Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're just wrong. There's a whole line of cases about this.

Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be "casing" a place for a holdup. Letting one's wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. Yet it may, of course, be the setting for numerous crimes. The difficulty is that these activities are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have been, in part, responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent, and have honored the right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits, rather than hushed, suffocating silence.



A legal cite, please. Yes, I know about the loitering case, Chicago v. Morales; it was struck down on vagueness.

But again, why are the police in this case monitoring a constitutionally protected activity?


That wasn't a cite to Chicago v Morales! I'm not going to play Calvinball on this.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: