OFF THE WIRE
 - Reports acts of profiling to the Motorcycle Profiling Project's National Profiling Survey.
http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com/national-motorcy…/

OFF THE WIRE

Images Of List Of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Patches

OFF THE WIRE
Introduction
High speed police pursuits constitute one of the most dangerous aspects of police work. Police shootings garner more attention, but many people are killed or severely injured as a result of fleeing suspects and pursuing police officers. Hollywood movies typically depict police officers in “hot pursuit” of a dangerous criminal, but virtually never depict wholly innocent people, such as child passengers in the suspect’s vehicle, or pedestrian bystanders, being killed in crashes and yet they are among the casualties of high speed chases. Pursuit policies vary among police departments and in different geographical jurisdictions depending upon whether a city, county, or state legislature has chosen to address police pursuits. This primer will provide an overview of this controversial subject and will recommend that police commanders and policymakers impose restrictions on police pursuits in order to enhance public safety.
The Controversy
When a police officer activates his vehicle’s siren and emergency lights, drivers are legally obligated to yield to that show of authority and to pull their vehicles over to the side of the road to await further instructions from the officer. It is illegal for a driver to disregard the siren or emergency lights—especially in an attempt to elude the police. In the vast majority of cases, drivers comply with the law and pull over to the side of the road. However, there are thousands and thousands of cases every year where drivers break the law and try to speed away and elude the police. When those situations arise, the police face a dilemma. On the one hand, they are expected to apprehend lawbreakers and keep the community safe. If they don’t pursue the violator, he might never be caught and he might also harm others as he accelerates in his bid to get away. On the other hand, the pursuit itself creates a danger by having another vehicle, the police cruiser, attempting to match the now reckless speed of the suspect vehicle.
When people get killed or injured in crashes from police pursuits, a heated debate typically ensues over the cause of the accident. Was it the suspect’s failure to pull over, or was it the police officer’s decision to pursue the suspect at high speeds? Here are a few chases that ended with tragic results:

• In June 2016, Officer Stacey Baumgartner was in pursuit of a man who had allegedly urinated in public, and then drove away. As Baumgartner’s cruiser sped into an intersection, she was hit by an SUV carrying a family of seven. Both Baumgartner and an 11-year-old boy in the SUV died in the crash.
• In May 2013, police received a call about several women who had stolen some merchandise from Macy’s and departed in a waiting car. Several police cars chased the women’s vehicle at speeds exceeding 100 mph. The women eventually sped down a freeway exit ramp, ran a red light, and then crashed into Rosabla Quezada, who was driving her three sons home from school. Quezada was killed and her 5-year-old son, Jose, was left with brain damage.
• In June 2013, high school senior Patrick Conway was out riding his Honda motorcycle. A state trooper pulled him over because he did not have a license plate. As the trooper stepped out of his cruiser, Conway sped off. A few minutes later, after weaving through traffic at high speeds, Conway collided with a BMW and was killed.
• In July 2012, a convenience store manager called the police at 4 a.m. to report that some teenage girls had just shoplifted some merchandise and had driven away. When a police officer spotted the suspect vehicle, he gave chase. A few minutes later, the carload of young girls crashed into a utility pole. One of the passengers, 12-year-old Casey Grace, was sent to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where she was listed in critical condition.
• In September 2012, Officer Mark Taulbee heard a radio dispatch at 2:30 a.m. that a man had taken a woman’s car after a domestic disturbance. When Taulbee saw the Nissan Altima, he started to pursue it. Shortly thereafter, Taulbee was killed after he lost control of his car and it flipped over into a ditch on the side of the roadway.

It is true that the suspect-driver is always partially responsible (and sometimes fully responsible) for any property damage or crash casualties because, as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once observed, it takes at least two drivers to have a chase.
And yet it is not uncommon to find police officials trying to shift all responsibility for any harmful consequences on to the suspect-driver with the argument that had the suspect simply pulled over, as he is legally obligated to do, there would not have been any crash casualties. That sweeping claim is misleading and self-serving. If an elderly lady obstinately refuses a police command to step out of her parked vehicle, the officer would not be justified in hitting her over the head with a baton. Similarly, if a shoplifter keeps running after an officer shouts “Halt!” the officer would not be justified in shooting him in the back. Disobedience to governmental authority cannot excuse brutality. By the same reasoning, police pursuits can and should be evaluated separately from the suspect’s wrongful actions.
Best Practices
Federal appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook has suggested a cost-benefit analysis of high-speed chases. According to Easterbrook, such an analysis would “consider not only the risks to passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers that high-speed chases engender, but also the fact that if police are forbidden to pursue, then many more suspects will flee—and successful flights not only reduce the number of crimes solved but also create their own risks for passengers and bystanders.” A rigorous academic analysis is beyond the scope of this primer, but it will be useful to briefly address several preconceptions that would be pertinent to such an analysis, and also to consider the experience of certain jurisdictions that have embraced pursuit restrictions.
The first preconception is that if high-speed pursuits are restricted, “everyone will just go ahead and flee the police.” This is an exaggeration. As noted above, in the vast majority of cases, drivers yield to the police siren and quickly pull over. To do otherwise is to commit a new offense, something the vast majority of people will refrain from doing. Limiting pursuits may bring about some increase in flight cases, but that would likely be on the margin and has to be weighed against the crashes and injuries averted because of the pursuit restrictions.
A second preconception is that high speed pursuits typically involve dangerous criminals. The thinking here is that restricting pursuits cannot possibly make the community safer because with more violent offenders avoiding arrest, they will be free to create more mayhem in the community. This preconception is perhaps understandable because it is a very common scenario in the movies and on television for the police to be chasing a dangerous villain at high speeds. Yet, experience shows that most pursuits are triggered by minor infractions. According to USA Today, 90 percent of the police chases in California between 2002 and 2014 were for vehicle code violations, not violent crimes.
A third preconception is the idea that restrictions on police pursuits are tantamount to complete non-enforcement of law. On this view, restrictions on police pursuits will make the community less safe because the scofflaws will be emboldened to commit even more infractions—even if they’re not violent offenses. It is a mistake, however, to make the leap from certain pursuit restrictions to non-enforcement. To take one example, some police departments will have police cruisers back off a chase on the ground but have a helicopter track the suspect vehicle from above. When the suspect exits the vehicle, patrol officers are alerted and they will then move in to make an arrest.
As noted above, pursuit policies vary among America’s 18,000 police departments. In general, policies and practices have tightened somewhat over the past 20 years. Whether because of increased media scrutiny, litigation fears, local politics, or conscientiousness, more and more departments are embracing pursuit restrictions. Here are several best practices:

• Some departments restrict the types of crimes that can trigger a chase. For example, allowing police to chase a suspect who committed a violent felony, but not allowing pursuits for traffic violations.
• Some restrictive policies focus on road conditions, including weather and traffic.
• Some departments prohibit certain tactics used by officers during a pursuit in order to minimize the risk of an accident, such as ramming techniques.
• Most importantly, many jurisdictions require officers to get supervisor permission in order to initiate a pursuit. The purpose of this requirement is to take the decision out of the hands of the officer in the field, who is likely experiencing an adrenaline rush and tunnel vision.

To identify best practices is not to say that they are common. It is unfortunate that many police departments either continue to leave the pursuit decision to the discretion of officers in the field, or do not seriously discipline officers who disregard departmental policy. Policy changes are too often ad hoc, after a tragedy, rather than after thoughtful consideration of the latest research.
There is empirical evidence, for example, showing that suspects are likely to slow down to a safe driving speed if pursuits are called off. University of South Carolina Professor Geoffrey Alpert interviewed suspects after they were apprehended and found that 70 percent of suspects said they would have stopped their flight when they “felt safe.” They classified “safe” as being 2 miles or 2 city blocks ahead of police.
In 2010, the Milwaukee Police Department put in a place a more restrictive policy after pursuits caused the deaths of four innocent people in a short period of time. After the first tragedy, Police Chief Ed Flynn defended his department by telling everyone that the chase officers “followed department policy.” After the second tragedy, Chief Flynn came to recognize that another policy would make his community safer. Chief Flynn acknowledged that his immediate duty is “to protect life: the lives of the innocent, the lives of police officers and the lives of offenders.”
In 2006, the Dallas Police Department (DPD) put in place one of the most restrictive pursuit policies in the country. In 2011, while slightly altering the pursuit guidelines, the Dallas Chief of Police David Brown noted, “injuries and deaths to both officers and citizens have plummeted since the institution of the current policy. This must continue to be our focus when deciding to engage in high-risk activities such as police pursuits.” DPD restricts pursuits to situations where the suspect “poses a danger to the public that outweighs the risks posed by the pursuit” – e.g. violent felonies.
One important way to avoid tragedies is to find alternatives to high speed chases. “Bait vehicle” technologies have provided law enforcement with a powerful tool to catch car thieves in a safe and effective manner. With the ability to shut down the engine of the bait car remotely, there is no need for a high-speed pursuit. Another alternative tactic, as mentioned above, is helicopters. While helicopters are expensive and not all police departments can afford them, it would be worthwhile to improve regional and interagency cooperation in order to avoid, or at least reduce, high-speed pursuits. Drones will doubtless be tested for pursuit surveillance as a less expensive substitute for helicopters over the next ten years.
A serious obstacle that has hobbled a thorough cost-benefit analysis of police pursuits has been inadequate information. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tries to track the circumstances of all automobile fatalities. According to NHTSA, pursuits kill about 350 people every year. However, NHTSA’s tally has severe limitations. First, NHTSA only tallies deaths, not injuries. Second, even NHTSA’s fatality numbers are very likely to undercount the actual figure. This is because NHTSA relies upon police department reports on the automobile deaths. If the fleeing suspect hits a tree and dies, officers might report the fatality, but omit the circumstances of the police pursuit. USA Today discovered and reported on such discrepancies in NHTSA’s statistics.
In 2014, Texas created a public statewide database for officer-involved shootings. Every police agency must report shootings to the state attorney general. The attorney general (AG), in turn, is required to post information about the shooting within five days. Each year, the AG must issue a public report summarizing his annual findings. Unlike some questionable proposals for federal data-collection, this state-level data-gathering model is fully consistent with the constitutional principle of federalism. Every state should have such a system in place, not just for shootings, but for police chases as well, whether there are casualties or not. One of the benefits of decentralized policing is that departments can experiment with different policies, the results can then be studied, and best practices identified or refined. To make the reporting model work, however, state policymakers must find a way to sanction local departments that do not meet their reporting responsibilities.
Conclusion

• High speed police pursuits are inherently dangerous. They too often end in crashes that kill and severely injure people, including innocent bystanders.
• Many police pursuits are in response to non-violent offenses or even minor infractions. The risks posed by high speed pursuits in such situations are unjustified.
• The legal standards that apply to police pursuits vary across jurisdictions, but it is possible to embrace best practices that go beyond the legal minimum standard.
• Although there are about 100,000 police pursuits and hundreds of casualties every year, policymakers have largely neglected this dangerous aspect of police work. State-wide policies should be in place to both restrict and track police pursuits.

