What I'm getting at is this: the police had reason to believe that this guy was a threat to the vice president, because it is obviously impossible to express disagreement or dissent without some act of violence.

Too bad Cheney wasn't cuffed when he said it.

What I can't figure out was why the SS sent some National Guard guy to do their work for them.  Short staffed on that detail, perhaps?

Fact is, this sort of thing is totally outside the jurisdiction of a Guardsman, who wasn't deputized for that sort of "investigative" work.  The detention of the good Doctor was totally unlawful, as far as I can see, and a misuse of the Guard, and an abuse of authority by the SS supervisor.

Really disgusting that this is happening here -- the US has become the world's most powerful banana republic.

Its how they get their info. I learned at a young 17 when read my miranda rights in my driveway for a crime that happened to the next door appliance store. Come to find out 5$ was stolen from their petty cash, most likely an inside job. That did not prevent an officer from showing up on my door step during a graduation half day to read me my rights. I remember being pissed, telling him my rights, and then he looked at me like I was getting too uppity, so I piped down a little, gave yes/no answers, then told him to leave my property. He intimidated my younger brother before I had got home, then hid around the block. Right when he was leaving my mom pulled up. He got an earful in the street as he blocked traffic and was forced to hear my mom give him a 'new one'.

I don't really think that is what their motives were.  And, the fact that they released him in fairly short order, suggests that they were really trying to intimidate him based on his speech, or didn't know that it isn't against the law to insult the Vice President.  But, that would be their strongest argument.

For a person to be legally "Under Arrest" a judge must be present, charges must be profered by a district attorney or Grand Jury, and the arrested person must be provided counsel if he so choses

legally and technically, a person is not actually under arrest until these steps have been completed

"detainment" is the physical act of being taken into custody and held in a jail or other holding facility until the detainee is either arrested or released

under Unites States law, a person can be detained up to 72 hours or more without ever being charged with a crime ( ie Arrested). There is also a "reasonable Time" clause which can be interpreted either as shortening the 72 hour limit or extending it, based upon reasonable expectation of court room availability

being detained aint being arrested, and being arrested aint being detained. And both can happen at the same time

Frontpage story on dkos right now. No more right to due process. Americans can be detained without trial just like the 10,000 Iraqis and God knows how many others.

Anyway, I think the law is pretty clear on that... if you're not free to go, then you're effectively under arrest, even if words to that effect haven't been said.  Handcuffed, he clearly was NOT free to go.

I had a relative thrown back in jail for violating parole by getting arrested- never mind that he was found innocent of the crime they arrested him for. No more probation.

Locally here an activist spoke out about the deplorable public housing situation. She was arrested on false trumped up charges, but that was enough to get her kicked out of public housing. I'm glad he doesn't have this arrest on his record.

US Constitution is all but shredded, Bush may just appoint himself dictator for life.

Who will stop the evil Bushites?

Impeach Bush while we still have that option.  2006 will be a real test of the Diebold machines- will the Bushites control the vote counting?  If they do, look for them to retain power for years.

When determining probable cause the police are not free to ignore otherwise reliable information and proceed as if the information had never been made known to them. The determination of probable cause is made based not upon one circumstance but upon the "totality of the circumstances." (Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238.)

Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home." McDonald v. United States (1948) 335 U.S. 451, 456.

"In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teachers. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 485 Brandeis, J. dissenting

My point is that I have cause to be happier than ever I live in this blue state, as it seems that 4th amendment rights are alive and very well here.

What's strange to me, though, is that I see this case time and again, and I am always surprised that officers don't receive more training in this at the academy.  Believe me, it pisses off an ADA to have to drop an otherwise good case for this mistake.

We still have laws in this country. And you have to break them to get arrested. Period.