It would, if and only if the language found in the amendments provided civil and legal recourse against the individual officer found to be violating Constitutional rights, i.e., a fine and/or jail time. Lacking teeth, there's absolutely no reason to say yet again "you may not do this," or "do this and I'll say you can't do it again!"Charles L. Cotton wrote:If the constitution already prohibits the conduct that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments seek to address, why would the language found in the Dutton/Huffines Amendments be any more effective than the "no guns" signs?
It's meaningless to have umpteen laws stating the same thing, if there's no consequence for the offender, no matter if he has a badge or not.