Suggested Readings
Geoffrey A. Alpert and Cynthia Lum, Police Pursuit Driving: Policy and Research (New York: Springer, 2014).
Kay Falk, “Chase or Not to Chase?: That’s the Question Facing Police Departments Around the Country,” Law Enforcement Technology, Volume 33, Issue 10 (October 2006).
Thomas Frank, “High-Speed Police Chases Have Killed Thousands of Innocent Bystanders,” USA Today, July 30, 2015.
Hugh Nugent, et al., “Restrictive Policies for High-Speed Police Pursuits” (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Issues and Practices Series No. 122025) (1990).
Richard G. Zevitz, “Police Civil Liability and the Law of High Speed Pursuit,” Marquette Law Review 70 (1987): 237.

Prepared by Tim Lynch.

OFF THE WIRE

OFF THE WIRE
fuck these guys,performing highway robbery
agingrebel.com
It is tempting for bikers to laugh off the holy crusade against “motorcycle noise” and aftermarket exhaust pipes. In the first place, the reasons for replacing the stock exhaust on a Harley are obvious to the people who do it.
Back in the day, 82 inch Shovelheads made about 70 horsepower right out of the box. Brand new 82 inch Twin Cams make about 58 horsepower. The reason for the decrease is that modern bikes are intentionally set up at the factory to run inefficiently. They must run poorly in order to meet the mileage, noise and pollution abatement goals that are mandated by a self-righteous and distant bureaucracy.
It all seems like so much red tape to most riders. Harley-Davidson does not build motorcycles that run well. Harley builds motorcycles that meet arbitrary and fatuous government standards. The standard set of improvements made to brand new motorcycles even has a name. Most people call it “the Harley tax.”
The Harley tax is the amount new owners must pay to “let the engine breathe.” The results of changing the pipes and air filter and fattening the gas to air mixture are immediate and potentially life saving. Motorcycles are small and vulnerable, so riders commonly try to stay safe by out-accelerating danger. And, factory pipes frustrate that ambition to stay alive.

Loud Pipes Save Lives

Secondly, as anybody who has ever actually ridden a motorcycle knows, Harleys are not vehicles so much as they are cloaks of invisibility. It is not simply a matter of motorists not seeing motorcycles. Drivers tend not to recognize the motorcycles they see as other motor vehicles sharing the road with them. So it is common for drivers to simply run over bikes. In the United States these collisions make the papers about 15 times a day. And, it is much harder to survive a freeway collision on a bike than in a car.
Motorcycles that are loud enough to be heard inside a sound-proofed passenger compartment are not only better able to run away from bike-blind motorists. They are also much harder to ignore. Even motorcycle cops know this.
In 2007, the city of Oakland put stock pipes on all 30 of its Harley-Davidsons. The new pipes stayed on until an Oakland cop riding a Harley with a stock exhaust was struck by a driver who said he never knew the motorcycle was there.
According to then Oakland Deputy Chief Dave Kozicki, “the decibel drop sparked a chorus of complaints from other officers, who said they felt less safe.” The department concluded, Kozicki went on to say, that “it was in the best interest of the officers to put more-audible pipes back on.”

The Noise Nuts

The campaign against “motorcycle noise” is also easy to dismiss because it is led by a bare handful of fatuous and unpleasant busybodies.
The concept of “noise pollution” was invented in 2004 by a UCLA professor of “political activism” named Ted Rueter. Rueter started a campaign called “Noise Free America” and as recently as 2005 he had to justify the concept to the left leaning digest Utne Reader. “A lot of people get off on noise and think that there’s something wrong with peace and quiet,” Rueter told the digest. “We’re still fighting a public perception that this is a trivial issue and anyone who’s concerned or interested in curbing noise is a crank.”
Other cranks became aroused when they heard Rueter’s seductive call and most of them took pains to make themselves appear more important than they actually are. The well known and often quoted group Noise Off is a guy named Richard Tur. (The spelling is not a typographical error. He actually spells his last name without the final “D.”)
A “citizen’s group” in Maine, called MECALM (Maine Citizens Against Loud Motorcycles) is a guy named Andy Ford who has a neighbor who is a state senator. A similar “grass roots organization” in New Hampshire called NHCALM is another guy named Bill Mitchell.
It is common to underestimate how important fanatics like Rueter, Tur, Ford and Mitchell are becoming. But, they are important because they are warping public perception and inspiring new laws.

New California Law

One of those is a California law scheduled to go into effect next year. It is called the “Motorcycle Anti-Tampering Act” and it was sponsored by a California State Senator named Fran Pavley. Pavley said her new law was aimed at “a few bad apples on our roads (who) are infringing on the rights of others with their illegal, attention-seeking loud pipes.” Pavley’s statement was a loathsome lie but it became true because nobody was able to contradict her.
Pavley is a former middle school teacher who represents the most affluent neighborhoods in Los Angeles and she demonstrates a tendency to treat other adults as if they are her middle school students. She is so ridiculous a person that it is also tempting to either ignore her or laugh her away. Unfortunately, she has the power to enact ridiculous laws.
Pavley’s law effectively forbids Harley owners from replacing their exhausts with better ones. The act requires motorcycle exhausts sold after 2012 to have a visible EPA stamp. The law also requires that motorcycles not exceed a sound level of 80 decibels which is 1.3 decibels quieter than New York’s tony Indochine restaurant on a quiet night as measured by the Zagat restaurant guide. It is 10 decibels quieter than a normal conversation, 30 decibels less than a lawn mower and about 15 decibels quieter than the police bikes in Oakland when they idle. Eighty decibels is also five decibels quieter than the traffic noise inside an auto with the windows rolled up.

Searches And Fines

Police departments throughout the country have eagerly jumped on the motorcycle noise abatement bandwagon. Not only is “loud” quickly becoming probable cause to detain passing motorcyclists. Ensuring that all passing motorcycles are not “loud” has become a reason to implement motorcycle road blocks. These road blocks are, in effect, dragnets that allow police to stop bikers in order to try to get something on them.
The 80 decibel limit is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it gives police a reason to stop and fine everybody. And, as everybody already knows, these fines are a growing revenue source for cities and towns desperate for cash. They are in effect, in the most literal way, highway robbery.
Money, rather than neurotics, is the main reason why motorcycle noise abatement campaigns are picking up steam. There is money in “motorcycle noise” for police and politicians.

Chris Real

There is also money in “motorcycle noise” for a guy named Chris Real.
In order to write the new California law and similar laws in cement, police must have a scientifically justifiable standard for measuring motorcycle noise. And, they must also have the equipment to make those scientific measurements. The author of the scientific procedure is an entrepreneur named Chris Real. He also makes the equipment.
The new standard for measuring motorcycle noise is titled SAE J2825. SAE used to be an abbreviation for “Society of Automotive Engineers.” It is now the trademark of a for-profit company called SAE International. SAE sets numerous standards ranging from socket sizes to the standard dimension of cargo containers. It leans heavily on independent contractors to invent its standards. Chris Real, who owns a company named DPS Technical Incrporated in Upland, California is the author of SAE J2825.
For the last year, since the California “Motorcycle Anti-Tampering Act” was signed into law, Real has been teaching the procedure he invented to cops around the country. The training in California has been subsidized by the state Office of Traffic Safety. The same state agency has also subsidized a campaign in Elk Grove, California to see how much revenue police there can generate by writing motorcycle noise tickets. The Elk Grove police have been writing the tickets for the last year. They don’t write noise tickets for jackhammers or trucks. They only write noise tickets for motorcycles.
Real’s procedure uses what Real sells. DPS Technical’s main product is a “law enforcement sound measurement kit.” The kit includes a “Sound Level Meter, ANSI Type 1 Field Calibrator, 2 vibration tachometers, measuring tape, OHV RPM testing data, spark arrester probe and case.” It also includes “certificates of calibration, personal protection equipment and field carrying case and (an) informational DVD.”
A “typical kit for field enforcement purposes,” the “PN: SLM ENV KT 1” costs $3,100.
No highway robber should be without one.

OFF THE WIRE
You Know You Are Living In 2017 When…
1. You accidentally enter your PIN on the microwave.
2. You haven’t played solitaire with real cards in years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of three.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends and family is that they don’t have e-mail addresses.
6. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is home to help you carry in the groceries…
7. Every commercial on television has a web site at the bottom of the screen.
8. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which you didn’t even have the first 20 or 30 or 60 years of your life, is now a cause for panic, and you turn around to go and get it.
10. You get up in the morning and go online before getting your coffee.
11. You start tilting your head sideways to smile. : )
12. You’re reading this and nodding and laughing.
13. Even worse, you know exactly to whom you are going to forward this message.
14. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this list.
15. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn’t a #9 on this list .

