A recent court ruling in Connecticut turns dangerous powers over to police in the state. The ability to arrest someone just for being near someone getting arrested.

You don’t even need to be suspected of breaking a law. They can just scoop you up in the name of “officer safety.”

Here’s what went down, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Police spotted Jeremy Kelly and Rafael Burgos walking on Brown Street, in Hartford, Conn. It was near midday in March 2007. As they turned into the driveway of an apartment building, an unmarked car stopped them.

“I’m a police officer,” said Detective William Rivera, according to summary of the encounter in court records. “Come to the vehicle.”

“For what?” Mr. Burgos said.

“I live here,” Mr. Kelly told the officer.

The two men continued up the driveway, and Detective Rivera pulled in after them. When Lt. Jose Angeles, who was riding in the passenger seat, began to climb out of the car, Messrs. Kelly and Burgos ran.

After a brief chase, during which Mr. Kelly tried to ditch a plastic bag of cocaine, he was arrested and charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. (Police found another bag of cocaine on his person, after he was tackled and cuffed.)

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, police thought they had a good reason to detain Mr. Kelly, even though he wasn’t suspected of doing anything wrong, according to court documents. To wit: He was walking around with a man who had a warrant out for his arrest and, the police believed, a concealed weapon.

But Mr. Burgos was not that man. The officers had confused him for Pedro Gomez, who also lived in the neighborhood and matched Mr. Burgos’s description. At the time, Mr. Gomez was wanted for violating his probation and was believed to be armed and dangerous.

Mr. Kelly sought to have the evidence against him suppressed, arguing that police had no reason to stop him in the first place.

On Wednesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the stop of Mr. Kelly was a “reasonable safety measure” that complies with both the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions.

“Such action is permissible when…an officer reasonably believes that, in order to avoid or defuse a potentially dangerous situation, he must take control of that situation by temporarily maintaining the status quo,” wrote Justice Richard N. Palmer.

My first thought when I read about this on Reason?

Photography is not a crime…except in Connecticut.

Techdirt agrees:

This is a law enforcement blank check. This allows police to use spurious reasons to detain people they just don’t want around — like eyewitnesses and photographers.

I hope I’m wrong, but I predict Connecticut is about to see a sharp increase of photographers getting cuffed, all in the name of “safety.”

http://allamericanblogger.com/blog/27482...ican+Blogger%29