At 10:36 AM 10/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
> "Good evening ladies and gentlemen. In the past fifty years the
>powers given to the Police have grown manifold. Today the growth of
>police powers is poised to take a huge leap forward. Use of
>computers, and telecommunications databases will give the Police
>new undiscussed powers of search and methods of identification. Yet
>what limits, if any, do the Police have? And, what actions if any
>can we as citizens take to protect ourselves? Tonight we will hear three
>points of view on the use of Police power. What the Police think they can
>do. What experienced Defense Lawyers think they can do. Finally what you,
>members of the audience think they can, and or should do."
I will actually bet my life savings of $32.17 that if this is what you say, you will NOT have any police officers in attendance. Period. Please just stop for a minute and look at it from their point of view. Note that I am not much of a supporter of police. Haven't much use for them, myself. But if you want police attendance, this is not the way to get it.
>Furthermore let's say this new scope of the law has not been challenged in
>court yet. If I refuse to give my fingerprint on 5th, and 4th amendment
>grounds what will the Police officers do to me?
They will take you to jail, Mack. And they will get your fingerprints.
> If I am arrested, challenge it in court, and win. What is the
>maximum of legal recourse I can extract form the arresting officer for
>violating my civil rights?
You don't have any. Never misunderstand that. You have no recourse against officers acting in their legal capacity. Never. Doesn't matter if they're right, wrong, or Satan himself.
> things along these lines. Real issues that we have today, or are
>just around the corner. After our questions are presented, it's the
>audience's turn.
Don't get me wrong, Andrew. Sounds like an entertaining idea. But I don't think you will have any police support at all, and I believe you are starting off with serious misinterpretations about the reality of the situation. Anyone (or any sponsoring group) who is going to lead this kind of program needs to know *ahead of time* what the situation really is, just like no lawyer should *ever* ask a question in court if he doesn't already know the answer.
Sharon