|
I'm not sure I see a huge problem with the ruling.
In the specific instance of this case, an officer was investigating a situation that, on its face, looked extremely irregular. The cop went to investigate and the guy refuses to cooperate when he clearly should have. Had he not acted like a complete prick, the whole thing probably would have evaporated right then and there.
I guess my point is a cop whose intention it is to hassle someone didn't need this ruling. They already have enough interpretive bullshit to justify a shakedown (e.g., "reasonable suspicion", "his taillight was out", "he flipped me off", "he was taking pictures of a bridge", "he checked Mein Kampf out of the library and returned it a day late", etc.).
If a cop wants to screw with you, he doesn't need this ruling - he's already got a full bag of tricks.
The other thing is that this is unrelated to the Patriot Acts and the Constitutionally affronting garbage that Congress is shoveling out these days. I think there is an obvious temptation to lump this in with all that as another 'oops' down the slippery slope but, to me, this is more related to a Miranda rights case than anything which would have happened 9/11 or no 9/11.
__________________
♠ ♥ ♣ ♦
|