NH: Exercising right to remain silent lands journalist in jail indefinitely
We read:
"Video journalists in Iran aren’t the only ones at risk for due process violations. That’s what journalist Sam Dodson learned when he was arrested April 13th at Keene District Court for videotaping in the lobby. Dodson is being held indefinitely in unsanitary conditions on $10,000 cash bail and without access to legal representation because he refuses to disclose his legal name to authorities at Cheshire County Correctional Facility. Dodson is on a hunger strike.”
Source
The right to remain silent seems to me to be a part of free speech. And the famous 5th amendment also gives a right to remain silent. A writ of habeas corpus should be issued on his behalf. I don't think habeas corpus is completely dead yet in America. SCOTUS last year recognized habeas corpus rights for Gitmo prisoners. Is it too much to ask that American citizens should also be entitled to such rights?
16 comments:
is anyone really surprised that the Obamocracy is doing the same things the USSR under Stalin did?
So far it's not yet gone to mass deportations and red hot pokers, but that won't be long.
"SCOTUS last year recognized habeas corpus rights for Gitmo prisoners. Is it too much to ask that American citizens should also be entitled to such rights?"Yes, it is. Sam Dotson would be much better off if he would just claim he is Muslim. He would then be treated like a king.
Usually, people in the media, and today, that includes anyone with a camera and a web site, consider themselves above the law. They are not, nor should they be.
A writ of habeas corpus was filed a week or more ago and denied by a superior court.
Thanks for writing about this. Here is an expanded version of the press release:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/05/prweb2381004.htm
Last I checked, one does not have the right to not identify themself. When asked, for cause, you must tell police your name. That has been challenged in numerous courts. Member of the press? So what, that doesn't change anything.
Last I checked, one does not have the right to not identify themself.The "right to remain silent" only applies in criminal cases, yet as you note, courts have held where demanding the name of a person is not self incriminatory, even if that person has a warrant out for their arrest.
"Usually, people in the media, and today, that includes anyone with a camera and a web site, consider themselves above the law. They are not, nor should they be."
Unless the police have something they are going to charge me with, then no one is required to even respond to police.
The police do not have any right to stop and question anyone unless there is just cause and unless the police officer explictedly states why this information is required and the person who is being questioned accepts the officers response. If the person doesn't accept the officers response and the officer feels that questioning is required, then they can be arrested. Until then, the guy could have simply walked away and would have been well within his rights.
For a similar case: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/
Thanks for bringing this up! I live in NH and had NO idea this was happening (kinda bizarre that I'm hearing about it from an Aussie first!)
I forwarded this to NowHampshire.com to see what they can dig up on it.
"Unless the police have something they are going to charge me with, then no one is required to even respond to police."
You are wrong! The police have the right to ask you for identification without probable cause. This has been upheld several times, by several different courts.
Unless the police have something they are going to charge me with, then no one is required to even respond to police.Sorry, but that is incorrect. The case on point is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
A court house or any other government facility is a security area. The people that talked to this individual didn't know him from Adam or what his intention were so they asked who was and what was he doing there. A correct response would have been something like " Oh Hi, I am such and such from the so and so and I'm videotaping here to do an article on whatever." No muss No fuss. Better yet, just check in with security and let them know you are there.
Correction, insert an 's' on the end of intention and 'He' between who and was.
This is simply another twisted young leftist defying what he sees as a draconian regulation put in place by "the man" to violate his "perceived" rights. Of course, the anti-freedom, draconian, measures pushed by the left are just fine with him, so long as they apply to the rest of us, and not him.
Maybe he should by law state his name, but that doesn't justify locking him up indefinitely without charges being filed and without legal representation.
At the very least he should be charged with something like obstructing a police investigation.
That was the decision of the court, not the police.
It was stupid and stubborn of him to refuse to name himself but that is simply no excuse for the court to be abusive either, especially after they've identified him.
Post a Comment