Do you think that the courts have appropriately supported the Constitution and its relationship to the police?

Answer 1

Perhaps a few courts, but generally ...

No.

The courts, like the politicians and U.S. society in general, have strayed from the mandates of the Constitution for convenience, changes in lifestyle, and most important, personal and political unethical agendas.

The Constitution has become more faded words on old parchment and needs to be rejuvenated with education and understanding.

With respect to police (or any judicial or political authority), too much leeway has been given to "discretion" and less to the rule of law. This may have been (IMHO) an overreaction to the extensive tort actions of the 80s and 90s when we evolved into an unstable litigous society. Attorneys offered the "golden egg" to prospective claimants for everything imaginable, seeking the lottery winnings for themselves as well in fees and costs.

The most disturbing loss of rights has been the loss of the right to access to the courts themselves.

In an action against any governmental authority, including police, for a violation of your Constitutional rights, it becomes a "civil action."

Therefore, you are not entitled to legal counsel to assert your rights or recovery of losses to the court. If a police officer pulls you over, and beats you up, you enter a quagmire of both the complaint process and the civil litigation system.

As a civil matter, most attorneys will not take this type of case without a $30,000 to $50,000 retainer, unless you are lucky and find one willing to make a contingency agreement.

At the same time, your legal counsel faces the governmental authorities "deep pockets" with respect to the litigation. They use taxpayer dollars (the same ones you've paid yourself) to litigate against the citizen.

The courts frown on and dislike pro se litigants to the point that they will hold those litigants to the same standard as an attorney, even though the Constitution states that the right to access to the court (which should be particularly for Constitutional rights violations) is accessible to all ... not just those with an attorney.

With respect to the answer ahead of me by Chris W (former police officer), police officers (former and current) are not as expert on the law as they claim or their self-inflated egos think. This is the reason so many violations of Constitutional rights are by ... police officers.

So, based on these contradictions in practice, there is no way the courts can have possibly appropriately supported the Constitution and its relationship to the police.

Answer 2

Nice how people interject irrelevant opinions into a simple question. Criminal/Constitutional law is very subjective, when it comes to state-level legislation. Every state has the authority to interpret the US Constitution, within reason, to their own accord. Overall I'd agree that courts in general have appropriately supported the Constitution and it's relationship to the police--based on the bill of rights. The fourth amendment, for example, is your right against unreasonable search and seizure (i.e. needed probable cause for arrest), which governs police ability to make an arrest, and also guards against unlawful arrest or unreasonable detention--no police officer wants to get fired and/or sued for violating somebody's constitutional rights--the courts, in that respect, enforce the constitution and at the same time support the police and keep them honest. Also, the right to due process, and also the right against cruel or unusual punishment are both parts of the constitution, and play an active part in police enforcement as well. The courts follow the constitution, and this, in turn, governs police responsibility.

Ehhh... ohhh, and the guy above me... almost all of the bill of rights does deal with policing.... you know, the bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution? Yeah, important stuff.

Answer 3

Umm no.

I also don't recall anything in the Constitution relating to the police. The Constitution sets out the very limited functions of government.

This doesn't really seem to be an opinion type question.

EDIT:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)

Answer 4

not no but HELL NO we are becoming a police state more and more every day and Bush has did his part in making sure it did, by suspending Hebus corpus and so many different laws I can't possible list them all,

Answer 5

no not really many things that are under the 1st amendment dont keep u innocent lol :(

Answer 6

Yes, I do.

Answer 7

They are also honest corporate criminals

Answer 8

Not really.