Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new supreme court ruling.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The new supreme court ruling.

    Anyone see the new ruling from the US Supreme Court? 8-1 in favor of keeping lawsuits away from cops in pursuits where injuries ensue. Think that may change Nebraska's stupid 3 party liability law that basically blames cops for pursuits? I hope it does. Stupid rule. Stay safe!!

  • #2
    Originally posted by sscpd223 View Post
    Anyone see the new ruling from the US Supreme Court? 8-1 in favor of keeping lawsuits away from cops in pursuits where injuries ensue. Think that may change Nebraska's stupid 3 party liability law that basically blames cops for pursuits? I hope it does. Stupid rule. Stay safe!!
    It would be interesting. The hang up for us would be the fact that states an enact stricter law's then the federal gov't. If it's law for us for 3 party liability then I'm sure it's going to have to happen and be seen on the floor here by our judges.
    Sometimes, doing the right thing means p***ing off the bosses.

    "And shepherds we shall be, for thee my lord for thee."

    Originally posted by dontknowwhy
    I still think troopers and deputies who work in the middle of no where with essentially no back up are the 'men among men' of the LEO world.
    Originally posted by weinerdog2000
    as far as your social experiment, if we cant film you then you cant film us, we will arrest you for obstruction of our freedom.

    Comment


    • #3
      The part I found confusing was when the radio news reporter said the Supreme Court came down with the ruling in an 8 to 1 verdict. The reporter's next statement was "The lower court upheld it's ruling, and ruled the victim filing the law suit in the state court could continue with their suit." Did anyone else hear that? Or was that just our great Western Nebraska news reporting at it's best? Or as I like to call it, The North Platte Kid's Club News.
      Some people were just dropped on their heads as children more than the rest of us!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nebraska_deputy View Post
        The part I found confusing was when the radio news reporter said the Supreme Court came down with the ruling in an 8 to 1 verdict. The reporter's next statement was "The lower court upheld it's ruling, and ruled the victim filing the law suit in the state court could continue with their suit." Did anyone else hear that? Or was that just our great Western Nebraska news reporting at it's best? Or as I like to call it, The North Platte Kid's Club News.
        I'd say kids club got it wrong. If the SC says nope sorry then unless Georgia has something on the books that says Georgia can be more restrictive then the fed's would be the only way it could go. But I've seen a lot of video's from Georgia depts and frankly I'm surprised that Georgia doesn't use Stinger missiles to bring pursuits to an end with some of the tactics I've seen, love them by the way.
        Sometimes, doing the right thing means p***ing off the bosses.

        "And shepherds we shall be, for thee my lord for thee."

        Originally posted by dontknowwhy
        I still think troopers and deputies who work in the middle of no where with essentially no back up are the 'men among men' of the LEO world.
        Originally posted by weinerdog2000
        as far as your social experiment, if we cant film you then you cant film us, we will arrest you for obstruction of our freedom.

        Comment


        • #5
          Go figure North Platte news is always wrong or only gives you part of the story. They did say that the Supreme Court posted the video in question on the web site. This was all I was able to find

          http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1631.pdf

          I couldn't find the video as of yet.
          Some people were just dropped on their heads as children more than the rest of us!

          Comment


          • #6
            This won't affect Nebraska's 3rd party liability law. The Supreme Court didn't say anything about that law being unconstitutional. Some City attorney needs to file to them to review it and get some clarification or ruling. Until that happens or until it is challenged, there won't be any change to that law, until Ernie's term limit....

            Also, FYI, LEOs there has been another court case involving DUIs. On an ALR notice of sworn report, temporary license, you now have to indicate that the person was operating a motor vehicle, signs of intoxication, and reasons for arrest specifically. It was common practice for us to list charges in that area, and nothing more. A hearing officer from DMV advised me yesterday.
            Last edited by 1798; 05-03-2007, 02:03 PM.
            "All statements made shall be protected by the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution in which I have sworn an oath to protect."

            Just don't expect me to agree with yours...

            Comment


            • #7
              "Reasons for arrest specifically" I had a motion to Suppress hearing on one of them a couple weeks ago. All I listed were the charges. Luckly I end up winning, then the driver made a plea to drop the other charges. The County Attorney told me about putting the specific reason in for the stop. I guess I'll just have to write smaller.
              Some people were just dropped on their heads as children more than the rest of us!

              Comment

              MR300x250 Tablet

              Collapse

              What's Going On

              Collapse

              There are currently 4365 users online. 225 members and 4140 guests.

              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

              Welcome Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X