage would appreciably change police procedures or techniques, as there is no law enforcement consensus to exacerbate jail overcrowding.

But, it would give police another arrow in their quiver. Faced with the recalcitrant graffiti artist, militant shoplifter, or insistent, bus-borne rapper, an officer could remove the offender -- and the discussion -- to a safer, more manageable venue.

Strident, unreasoned opposition by non-offenders reveals either a charming, but misguided naiveté, or a latent criminal bias.

The more you give police and military absolute power - the closer you come to absolute fascism.

Welcome to the police State of Utah --

Seig Heil!

[Why is it the far-right CLAIM they support freedom, yet are the very 1st to trample freedom and the Constitution under their feet?]

Another of the 14 points of fascism is Ruling elites always identify closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it (police state). A disproportionate share of national resources is allocated to the military, and police even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, their own neighbors and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
This is not the way to pursue freedom.

Let's see...

A relative time of Peace.
No Marshall Law.
No Local or National "Emergency"

No real reason other for this other than the slow enacting of a Police State.

I don't see why people are having a problem with that bill.

The text of the bill is readily available. It would take less than two minutes for the average person to read it.

------

A person may be arrested for any "public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer" . . . "when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;"

It also includes "when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed the offense of failure to disclose identity under Section 76-8-301.5"

-----

It looks to me like anyone arrested would have been seen in the 'act' or for failure to properly identify himself when suspected of committing a crime.

I've always thought that a police officer already had that authority.

A national security apparatus under fascist regimes was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
Allowing local police to make arrests with no substance whatsoever is clearly one dangerous step down the road to a fascist state.