NOW you’re laughing at yourself! “Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused!”
Go on, forward this to your friends. You know you want to!

OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
First Published
Mon, Oct 27, 2008

Everyone agrees, we must be stopped by any means necessary, fair or foul. The latest weapon against us is the “noise pollution” law.
Right out of the gate, let’s not dance around. First thing, let’s state two self-evident truths.
“Noise pollution” laws are a most excellent example of what Clinton guru Dick Morris used to call “bite-sized” laws. And, the political concept behind “bite-sized” laws is: Government at all levels is impotent to do anything about anything that matters but self-serving politicians can at least win elections by conjuring problems out of the thin air and then creating the illusion that they are solving those imaginary problems.
Secondly, in case you haven’t noticed, municipal governments are gathering more and more of their revenue these days from the enforcement of traffic laws. Have you been seeing more cops on the road lately and you still are not sure what is behind all that “police presence?” Money. Now you know. Money.
One way to increase revenue from traffic fines is to find more efficient ways to enforce existing laws-like “red light cameras” which automate the enforcement of laws against turning right on a red light after less than a full two-second stop. Right turns on red after a rolling or too brief a stop account for about 99 percent of these tickets. In Los Angeles these tickets result in a $385 fine and that amount is split evenly between the city and the private firm that franchises these devices and stores the video evidence.
A second way to increase revenue from traffic fines is to invent new traffic offenses, like motorcycle “noise pollution.”
Noise Pollution
Noise pollution is one of those new problems that have been created as if by magic. Sure, people who live near railroad tracks and airports have been bothered forever. But, the idea of noise as a kind of pollution, like smoke or dust, was just invented in 2004. And, the inventor was a college professor named Ted Rueter.
Rueter, who taught “political activism” at UCLA, founded a “group,” with a membership of “one,” called “Noise Free America.”
“A lot of people get off on noise and think that there’s something wrong with peace and quiet,” Rueter told the Utne Reader in 2005. “We’re still fighting a public perception that this is a trivial issue and anyone who’s concerned or interested in curbing noise is a crank.”
Note Rueter’s use of the imperial “we.” Isn’t that great? We. “We are still fighting….”
Rueter went on to tell the Utne Reader that he (or maybe we) “dreams of the day when a forward-thinking class action attorney decides to take offending manufacturers to court. ‘It would be a monumental case-much stronger than anything you could throw at the fast food industry…no one is being forced to go to McDonald’s.’”
Harley’s Brave Stand For Us
As Rueter’s crusade pertains to motorcycles, the manufacturer he is soliciting underemployed lawyers to sue is, naturally, Harley-Davidson. And, nothing so terrifies any big corporation more than the phrase, “Class Action Lawsuit.” So, in case you have been wondering why Harley CEO Jim McCaslin went on the company website in 2006 and wrote these words about motorcycle noise:
“So what if you’ve picked the wrong pipes? Then you have a very important individual decision to make. We all do. No one expects everyone to change out their straight pipes overnight. But we all must consider changing out our thinking. We need to think about the consequences our actions have on others, before others take action against us.”
Yeah. Us. Now you know that, too.
The “action” McCaslin was talking about was a class action lawsuit. And, the us he was talking about was him. And, now you also know why Harley has been so timid about this subject in general.
Victims Of Noise Pollution Speak Out, Newz At Eleven
The “noise pollution issue” has offered cynical local politicians and highly paid cops a new means to increase revenue and exercise social control over people like us who tend to have unruly hair and colorful tattoos.
Rueter sent out press releases. Of course, he did. What else does a “political activism” professor do?
Local newspapers printed these releases virtually verbatim and thus alerted the American people to this new threat. “Laura!”
“What is it this time, George?”
“Have you seen this in the paper? About noise pollution. No wonder we ain’t happy no more like we was.”
After reading about their new problem, people demanded that something be done by somebody. And, of course the police and the politicians proved that they were doing a good job by ticketing us.
This time us means us. Okay? If you are reading this chances are good you are one of us. Us.
The magical, lucrative, travelling, “noise pollution,” medicine show has passed through many American towns in the last four years. In the last month it has been strumming and dancing its way through Myrtle Beach, SC on the east coast and Temecula, CA on the west.
Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach passed an ordinance on September 23 that states: “Motorcycles built after Dec. 31, 1982, must have unmodified exhaust mufflers bearing federal Environmental Protection Agency stickers or stamps. Motorcycles built before Dec. 31, 1982, must not be louder than 83 decibels when measured from 20 inches away.”
Bikes that are louder than 83 decibels must be impounded and are not released until the owner shows up with a tow truck. Once impounded the bikes cannot be ridden out of Myrtle Beach.
Now, eighty-three decibels is an entirely arbitrary number. It is a sound level somebody picked out a hat.
By way of comparison, a telephone dial tone is 80 decibels. Which is also the Federal standard for a motorcycle exhaust. Eighty decibels. Consider that. Someone in Washington with the power to invent new laws thinks that a motorcycle should be exactly as loud as a dial tone.
The decibel level inside a closed car in traffic is 85 decibels. That is two decibels louder than the Myrtle Beach standard for a bike. So, the Myrtle Beach standard guarantees that if you are in a car and there is a motorcycle in your blind spot you will never know he is there.
A subway train at a distance of 200 feet is 95 decibels. And, the crescendo of “Ode To Joy” the fourth movement of Ludwig Van Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony-a tune you know and you have hummed even if you do not recognize the title-is about 125 decibels. Joy. Beethoven wanted to make the great, overpowering sound of joy.
So, soon a call must go out in this great land. One of the great musical treasures of western civilization will be discovered by television news to be loud. Loud! And so, we-and by we I mean them-must ban Beethoven! We must ban Beethoven now or who is to say where all this Beethoven pollution will ever stop!
Temecula
California also has a number, 95 decibels. And again, it is a number that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) more or less picked out of the air. It is not a bad number. It is a better number than the Myrtle Beach number.
But then, since when does a California cop need a number? In an article in the Malibu Times in 2005, CHP information officer Leland Tang admitted that whether a motorcycle is too loud or not too loud is “open to the officer’s interpretation, with experience and training, as to what is too loud.”
Got that? Trust the policeman. He is your friend. You know he will do what is right. That is the actual California standard: “The officer’s interpretation.”
Consequently, Temecula which has in the past been a destination for weekend riders, issued 60 tickets during the first three weekends in September. And, the tickets were all issued on an individual officer’s “interpretation,” based on his “experience and training” of what was “too loud.”
Why Loud Pipes
If you changed out your pipes you know why you did it. First, it allowed you to go from 58 horsepower to 68 horsepower. And a 15 percent increase in power makes a huge difference in your ability to accelerate away from danger. Secondly, and more importantly, loud pipes save lives.
People who have never been on a motorcycle routinely mock the notion that loud pipes save lives. Ted Rueter has repeatedly mocked the “myth” that loud pipes save lives. Critics of the “myth” always argue that most motorcycle accidents occur in front of the bike so it must have been the biker who was at fault and the loudness of his pipes could not have made any difference.
Of course you know how loud pipes save lives. Accidents happen in front of the bike because somebody has turned in front of you. Or somebody has pulled out of a side street or a driveway in front of you.
And after they do this, while you and the bike are both laying there, leaking oil and blood all over the asphalt, when the first witness arrives, these motorists always say the same thing. They say, “I never knew he was there.”
Oakland
Even cops know loud pipes save lives. Take for example, the Oakland, CA Police Department.
Oakland is an old school department that still rides Harley-Davidsons and last spring, the city did a study that indicated that their police bikes might be noise polluters. Consequently all 30 of the department’s Harleys were fitted with quieter, stock exhaust systems. These were the exhausts that come with the bikes, the exhausts you drive out of the dealership.
And, that improvement in the way things are lasted all the way until March, 2008 when an Oakland motorcycle cop riding a Harley with a stock exhaust was struck by an automobile driver who said he never knew the motorcycle was there.
According to Oakland Deputy Chief Dave Kozicki, quoted in the San Francisco Examiner, “the decibel drop sparked a chorus of complaints from other officers, who said they felt less safe.” The department concluded, Kozicki went on to say, that “it was in the best interest of the officers to put more-audible pipes back on.”
So, Oakland paid $15,000 to put new louder pipes on 30 department bikes and when the city bought another 15 bikes they came with louder, non-standard exhaust systems as well.
The new exhausts, when tested, averaged 93 decibels. So, all 45 bikes would be impounded in Myrtle Beach. And, how they would do in Temecula would depend on the moon, the tides, astrology and the mood of the local cops that minute in that hour on that day.

OFF THE WIRE

OFF THE WIRE
by David Geer
In the last year’s statistics showed that technology is taking lives as teens and millennials are using their mobile devices while driving. According to Pew Research, the average American teen sends 60 texts in a day, which means lots of them might be read or written behind the wheel. The number of teens killed while texting and driving is also rising, painting a bleak image.
Another report from the American Automobile Association revealed that six in ten car accidents involving teens are caused by using a mobile device.
Even a Little Apple Watch Causes Big Problems!!

According to Michael Ehline, famous car accident attorney, and partner of Ehline law firm  The Apple Watch is very popular. Millions use it to keep track of their daily walks or play their favorite music. When paired with an iPhone the device is very powerful. However, when used behind a wheel it can be a matter of life or death.

