Roberts Upheld D.C. French-Fry Arrest

[spaceprophet]

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press

Judge John G. Roberts' views on abortion may be murky, but there's no question where he stands on the issue of girls eating fries in a subway station.

As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts wrote a decision last year upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who violated the ban on eating food on Washington's subway system, Metro.

But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl.

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," he wrote. "Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry."

Still, Roberts agreed with a lower court ruling upholding the arrest

"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.

"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."

Two months after the arrest, and following a torrent of bad publicity, the transit agency revised its policy and said that children under 18 who committed minor offenses would instead be enrolled in a program run in cooperation with school authorities and other city officials.

Yahoo! News

[Cherry Kelly]

aha -- so you do have the full story -- (as opposed to other area).

I would have to agree with Roberts on this - while the law was a bit "off" - it was a law - a policy set forth. The policy has since been changed.

BUT the policy-law did not go against the Constitution and THAT is what was at the crux of the situation. At 12 she is old enough to read "NO FOOD" or "NO EATING" and obey the law.

Like it or not we have many "stupid" laws out there - still on the books - still unchanged. As well as new policies or laws that violate the rights of all people...

That the officers took some rather drastic measures - they should have just contacted her parents and not gone to the lengths of hauling her off handcuffed - yet I've seen some 12 yrs olds that I'd like to SEE hauled off!

[joequinn]

The only way that we can keep Bush from turning the Supreme Court into an openly fascist institution is to get rid of him through impeachment. It's either one alternative or the other. If Bush survives unimpeached, then it's a fascist Supreme Court. There is no third alternative...

[spaceprophet]

I would have to agree with Roberts on this

Would you still be praising Judge Roberts if he stood behind the police after they handcuffed and incarcerated your 12-year-old granddaughter for jaywalking?

"Sorry honey. They acted lawfully. I'll put some salve on your cuff marks. How 'bout we frame your mug shot and adorn it with fig leaves from the garden?"

You see that's what many of us are so afraid of with a court packed with fascists. They'll not only endorse but encourage police brutality, a lack of humility, complete disdain for individual rights, and a propensity to abuse the power of authority.

Ask yourself. Was the treatment of that poor little girl really warranted? If you say no, regardless the police got away with it scott free. And probably did it to somebody else even more harmless.

And Judge Roberts gave them a ringing endorsement to behave in such a manner.

You should revel in your time. All right-wing fantasies have come to fruition today. Fascism and a military/police state are what Amerika is all about. Just don't cheer so loudly it hurts my ears, K?

[Cherry Kelly]

space --
DID YOU NOT READ ALL THAT I WROTE:

"That the officers took some rather drastic measures - they should have just contacted her parents and not gone to the lengths of hauling her off handcuffed -"

- - -
You also totally missed the point of the article - which was about whether or not the CONSTITUTION was violated. NO it wasn't - and that is what Roberts backed.

IN THE ARTICLE YOU QUOTED:
"But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl."

NOW tell me again why you think ROBERTS was so "bad" -- HE CLEARLY stated he thought the officers OVERREACTED, just as I also stated.

- - -
WHAT is it you DON'T understand? There are a LOT of stupid laws on the books all over the USA - outdated ones, ones that need to be removed.

[Cpt Spike Mike]

I understand. I understand that Supreme Court judges are crazy! Jeez, no wonder we can't get marijuana legalized.

[spaceprophet]

Cherry dear, your angry rebuttal only testifies to the fact that deep down you know his ruling was wrong. Perhaps you are agreeing publicly only because of loyalty to the party and the strident march towards totalitarianism.

Look, I don't claim to be smarter than Judge Roberts. Obviously I'm not. But on the other hand he has never, NEVER, ruled on anything other than in favor of right-wing policies and conservative stances. Everytime. So why would he be expected to rule any different in this case?

Here are the facts. The police violated the Constitution by not recognizing the girl's rights under the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment, because adults eating in the Metro were not arrested. The arrest was also an unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amendment. On top of that the police violated the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Roberts even said so himself that the police were out of line in her treatment.

What is it you don't understand about the Constitution Cherry? The problem is that when NeoCons are in power this kind of thing happens all the time. The police are allowed to run amok and do whatever they want and American's civil liberties and protections are allowed to be trampled on. Case in point is a prime example. How far do you have to detach yourself from, or simply despise other human beings to be able to see this as fair?

What did Roberts do that was heroic? Uphold a lower court decision despite the fact he thought the cops acted unfairly? It seems like he wanted it both ways. He should be a politician, not a Supreme Court justice.

Still, it's not an arrestable offense and a complete waste of city resources. Would the outcome be the same if they'd been Freedom Fries? Sadly, probably not.

I think what NeoCon ideology is trying to say, as underscored by Judge Robert's ruling, is that when eating french fries in the subway is outlawed, only twelve year old girl outlaws will eat french fries in the subway. It may inconvenience some of us to not be able to eat on the subway, but dammit, that's the price we all must pay in the war on terror!

PS The 12-year-old-girl's 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights were violated wantonly by the police. Judge Roberts stood behind them like a good little puppet of fascism. Period.

[fabzilla]

I understand. I understand that Supreme Court judges are crazy! Jeez, no wonder we can't get marijuana legalized.

spoken like a champ!


Bias and judges goes against their post and the interpretational stance that they should have rooted in the law based upon the Constitution. period.

No leanings, no vendettas, no activism, no BS.


Of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers


Elites one and all.


fab

[Cherry Kelly]

space -- oh they didn't arrest adults who violated the no food rules?? Can you prove that?