The large number of these watches on drivers’ wrists is a unique threat and  causes many car accidents and injuries. It is up to us to figure out how to reduce the number of accidents caused by this device. However, these studies also showed that distracted driving can be avoided and the ways to prevent a crash or a road incident are quite simple.
Simply turn it off
The best solution is to turn off the device. Parents can lead by example on this one, but if your teen doesn’t want to turn off the phone, there is another way to solve the problem. Placing the phone out of reach is just as effective as turning it off. When you can’t pick it up, you will have to either give up using it or stop the car, which are both going to keep you safe.
Teaching your teen safety measures
If you are trying to teach your teen to stop using the phone, it’s important to show him that each time you have to use the phone or another device, you stop the car. Make a habit of doing this, so your teen will have a role model. Even when you don’t really have to use the phone, but you want to give an example, do this exercise. It’s better to start doing this before your child gets the driving license, so he or she will already have a strong idea of what’s the norm on the road.
No more hands-free devices
Hands-free devices allow drivers to use the phone legally, but they don’t provide any safety. Studies revealed that using a hands-free device leads to something called cognitive distraction when your eyes are on the road, but you don’t actually notice the dangers. Moreover, using the hands-free encourages mobile device usage on the road.
Education starts from parents
Millennials are now old enough to know the dangers of distracted driving, yet they fail to actually take them into account. This has to do with the fact their parents, who were not using the phone while driving, couldn’t teach them how to avoid this distraction.As the parent of a teen driver, you have the opportunity to educate him or her on the real dangers. Teens tend to see laws as something they can break, so explain to your child that he or she must care for their own safety first, then the law. Yes, distracted driving is illegal because it leads to death, but the teen must know this from his parents, in order to understand the risks.
Anti-tech devices
Despite everything, teens are prone to ignore all the risks and continue to use the mobile devices behind the wheel. To prevent this, companies started to develop technological solutions, which turn off the phone when the owner enters the car. Once installed, these systems can’t be turned off by the teen, so the parent can be sure the phone will be off during the whole trip.
This rather extreme solution might have its own faults, so the best way to protect yourself and your child is to become aware of the dangers of distracted driving and stop using the devices. After all, there is no call more important than your own life.

OFF THE WIRE
...
...SOME OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS

  THE BAD NEWS.....is that police abuse is a serious problem. It has a long
history, and it seems to defy all attempts at eradication.

 The problem is national -- no police department in the country is known to
be completely free of misconduct -- but it must be fought locally. The
nation's 19,000 law enforcement agencies are essentially independent. While
some federal statutes that specify criminal penalties for willful violations
of civil rights and conspiracies to violate civil rights, the United States
Department of Justice has been insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting
cases of police abuse.

 There are shortcomings, too, in federal law itself, which does not permit
"pattern and practice" lawsuits. The battle against police abuse must,
therefore, be fought primarily on the local level.

 THE GOOD NEWS.....is that the situation is not hopeless. Policing has seen
much progress. Some reforms do work, and some types of abuse have been
reduced. Today, among both police officials and rank and file officers it is
widely recognized that police brutality hinders good law enforcement.

 To fight police abuse effectively, you must have realistic expectations.
You must not expect too much of any one remedy because no single remedy will
cure the problem. A "mix" of reforms is required. And even after citizen
action has won reforms, your community must keep the pressure on through
monitoring and oversight to ensure that the reforms are actually
implemented.

 Nonetheless, even one person, or a small group of persistent people, can
make a big difference. Sometimes outmoded and abusive police practices
prevail largely because no one has ever questioned them. In such cases, the
simple act of spotlighting a problem can have a powerful effect that leads
to reform. Just by raising questions, one person or a few people -- who need
not be experts -- can open up some corner of the all-too-secretive and
insular world of policing to public scrutiny. Depending on what is revealed,
their inquiries can snowball into a full blown examination by the media, the
public and politicians.

II. GETTING STARTED: IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM:

 You've got to address specific problems. The first step, then, is to
identify exactly what the police problems are in your city. What's wrong
with your police department is not necessarily the same as what's wrong in
another city. Police departments are different in size, quality of
management, local traditions and the severity of problems. Some departments
are gravely corrupt; others are relatively "clean" but have poor relations
with community residents. Also, a city's political environment, which
affects both how the police operate and the possibilities for achieving
reform, is different in every city. For example, it is often easier to
reform police procedures in cities that have a tradition of "good
government," or in cities where minorities are well organized politically.

The range of police problems includes:

Excessive use of deadly force.

Excessive use of physical force.

Discriminatory patterns of arrest.

Patterns of harassment of such "undesirables" as the homeless, youth,
minorities and gays, including aggressive and discriminatory use of the
"stop-and-frisk" and overly harsh enforcement of petty offenses.

Chronic verbal abuse of citizens, including racist, sexist and homophobic
slurs.

Discriminatory non-enforcement of the law, such as the failure to respond
quickly to calls in low-income areas, and half-hearted investigations of
domestic violence, rape or hate crimes.

Spying on political activists.

Employment discrimination -- in hiring, promotion and assignments, and
internal harassment of minority, women and gay or lesbian police personnel.

The "code of silence" and retaliation against officers who report abuse
and/or support reforms.

 Overreaction to "gang" problems, which is driven by the assumption that
most or all associational activity is gang-related. This includes illegal
mass stops and arrests, and demanding photo IDs from young men based on
their race and dress instead of their criminal conduct.

 The "war on drugs," with its overboard searches and other tactics that
endanger innocent bystanders. This "war" wastes scarce resources on
unproductive "buy and bust" operations to the neglect of more promising
community-based approaches.

Lack of accountability, such as the failure to discipline or prosecute
abusive officers, and the failure to deter abuse by denying promotions
and/or particular assignments because of prior abusive behavior.

 Crowd control tactics that infringe on free expression rights and lead to
unnecessary use of physical force.

III. GATHER THE FACTS

 The first thing to bear in mind about the "homework" community residents
have to do in order to build a strong case for reform is that obtaining the
most relevant information on the activities of your police department can be
a tough task. In answer to critics, police chiefs often cite various
official data to support their claim that they are really doing a great job.
"Look at the crime rate," they say, "it's lower than in other cities." Or:
"My department's arrest rate is much higher than elsewhere." The catch is
that these data, though readily available to citizens, are deeply flawed,
while the most telltale information is not always easy to get.

 FORGET The "Crime Rate." The "crime rate" figures cited by government
officials are based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system, which
has several serious flaws. To name only a few: First, the UCR only measures
reported crime.

 Second, since the system is not independently audited there are no
meaningful controls over how police departments use their crime data. Police
officers can and do "unfounded" crimes, meaning they decide that no crime
occurred. They also "downgrade" crimes -- for example, by officially
classifying a rape as an assault. Third, reports can get "lost," either
deliberately or inadvertently.

 There are many other technical problems that make the UCR a dubious measure
of the extent of crime problems. The National Crime Survey (NCS), published
by another part of the U.S. Justice Department, provides a far more accurate
estimate of the national crime rate and of long-term trends in crime. But it
is a national-level estimate and does not provide data on individual cities.
So the NCS isn't much help on the local level.

 FORGET The "Clearance Rate." A police department's official data on its
"clearance rate," which refers to the percentage of crimes solved, do not
accurately reflect that department's performance. The fact that one
department "clears" 40 percent of all robberies, compared with 25 percent by
another department, doesn't necessarily mean it is more effective. There are
too many ways to manipulate the data, either by claiming a larger number of
crimes "cleared" (inflating the numerator), or by artificially lowering the
number of reported crimes (lowering the denominator).

 FORGET The arrest rate. Police officers have broad discretion in making and
recording arrests. The Police Foundation (in Washington, D.C.), which
conducts research on policing issues, has found great variations among
police departments in their recording of arrests. In many departments,
police officers take people into custody, hold them at the station, question
and then release them without filling out an arrest report. For all
practical purposes, these people were "arrested," but their arrests don't
show up in the official data. Other departments record such arrests. Thus,
the department that reports a lower number of arrests may actually be taking
more people into custody than the department that reports more arrests.

 FORGET The citizen complaint rate. Official data on the complaints filed by
citizens regarding police conduct are important but present a number of
problems. Many departments do not release any information on this subject.
Some publish a smattering of information on complaints and the percentage of
complaints sustained by the department. In more and more cities, the
civilian review agency publishes this data.

 Data on citizen complaints are difficult to interpret. Some examples: In
1990, it was widely reported that San Francisco, with less than 2,000 police
officers, had more citizen complaints than Los Angeles, which has more than
8,000 officers. What that may mean, however, is that Los Angeles residents
are afraid to file reports or don't believe it would do any good. San
Francisco has a relatively independent civilian review process, which may
encourage the filing of more complaints. Also in 1990, New York City
reported a decline from previous years in the number of citizen complaints
filed. But many analysts believe that simply reflected New Yorkers'
widespread disillusionment with their civilian review board. Citizen
complaints filed in Omaha, Nebraska doubled after the mayor allowed people
to file their complaints at City Hall, as well as the police department.

Another problem is that in some police departments with internal affairs
systems, officers often try to dissuade people from filing formal complaints
that will later become part of an officer's file. And the number of
complaints counted is also affected by whether or not the internal affairs
system accepts anonymous complaints and complaints by phone or mail, or
requires in-person, sworn statements.

 Thus, the official "complaint rate" (complaints per 1,000 citizens), rather
than being a reliable measure of police performance, more than likely
reflects the administrative customs of a particular police department.

WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW, AND WHY

 Police shootings. You need to know about police firearms discharges, which
refer to the number of times a police weapon has been fired. This
information is more complete than statistics on the number of persons shot
and wounded or killed. (However, information on the race of persons shot and
wounded or killed is important.) Particularly important is information on
repeat shooters, which can tell you whether some officers fire their weapons
at a suspiciously high rate.

 With this information, you can evaluate the use of deadly force in your
department. You can also evaluate the long-term trends in shootings. Are
shootings increasing or decreasing? Has there been a recent upsurge? How
does the department compare with other departments -- are officers shooting
at a significantly higher rate in your department than elsewhere?

SIDEBAR: WHO SHOOTS?

*Do some officers shoot more often than others? *Do white officers shoot
more often that black officers? *Do young officers shoot more often than
veteran officers?

 The most detailed analysis of police shootings was produced by James Fyfe,
a former police officer who is now a criminologist and expert on police
practices. He concluded that the single most important factor determining
patterns of shooting is place of assignment. Fyfe's findings showed that:
Black and white officers assigned to similar precincts fired their weapons
at essentially the same rate; since new officers are assigned to less
desirable, high crime precincts based on the seniority system, younger
officers shoot more often than older officers; and since a disproportionate
number of black officers are young due to recent affirmative action
programs, black officers shoot more often than white officers -- but as a
function of assignment, not race.

 Fyfe found significant differences in shooting patterns between police
departments. The overall shooting rate in some departments was significantly
higher than in others, a disparity that he attributed to differences in
department policy.

 SOURCE: James J. Fyfe, "Who Shoots? - - A Look At Officer, Race And Police
Shooting." Journal of Police Science And Administration; Volume 9, December
1981; pp. 367-382.

 B. Use of physical force. You need to know how frequently, day to day,
police officers in your city use physical force in the course of their
encounters with citizens. Do officers try to refrain from using such force
against citizens, or do they quickly and casually resort to force?

 In its report on the Los Angeles police department in the aftermath of the
March 1991 beating of Rodney King, the Christopher Commission confirmed a
long held suspicion: a small number of officers are involved in an
extraordinarily high percentage of use of force incidents. Ten percent of
the officers accounted for 33.2% of all use of force incidents. The
Commission was able to identify 44 such officers who were not disciplined
despite the fact that they were the subjects of numerous citizen complaints.


 In 1981, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found a similar pattern in
Houston and recommended, as a remedy, that police departments establish
"early warning systems" to identify officers with high rates of citizen
complaints.

 Patterns in the use of physical force reveal a lot about the "culture" of a
particular police department. Clearly, a department whose officers
repeatedly engage in physically coercive conduct needs reform. Police
officials often deny that their personnel are prone to using force
inappropriately, so if your community believes it has a problem in this area
citizens must be able to support their claims with existing data, or data
they have gathered themselves.

SIDEBAR: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN POLICE SHOOTINGS

  These data indicate a clear pattern of racial discrimination. The
disparity between whites and blacks shot and killed is extreme in the
category of persons "unarmed and not assaultive." These are classic "fleeing
felon" situations in which, prior to 1985, Memphis Police Department policy
and the common law of many states permitted officers to use deadly force. In
1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a police
officer to shoot a suspected felon in flight who does not pose an immediate
danger to the officer or public. The case -- Tennessee v. Garner -- involved
Edward Garner, a 15 year-old black youth who, though unarmed, was shot and
killed while trying to flee the scene of a suspected burglary.

POLICE SHOOTINGS IN MEMPHIS 1969-1974

Person Shot and Killed Number Shot and Killed White Black

Armed and Assaultive 5 7

Unarmed and Assaultive 2 6

Unarmed and Not Assaultive 1 13

 In examining official policies, you need to evaluate them in comparison to
recommended standards.

 D. Lawsuits. You need to know how many lawsuits citizens have filed against
your local police department. You want to know what the charges were, the
number of officers involved, whether certain officers are named repeatedly
in suits, what was the outcome and, in the case of successful suits, how
much did the city pay in damages.

 The number of lawsuits filed against a police department can be very
revealing. For example, the Los Angeles Times reported that the city paid
$64 million (of citizens' tax money!) in damages for abuses by the Los
Angeles Police Department and county sheriff's office in just three years --
1989-1991. In 1990 alone, New York City paid victims of police misconduct a
record high of more than $13 million. This kind of information can be used
to mobilize middle-class taxpayers and "good-government" activists, who can
then be brought into a community coalition against police abuse.

 E. Minority employment. You need to know how many African Americans,
panics, Asians, other minorities and women are employed by your police
department and their distribution throughout the department's ranks.

 This information is useful in assessing, again, the "culture" of your local
police department -- is it internally diverse, fair and equitable? It also
suggests how much value the department places on the "human relations"
aspects of its work, and how responsive it is to community concerns.

WHERE TO GET THE INFORMATION, AND HOW

 Police business is generally shrouded in secrecy, which conceals outdated
policies and departmental inertia, encourages cover-ups and, of course,
breeds public suspicion. But remember: Police departments are an arm of
government, and *the government's business is your business*. Police
policies, procedures, memoranda, records, reports, tape recordings, etc.
should not be withheld from public view unless their release would threaten
on-going investigations, endanger officers or others, or invade someone's
personal privacy.

 Demanding information about police practices is an important part of the
struggle to establish police accountability. Indeed, a campaign focused
solely on getting information from the police can serve as a vehicle for
organizing a community to tackle police abuse. Regarding all of the
following categories, one of the tactics your community could employ is to
interest a local investigative journalist in seeking information from the
police for a series of articles. Once in hand, the information is a tool for
holding the police accountable for their actions.

 Police Shootings. Virtually every big city police department has this
information on hand, since officers are required to file a report after
every firearms discharge. Departments are supposed to publish a summary of
weapons discharges every year, but they don't usually release the
information voluntarily. Strong civilian review boards in a few cities now
publish the information. As for repeat shooters, this information exists in
police reports but police departments vigorously resist identifying repeat
shooters. There are several ways to proceed:

(1) As an organizing strategy, demand that the police department publish
this data, identify the repeaters and take appropriate remedial action
(counseling, retraining, formal discipline, transfer, etc.)

(2) Alternatively, since it isn't essential that officers be identified by
name, demand that they be identified simply by a code number, which can
focus public attention on the problem of excessive shooters.

(3) Visit your local civilian review agency, if one exists. These agencies
often have the authority to collect and release a range of information about
local police conduct.

SIDEBAR: ON DRUGS, GANGS AND POLICE OFFICER SAFETY

 Police work remains dangerous, and many police officers contend that they
need greater freedom to use deadly force today because of the increase in
heavily armed drug gangs.

 But in fact, police work is much less dangerous than it used to be. The
number of officers killed in the line of duty is half of what it was nearly
20 years ago. According to the FBI, the number of officers killed dropped
from 134 in 1973 to 67 in 1990. That reduced death rate is even more
dramatic considering the increase in the number of police officers on duty
in the field.

Police officers have not been the victims of "drive-by" gang shootings.
Innocent by-standers and rival gang members have been the victims.

The police do not need more firepower.

B. Physical Force. There are three potential sources of data on police use
of physical force.

(1) Data developed by community residents. Community residents can make a
significant contribution to documenting physical force abuses and, in the
process, organize. They can bear witness to, and record, abuse incidents,
take information from others who have witnessed incidents, refute police
department arguments that there is no problem and help document the
inadequacies of the police department's official complaint review process.

 The San Diego chapter of the ACLU's Southern California affiliate set up
"police hotline," which is listed in the Yellow Pages, to receive complaints
about the police. The chapter's first report on the hotline, issued in
August 1990, offers some useful information about complaint patterns. The
Police Watch in Los Angeles compiles similar data. To receive a copy of the
San Diego ACLU report, write to the ACLU/San Diego, 1202 Kettner Boulevard,
Suite 6200, San Diego, CA 92101, or call (619) 232-2121. Police Watch can be
contacted at 611 South Catalina, Suite 409, Los Angeles, CA 90005;
(213)387-3325.

(2) Formal complaints filed by citizens. Most police departments do not make
this information public. Some publish summary data in their annual report,
so consult that document. In a number of cities, civilian review agencies
publish it, so check with that agency in your city. The annual reports of
the New York City Citizen Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and San Francisco's
Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) provide fairly detailed summaries.

(3) Internal police reports. An increasing number of police departments
require officers to fill out reports after any use of physical force. This
is a larger set of data than the citizen complaints would provide, since
many citizens don't file complaints even when they have cause to do so. Ask
to see these reports.

C. Official Policies. Your police department has a Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) manual (it may have another title) that contains the
official policies of the department. The SOP manual is a public document and
should be readily available. Some departments place current copies in local
libraries. Others treat it as an internal document not available to the
public -- which is unacceptable. Demand to see the manual, if your
department withholds it. As a last resort, you can file suit under your
state's open records law to obtain the SOP manual.

D. Lawsuits. Lawsuits brought against police departments are matters of
public record. Records of suits brought in state courts reside at your local
state courthouse; of suits brought in federal district court, at your local
federal courthouse. The Lexis computer database is a source of published
opinions in civilian suits brought against the police. However, collecting
information from any of these sources is a very laborious task. Better to
contact your local ACLU affiliate and/or other relevant public interest
groups, which may have done most of the work for you. In the back of this
manual, find the name and address of your local ACLU and other
organizations.

E. Minority Employment. Official data on this issue are generally reliable
and available from your local police department. If the police stonewall,
you can get the information from the city's personnel division. The point is
to evaluate the police department's minority employment record relative to
local conditions.

 Using current data, compare the percentage of a particular group of people
in the local population with that group's representation on the police
force. If, for example, Hispanic Americans are 30 percent of the population
but only 15 percent of the sworn officers, the your police department is
only half way toward achieving an ideal level of diversity.

IV. CONTROLLING THE POLICE: COMMUNITY GOALS

GOAL #1: A CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD

 Civilian review of police activity was first proposed in the 1950s because
of widespread dissatisfaction with the internal disciplinary procedures of
police departments. Many citizens didn't believe that police officials took
their complaints seriously. They suspected officials of investigating
allegations of abuse superficially at best, and of covering up misconduct.
The theory underlying the concept of civilian review is that civilian
investigations of citizen complaints are more independent because they are
conducted by people who are not sworn officers.

 At first, civilian review was a dream few thought would ever be fulfilled.
But slow, steady progress has been made, indicating that it's an idea whose
time has come. By the end of 1991, more than 60 percent of the nation's 50
largest cities had civilian review systems, half of which were established
between 1986 and 1991.

Civilian review advocates in every city have had to overcome substantial
resistance from local police departments. One veteran of the struggle for
civilian review has chronicled the stages of police opposition as follows:

> the "over our dead bodies" stage, during which police will not accept any
type of civilian oversight under any circumstances;

> the "magical conversion" stage, when it becomes politically inevitable
that civilian review will be adopted. At this point, former police opponents
suddenly become civilian review experts and propose the weakest possible
models; Strong community advocacy is necessary to overcome resistance at
every stage, even after civilian review is established.

WHAT IS CIVILIAN REVIEW?

Confusion reigns about civilian review systems because they vary
tremendously.

 Some are more "civilian" than others. Some are not boards but municipal
agencies headed by an executive director (who has been appointed by, and is
accountable to, the mayor).

The three basic types of civilian review systems are:

(1) Type I. Persons who are not sworn officers conduct the initial
fact-finding. They submit an investigative report to a non-officer or board
of non-officers, requesting a recommendation of discipline or leniency. This
process is the most independent and most "civilian."

(2) Type II. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding. They submit an
investigative report to a non-officer or board of non-officers for a
recommendation.

(3) Type III. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding and make a
recommendation to the police chief. If the aggrieved citizen is not
satisfied with the chief's action on the complaint, he or she may appeal to
aboard that includes non-officers. Obviously, this process is the least
independent.

 Although the above are the most common, other types of civilian review
systems also exist.

SIDEBAR: TEN PRINCIPLES FOR AN EFFECTIVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD

1 Independence. The power to conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses and report
findings and recommendations to the public.

2 Investigatory Power. The authority to independently investigate incidents
and issue findings on complaints.

3 Mandatory Police Cooperation. Complete access to police witnesses and
documents through legal mandate or subpoena power.

4 Adequate Funding. Should not be a lower budget priority than police
internal affairs systems.

5 Hearings. Essential for solving credibility questions and enhancing public
confidence in process.

6 Reflect Community Diversity. Board and staff should be broadly
representative of the community it serves.

7 Policy Recommendations. Civilian oversight can spot problem policies and
provide a forum for developing reforms.

8 Statistical Analysis. Public statistical reports can detail trends in
allegations, and early warning systems can identify officers who are
subjects of unusually numerous complaints.

9 Separate Offices. Should be housed away from police headquarters to
maintain independence and credibility with public.

10 Disciplinary Role. Board findings should be considered in determining
appropriate disciplinary action.

 WHY IS CIVILIAN REVIEW IMPORTANT?

 Civilian review establishes the principle of police accountability. Strong
evidence exists to show that a complaint review system encourages citizens
to act on their grievances. Even a weak civilian review process is far
better than none at all.

 A civilian review agency can be an important source of information about
police misconduct. A civilian agency is more likely to compile and publish
data on patterns of misconduct, especially on officers with chronic
problems, than is a police internal affairs agency.

 Civilian review can alert police administrators to the steps they must take
to curb abuse in their departments. Many well-intentioned police officials
have failed to act decisively against police brutality because internal
investigations didn't provide them with the facts.

 The existence of a civilian review agency, a reform in itself, can help
ensure that other needed reforms are implemented. A police department can
formulate model policies aimed at deterring and punishing misconduct, but
those policies will be meaningless unless a system is in place to guarantee
that the policies are aggressively enforced.

 Civilian review works, if only because it's at least a vast improvement
over the police policing themselves. Nearly all existing civilian review
systems reduce public reluctance to file complaints; reduce procedural
barriers to filing complaints; enhance the likelihood that statistical
reporting on complaints will be more complete; enhance the likelihood of an
independent review of abuse allegations; foster confidence in complainants
that they will get their "day in court" through the hearing process;
increase scrutiny of police policies that lead to citizen complaints, and
increase opportunities for other reform efforts.

 Your community's campaign should seek the strongest possible civilian
review system, one that is fully independent and designed for easy access.
But if all you can get adopted is a weak system, take it with the
understanding that once it's created you can press for changes to make it
more independent and effective.

 GOAL #2: CONTROL OF POLICE SHOOTINGS

 Police misconduct in the use of deadly force is an area in which
considerable progress has been made. Although the rate of deadly force abuse
is still intolerably high, national data reveal reductions, by as much as
35-to-40 percent in our 50 largest cities, in the number of persons shot and
killed by the police since the mid-1970s. This has been accompanied by a
significant reduction in the racial disparities among persons shot and
killed: since the 1970s, from about six minority persons to one white
person, down to three minority persons to one white.

 This progress serves as a model for controlling other forms of police
behavior.

  How was it achieved?  In the mid-1970s, police departments began to
develop restrictive internal policies on the use of deadly force. These
embodied the "defense of life" standard, which allows the use of deadly
force only when the life of an officer or some other person is in danger. In
1985, the Supreme Court finally upheld this standard in the case of
Tennessee v. Garner (see sidebar, "Racial Discrimination in Police
Shootings"). However, the majority of policies adopted by police departments
go beyond the courts Garner decision, prohibiting warning shots, shots to
wound, and other reckless actions. Most important, these policies require
officers to file written reports after each firearms discharge, and require
that those reports be automatically reviewed by higher-ranking officers.


 To meet goal #2, your community must:

(1) Ensure that the police department has a highly restrictive deadly force
policy. Most big city departments do. But the national trend data on
shootings suggest that medium-sized and small departments have not caught up
with the big cities, so much remains to be done there. Much remains to be
done as well in county sheriff and state police agencies, which have not
been subject to the same scrutiny as big city police departments.

(2) Ensure enforcement of the deadly force policy through community
monitoring.

To be accountable, the police department and/or the local civilian review
agency should publish summary data on shooting incidents.

Citizens should also be able to find out whether the department disciplines
officers who violate its policy, and whether certain officers are repeatedly
involved in questionable incidents.

SIDEBAR: THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DEADLY FORCE POLICY (1987)

POLICY: The Houston Police Department places its highest value on the life
and safety of its officers and the public. The department's policies, rules
and procedures are designed to ensure that this value guides police
officers' use of firearms.

RULES: The policy stated above is the basis of the following set of rules
that have been designed to guide officers in all cases involving the use of
firearms:

*The citizens of Houston have vested in their police officers the power to
carry and use firearms in the exercise of their service to society. This
power is based on trust and, therefore, must be balanced by a system of
accountability.

 The serious consequences of the use of firearms by police officers
necessitate the specification of limits for officers' discretion; there is
often no appeal from an officer's decision to use a firearm. Therefore, it
is imperative that every effort be made to ensure that such use is not only
legally warranted but also rational and humane.

*The basic responsibility of police officers to protect life also requires
that they exhaust all other reasonable means for apprehension and control
before resorting to the use of firearms. Police officers are equipped with
firearms as a means of last resort to protect themselves and others from the
immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

*Even though all officers must be prepared to use their firearms when
necessary, the utmost restraint must be exercised in their use.
Consequently, no officer will be disciplined for discharging a firearm in
self-defense or in defense of another when faced with a situation that
immediately threatens life or serious bodily injury. Just as important, no
officer will be disciplined for not discharging a firearm if that discharge
might threaten the life or safety of an innocent person, or if the discharge
is not clearly warranted by the policy and rules of the department.

 *Above all, this department values the safety of its employees and the
public.

 Likewise it believes that police officers should use firearms with a high
degree of restraint. Officers' use of firearms, therefore, shall never be
considered routine and is permissible only in defense of life and then only
after all alternative means have been exhausted.

RULE 1: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms except to protect
themselves or another person from imminent death or serious bodily injury.

RULE 2: Police officers shall discharge their firearms only when doing so
will not endanger innocent persons.

RULE 3: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms to threaten or
subdue persons whose actions are destructive to property or injurious to
themselves but which do not represent an imminent threat of death or serious
bodily injury to the officer or others.

RULE 4: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms to subdue an
escaping suspect who presents no imminent threat of death or serious bodily
injury.

RULE 5: Police officers shall not discharge their weapons at a moving
vehicle unless it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect against an
imminent threat to the life of the officer or others.

RULE 6: Police officers when confronting an oncoming vehicle shall attempt
to move out of the path, if possible, rather than discharge their firearms
at the oncoming vehicle.

RULE 7: Police officers shall not intentionally place themselves in the path
of an oncoming vehicle and attempt to disable the vehicle by discharging
their firearms.

RULE 8: Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at a fleeing
vehicle or its driver.

RULE 9: Police officers shall not fire warning shots.

RULE 10: Police officers shall not draw or display their firearms unless
there is a threat or probably cause to believe there is a threat to life, or
for inspection.



GOAL #3: REDUCE POLICE BRUTALITY

  Your community's principal aim here should be to get the police department
to adopt and enforce a written policy governing the use of physical force.
This policy should have two parts:

(1) It should explicitly restrict physical force to the narrowest possible
range of specific situations. For example, a policy on the use of batons
should forbid police officers from striking citizens in "non-target" areas,
such as the head and spine, where permanent injuries can result. Mace should
be used defensively, not offensively. Since electronic stun guns (Novas and
Taser) have great potential for abuse because they don't leave scars or
bruises, their use should be strictly controlled, supervised and reviewed.

(2) It should require that a police officer file a written report after any
use of physical force, and that report should be automatically reviewed by
high ranking officers.