SO - next you are going to say it IS perfectly legal for smokers to smoke in areas that have no smoking rules? Or drinking in the streets or having open containers in the car. After all it violates THEIR constitutional rights as well.

Of course you are going to get an ANGRY rebuttal when you fail to read the entire posting and nitpick a segment without comprehending or understanding the WHOLE.

Just like Roberts stated that the police went overboard - I also stated the same - what is it YOU don't comprehend? Do we know if she got potty mouthed with the officers? Do we? You ever been around some of these teens and pre-teens and listened to their mouthiness? What do we know beyond the fact she was arrested and hauled off? We weren't there.

All you do is condemn Roberts because he followed the law. Like it or not it is the law and as I have stated there are MANY laws on the books that are ridiculous and should be removed or changed. AND if you will also note that particular RULE for the no food - was changed.

[spaceprophet]

space -- oh they didn't arrest adults who violated the no food rules?? Can you prove that?

As a matter of fact, I can. Absolutely no adults were ever arrested under the DC Metro law. But, the law was left open to discriminate against minors. Hence, what happened to the 12-year-old-girl.

My whole point was that Roberts can poo poo all he wants on the sadist behavior of the police but he did nothing to order them to get their act together. Which brings me back to my original argument about right-wing judges being soft on abusive behavior by law enforcement.

I've read the case forward and backwards. Something I'm comfortable in knowing you haven't done. Based on your lackadaisical approach to referencing posts. The girl was having an emotional meltdown during the whole procedure. She was scared shirtless as testified by the police too late however after they realized they had over stepped their bounds but went ahead anyway. The police ran her through the gauntlet almost akin to their average crack dealer. She was an honor student eating a French fry for chrissakes. She never mouthed off except to scream for her mommy. The police only laughed. Read the whole file for yourself. It's there online for all to see.

Roberts himself even condemned the police. But didn't have the balls to rule that her 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights were violated which they clearly were. He was too busy thinking about sucking up to the Bush Admin. so he could get nominated to federal judgeship.

The only law Roberts followed is the law of his future career. The sad thing is that you're willing to throw women's rights out the window based on a political stance. If you're Right I hope you are.

Put the kool-aide down for once. Pull the flag down from above your radio and TV. Do you really think they have an American agenda or just a political ideology agenda? You know the latter is true and not the former. Only difference is that you cherish the direction.

I, on the other hand, don't want to live in a police state.

[Cherry Kelly]

space - I don't see your claim to any Clear violations of constitution. She broke the established rules. Posted rules and regulations - ie the LAW that existed for the place in question. She is old enough to read - she is old enough to know the difference of right/wrong and what breaking rules/laws means. She was not in her home, but in a public place that prohibited eating.

Now one might ask WHY they had those rules/law, but the answer is obvious or should be to most people. Were the rules/laws broken by the girl. Yes.

Was the punishment a bit on the extreme side - YES it was. BUT was the constitution broken? NO. Why - because laws of the States, laws governing buildings and what is or is not allowed - does take precedence as long as those laws are within reasonable framework.

You don't have to like it, but its a fact of life. Just as you go into a restaurant - No shirt, no shoes, no service - does the constitution say that your rights would be violated if they refused to provide service when you go in without shirt or shoes? The same thing applies here. The rules/law of the place said NO EATING - she broke it.

[spaceprophet]

Guzzling the kool-aide again I see. If it were your daughter you'd be screaming "police brutality". But since it was conveniently someone else's daughter and not only was it within lock step towards a vision of marshall law and complete police lock-down you think if you support it you're protected.

Guess again. You're not.

Ask some of the sympathizers during the Nazi regime and during Stalin's purges.

Sorry, you can't. They’re all pushing daisies six feet under.

[Cherry Kelly]

space --

We have laws, you break the law - you pay the price. I don't care whether you are a teenager or an adult. IF a parent fails to get TOUGH with a kid who breaks the law - that parent has failed in his/her duty AS a parent.

AS I said I do believe the cops went overboard. IF they had a holding area in the metro - they should have taken her there and kept her there until her parents (or parent) could get there. BUT maybe they didn't have a holding area. AND You don't know either.

Its very obvious you think it was perfectly ok for the girl to break the law. It isn't.

I can tell you exactly what I would have done had she been my daughter. I might have complained about the cops going over-board, but I'd have let her sit in jail overnight in a juvenile facility. Its something called TOUGH LOVE. I suggest you look it up. She violated the law - maybe next time she will think twice about doing so and maybe her friends will think twice, and their friends. Because the problem is - these pre-teens and teens get away with breaking small laws - they go on to break other laws.

[spaceprophet]

I don't believe you would.

You'd be comfortable letting your teenage daughter sit in jail while the police only gave tickets to adults for the same infraction?

I suggest you read over the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution. Oh, I forgot. The NeoCons have been actively trying to erase the Bill of Rights all along. Now it makes sense why you are always in support of it's destruction.

It's this kind of thing that's going to bring down this country. Not terrorism. People endorsing throwing civil liberties down the toilet just to further a political ideology.

Don't think for a second the police are going to check the Internet first to see if you backed them up all the time in Internet posts before they throw you in the can for failing to yield at a cross-walk. They won't. And they'll get a good laugh if they found out you did.

[Joolz]

I can tell you exactly what I would have done had she been my daughter. I might have complained about the cops going over-board, but I'd have let her sit in jail overnight in a juvenile facility.

Dadgum... I'm sure glad you weren't my mommy! It was a farking FRENCH FRY, fer pete's sake!