  Your community's second objective should be to get the police department
to establish an early warning system to identify officers who are involved
in an inordinate number of incidents that include the inappropriate use of
physical force. The incidents should then be investigated and, if verified,
the officers involved should be charged, disciplined, transferred,
re-trained or offered counseling -- depending on the severity of their
misconduct. The Christopher Commission's report on the Rodney King beating
ascertained that the Los Angeles police leadership typically looked the
other way when officers were involved in questionable incidents. This
tolerance of brutality by the top brass helped create an atmosphere
conducive to police abuses.

GOAL #4: END POLICE SPYING

  Police spying, or intelligence gathering, on constitutionally protected
political, religious and private sexual behavior is an historic problem. And
it's particularly difficult to deal with because spying, by definition, is a
covert activity. The victim doesn't know it's happening, and it's not
witnessed by others.

  During the 1970s, the ACLU and other public interest organizations brought
lawsuits against unconstitutional police surveillance in several cities
around the country, including New York City, Chicago, Memphis and Los
Angeles. These suits resulted in the imposition of stricter limits on
intelligence gathering by the police.

  In Seattle in 1976, it came to light that local police were spying on
organizations of black construction workers, Native Americans, advocates for
low-income housing and other community activists whose conduct was perfectly
lawful. In response to the revelations, the ACLU, along with the American
Friends Service Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, formed the
Coalition on Government Spying. After several years of hard work and
lobbying, the coalition succeeded in bringing about passage of a
comprehensive municipal law -- the first of its kind in the country -- that
governs all police investigations and restricts the collection of political,
religious and sexual information.

 This law, called the Seattle Police Intelligence Ordinance, is an important
breakthrough and a model for other efforts. It contains three elements that
represent basic changes in police intelligence operations:

(1) "Restricted" information (that is, religious, political or sexual
information) can be collected only if a person is reasonably suspected of
having committed a crime, and the information must be relevant to that
crime; (2) An independent civilian "auditor", appointed by the mayor and
confirmed by the city council, must review all police authorizations to
collect restricted information and have access to all other police files. If
the auditor finds that the police have violated the law, he or she must so
notify the individuals who are the subjects of the unlawful investigations;

(3) Any individual subjected to unlawful surveillance can bring a civil
action in court to stop the surveillance, and to collect damages from the
city.

GOAL #5: GENERAL OVERSIGHT OF POLICE POLICY

 Police policies should be subject to public review and debate instead of
being viewed as the sole province of police insiders. Open policy-making not
only allows police officials to benefit from community input, but it also
provides an opportunity for police officials to explain to the public why
certain tactics or procedures may be necessary. This kind of communication
between the police and the community can help anticipate problems and avert
crises before they occur.

 The Police Review Commission (a civilian review body) of Berkeley,
California holds regular, bi-monthly meetings that are open to the public.
At these meetings, representatives of community organizations can voice
criticisms, make proposals and introduce resolutions to review or reform
specific police policies.

 The Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California
successfully pressured the San Francisco Police Department to adopt
enlightened policies in regard to the treatment of homeless people; the use
of pain holds and batons; the deployment of plainclothes officers at
protests and demonstrations; intelligence gathering; the selection of field
training officers, and AIDS/HIV education for police officers. The Project
has also prevented the adoption of bad policies, including an anti-loitering
rule and a policy that would have made demonstrators financially liable for
police costs.

 In Tucson, Arizona, a Citizens' Police Advisory Committee was made part of
the city's municipal code in July 1990. The Committee, which is composed of
both civilian and police representatives, has the authority to initiate
investigations of controversial incidents or questionable policies, along
with other oversight functions.

SIDEBAR: CITIZEN-POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUCSON, ARIZONA (Created by the
Tucson Code, Sec. 10A-86)

FUNCTIONS:

(a) Consult with the governing body from time to time as may be required by
the Mayor and [City] Council.

(b) Assist the police in achieving a greater understanding of the nature and
causes of complex community problems in the area of human relations, with
special emphasis on the advancement and improvement of relations between
police and community minority groups.

(c) Study, examine and recommend methods, approaches and techniques to
encourage and develop an active citizen-police partnership in the prevention
of crime.

(d) Promote cooperative citizen-police programs and approaches to the
solutions of community crime problems, emphasizing the principal that the
administration of justice is a responsibility which requires total community
involvement.
(e) Recommend procedures, programs and/or legislation to enhance cooperation
among citizens of the community and police.

(f) Strive to strengthen and ensure throughout the community the application
of the principle of equal protection under the law for all persons.

(g) Consult and cooperate with federal, state, city and other public
agencies, commissions and committees on matters within the committee's
charge.

(h) The committee may ask for and shall receive from the Police Department,
a review of action taken by the Department in incidents which create
community concern or controversy.

(i) The committee shall have the authority, should it so desire, to use a
specific incident as a vehicle for the examination of police policies,
procedures and priorities.

(j) At the discretion and express direction of the Mayor and Council, assume
and undertake such other tasks or duties as will facilitate the
accomplishment of these goals and objectives.........

GOAL #6: IMPROVED TRAINING

 Over the years, citizens' groups in some communities demanded more
education and training for police officers as part of their efforts to solve
the problem of police abuse. But at this juncture, the education issue is
somewhat moot because the educational levels of American police officers
have risen dramatically in recent years. By 1986, 22.6 percent of all
officers had four or more years of college. About 65 percent had at least
some college experience. The levels of education are highest among new
recruits, who, in many departments have about two years of college.Moreover, no evidence exists to show that college educated police officers
perform better, or are more respectful of citizen's rights, than less
educated officers. In an abuse-prone department, all officers are likely to
engage in misconduct, regardless of education levels.

 The training of police personnel has also improved significantly in recent
years. The average length of police academy programs has more than doubled,
from about 300 to over 600 hours; in some cities, 900 or even 1200 hours are
the rule. As the time devoted to training has increased, the academies have
added a number of important subjects to their curricula: race relations,
domestic violence, handling the mentally ill, and so on.

 Unquestionably, a rigorously trained, professional police force is a
desirable goal that should be pursued depending on local conditions. If
citizens in your community feel that this is an important issue, here's what
you should aim for:

 A first rate police academy curriculum. The curriculum should be near the
high end of the current scale -- 800 hours or more. It should include a mix
of classroom and supervised field training.

 It should include training in the techniques of de-escalating violence. In
addition to being given weapons and taught how to use them, police recruits
should also learn special skills -- especially communications skills -- to
help them defuse and avert situations that might lead to the necessary use
of force.

 It should include community sensitivity training. Training recruits to
handle issues of special significance in particular communities can lead to
a reduction in community-police tensions.

 The ACLU of Georgia, after a series of incidents occurred in Atlanta
involving police harassment of gays, helped provide regular training at the
local police academy to sensitize new recruits on gay and lesbian concerns.

The Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California organized a
group of homeless people to create a video for use in sensitivity training
at the San Francisco police academy.

 The ACLU of New Jersey, in response to complaints that state police were
harassing minority motorists and entrapping gay men during an undercover
operation in the men's room of a highway service area, joined the NAACP and
the Lesbian and Gay Coalition in initiating a series of meetings with the
new superintendent of the Division of State Police. The meetings resulted in
the introduction a two-week seminar on "Cultural Diversity and
Professionalism" that all 1,700 employees of the Division were required to
take within a year's time. Although it's too soon to evaluate the seminar's
impact on police conduct, the participating organizations believe that at
the very least it opened up lines of communication between the community and
the police.

 Unfortunately, even the most enlightened training programs can be
undermined by veteran officers, who traditionally tell recruits out in the
field to "forget all that crap they taught you in the academy."

 In San Francisco some years ago, men selected as field training officers
(FTOs) were found to have some of the worst complaint and litigation records
in the department. The evaluation scores they gave recruits revealed their
systematic attempts to weed out minority and women officers. They labeled
women recruits "bad drivers," gave Asians low scores in radio communication
and unfairly criticized African Americans for their report-writing. The
Northern California ACLU's Police Practices Project joined other community
groups in successfully pressuring the police department to adopt stricter
selection criteria for FTOs to ensure greater racial and gender integration,
fairer evaluations of recruits and higher quality training.

GOAL #7: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

 Historically, police departments, like other government agencies, have
engaged in employment discrimination. People of color have been grossly
under represented, and women were not even accepted as full-fledged officers
until the 1970s.

 Some progress has been made in the last 15 to 20 years. Police departments
in several cities now have significant numbers of officers who are people of
color.

 A few departments even approach the theoretically ideal level of
maintaining forces that reflect the racial composition of the communities
they serve. Most departments now recruit and assign women on an equal basis
with men.

 Nonetheless, the overall employment levels of women and minorities still
lag far behind the ideal. In 1986, only 8.8 percent of all sworn officers
were women.

 The San Francisco police force, even though it has been operating under a
court-approved consent decree for 12 years, is still only 12 percent female
and about 25 percent minority -- just a little more than half the
integration level the court required. These disparities are most blatant at
the highest ranks of virtually all police departments in the country.
Although a number of cities now have African American police chiefs, only
two big city departments have ever had female chiefs.

 Improvements in police employment practices have come about largely as the
result of litigation under existing civil rights laws. However, the courts
may not be hospitable to employment discrimination claims in the future.
Therefore, community groups and civil rights organizations should prepare to
fight in the political arena for the integration of police departments.

 In the short term, the recruitment of more women and minority officers may
not result in less police abuse. Several social science studies suggest that
minority and white officers do not differ greatly in their use of physical
or deadly force, or in their arrest practices. (Women officers, on the other
hand, are involved in citizen complaints at about half the rate of male
officers, according to the New York City CCRB.) Still, in the long term, an
integrated police force is a very important goal for these reasons:

(1) Integration will break down the isolation of police departments, as they
reflect more and more the composition of the communities they serve. A
representative police force will probably be less likely to behave like an
alien, occupying army. The visible presence of officers of color in
high-ranking command positions engenders public confidence in the ability of
police department personnel to identify, on human terms, with community
residents.

(2) Integration sends the important message that the primary enforcement arm
of "the law" is, itself, committed to the principles of equal opportunity
and equal protection of the law.

(3) Integration might, over time, reduce overtly racist/sexist enforcement
tactics and actions, including brutality.

GOAL #8: CERTIFICATION AND LICENSING OF POLICE OFFICERS

 Every state now has procedures for certifying or licensing police officers
that require all sworn officers to have some minimum level of training. This
was one of the advances of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

 An important new development is the advent of procedures for decertifying
officers. Traditionally, a police officer could be fired from one department
but then hired by another. As a result, persons guilty of gross misconduct
could continue to work as police officers. Decertification bars a dismissed
officer from further police employment in that state (though not necessarily
in some other state). Between 1976 and 1983, the Florida Criminal Justice
Standards and Training Commission decertified 132 police officers.

 GOAL #9: ACCREDITATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS

 One result of the increasing number of lawsuits brought against police
departments by victims of abuse over the past 20 years was a movement,
within the police profession, for an accreditation process similar to that
in education and other fields whereby the police would establish and enforce
their own professional standards.

In 1979, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
(COALEA) was established as a joint undertaking of several major
professional associations. COALEA published its first set of Standards for
Law Enforcement Agencies in 1985 and issues new standards periodically.

 In deciding whether your community should press for accreditation of its
local police department, keep in mind these basic points.

(1) Accreditation is a voluntary process. A police department suffers no
penalty for not being accredited. (In contrast, lack of accreditation in
higher education carries penalties that include an institution's
ineligibility for student financial aid programs and non-recognition of its
awarded credits or degrees.)

(2) Current accreditation standards are minimum, rather than optimum. They
are very good in some respects but do not go far enough in covering the
critical uses of law enforcement powers.

(3) Accreditation might make a difference in the case of a truly backward,
unprofessional and poorly managed police department in that it could help
stimulate much needed and long overdue changes. On the other hand, a police
department can easily comply with all of the current standards and still
tolerate rampant brutality, spying and other abuses.

(4) Citizens in your particular community must decide whether, taking all of
the above into account, accreditation would serve as an effective
mobilization tool.

V. ORGANIZING STRATEGIES

 Once your community has identified its police problems and decided what
solutions to pursue, an organizing strategy for securing the desired reform
must be developed.

 In the 1960s and '70s, the most successful method of attacking police abuse
was the lawsuit. During the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, landmark
Supreme

 Court decisions that imposed nationally uniform limits on police behavior
were handed down in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois and
Miranda v. Arizona. Respectively, those decisions extended Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states,
established the Sixth

Amendment right to a lawyer during police interrogations and required the
police to inform persons taken into custody of their Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination.

Today, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is
repeatedly demonstrating its hostility to individual rights, as are many
lower federal courts, the majority of whose presiding judges were appointed
by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. More and more, therefore, the
task of opposing police abuse falls not to lawyers, but to the citizens in
your community.

STRATEGY #1: BUILD COALITIONS

PROFILE: The Indianapolis Law Enforcement and Community Relations Coalition.


 The year is 1984. Galvanized by a series of brutal and unjustified police
killings that have sparked tensions between the police department and the
African American community, 19 civil rights, religious, professional and
civic organizations form the Indianapolis Law Enforcement/Community
Relations Coalition. Coalition members include the Urban League, Baptist
Ministerial Alliance, Community Centers of Indianapolis, Hispano-American
Center, Indiana Council of Churches, Jewish Community Relations Council,
Mental Health Association, NAACP and the United Methodist Church.

The coalition, co-chaired by the directors of the Indiana Civil Liberties
Union and the Urban League of Greater Indianapolis, sets the establishment
of a civilian review board as its first priority. A board is established in
1989.

 Currently, the coalition is seeking to strengthen the board's authority and
functions. Coalition members are calling for removal of three police
representatives so that the board will be completely civilian and, thus,
truly independent. Coalition members collaborate with police academy
instructors on sensitivity training, meeting with every class of recruits
before the recruits graduate and take on their first field assignments. The
recruits receive orientation around various policies and procedures that
impact on the community, such as the use of deadly force.

In Indianapolis today, the Law Enforcement/Community Relations Coalition is
regarded by the police, the public and the media as the city's principal
civilian watchdog organization. Key to the coalition's success has been its
broad based character and commitment to participatory decision-making.

STRATEGY #2: MONITOR THE POLICE

 PROFILE: COPWATCH, Berkeley, California COPWATCH is a community
organization whose stated purpose is "to reduce police harassment and
brutality," and "to uphold Berkeley's tradition of tolerance and diversity."
Its main activities are monitoring police conduct through personal
observation, recording and publicizing incidents of abuse and harassment,
and working with Berkeley's civilian review board -- the Police Review
Commission.

 COPWATCH sends teams of volunteers into the community on three-hour shifts.
Each team is equipped with a flashlight, tape recorder, camera, "incident"
forms (see sidebar) and COPWATCH Handbooks that describe the organization's
non-violent tactics, relevant laws, court decisions, police policies and
what citizens should do in an emergency. At the end of a shift, the
volunteers return their completed forms to the COPWATCH office. If they have
witnessed an harassment incident, they call one of the organization's
cooperating lawyers, who follows up on the incident.

STRATEGY # 3: USE OPEN RECORDS LAWS

PROFILE: The Seattle Coalition on Government Spying

 The year is 1976. During confirmation hearings for a new Seattle police
chief, it comes to light that the city's police department maintains
political intelligence files on citizens who are not suspected of any
criminal activity.

 Some time later, a local newspaper prints the names of 150 individuals that
were found in police files.

 A group of citizens, concerned about this clear violation of First
Amendment and privacy rights, form the Coalition on Government Spying.

 One of the coalition's first acts is to file suit under the Washington
public disclosure law, seeking access to the police department's
intelligence files (see sample Open Records statute in sidebar). Under the
law, the police can refuse to disclose the files only if "non disclosure is
essential to effective law enforcement." Since the files are purely
political, the court orders full disclosure.

 The coalition's charges of abuse turn out to be well-founded. Not only do
the files show that the police have engaged in unconstitutional surveillance
of political activists, but they are full of inaccurate, misleading and
damaging information.

 The lawsuit and its revelations receive a lot of media attention, which
helps build strong public support for reform. The result: Seattle enacts the
first and only municipal ordinance in the country that restricts police
surveillance.

SIDEBAR: OPEN RECORDS LAWS

 Each of the 50 states has a freedom of information act or an open records
law. Virtually all such laws were enacted post-Watergate, in the mid-1970's.
Under these laws, community groups can request and obtain access to police
reports, investigations, policies and tape recordings regarding a
controversial incident, such as a beating, shooting, or false arrest. If the
police refuse to disclose information to representatives of your community,
that refusal in itself should become the focus of organizing and public
attention. Ultimately, your community can sue to compel disclosure, unless
the records you seek are specifically exempted.

FLORIDA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

General state policy on public records.

 It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal
records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person.

Definitions.

(1) "Public records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books,
tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, or other material, regardless
of physical form or other characteristics, made or received pursuant to law
or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by
any agency.

(2) "Agency" shall mean any state, county, district, authority or municipal
officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate
unit of government...

Inspection and examination of records; exemptions.

(1) Every person who has custody of public records shall permit the records
to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to do so, at reasonable
times, under reasonable conditions...The custodian shall furnish copies or
certified copies of the records upon payment of fees...

(2) All public records which presently are provided by law to be
confidential or which are prohibited from being inspected by the public,
whether by general or special law, shall be exempt from the provisions of
subsection (1).

STRATEGY #4: EDUCATE THE PUBLIC

 PROFILE: Police Practices Project, ACLU of Northern California The Police
Practices Project conducts education programs to teach citizens about their
constitutional rights. One aspect of the police abuse problem, the project
believes, is that the police tend to abuse certain people partly because
they think these individuals don't know their rights, or don't know how to
assert their rights. The project also believes that its programs have the
added advantage of recruiting groups and individuals to work in police
reform campaigns.

  The project also publishes wallet-size cards in English, Spanish and
Chinese that inform citizens about what to do or say in encounters with the
police. These cards have been widely distributed in the community. (One
card-holder reported that he pulled out his card when confronted by a police
officer, only to have the officer reach into his wallet and pull out his own
copy of the same card!)

 The project believes that individual citizens and community groups become
informed about police policies just by participating in the preparation of
educational materials and training sessions. That participation also fosters
awareness about particular areas of police practice that need reform. Most
important, education empowers even the most disenfranchised people and helps
deter the police from treating them abusively.

 If Your Are Stopped in Your Car

 Show your driver's license and registration upon request. Your can in
certain cases be searched without a warrant so long as the police have
probable cause.

To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent
to a search.

 If you are given a ticket, you should sign it, otherwise you can be
arrested. You can always fight the case in court later.

 If you are suspected of drunken driving and refuse a blood, urine or breath
test, your driving license can be suspended.

 If You Are Arrested or Taken to a Police Station You have the right to
remain silent and talk to a lawyer before you talk to the police. Tell the
police nothing except your name and address. Do not give explanations,
excuses or stories. You can make your defense in court based on what you and
your lawyer decide is best.

Ask to see a lawyer immediately. If you cannot pay for a lawyer, you have a
right to a free one, and you should ask the police how the lawyer can be
contacted. Do not talk without a lawyer.

STRATEGY # 5: USE THE POLITICAL PROCESS TO WIN REFORMS

 PROFILE: The New York Civil Liberties Union's Campaign for a "Real Civilian
Review Board"

 The time is August 1988; the place, New York City. Manhattan's Lower East
Side neighborhood is rocked by one of the most serious outbreaks of police
violence in years. The violence occurs as the police, declaring a curfew,
begin to eject homeless people and their supporters from Tompkins Square
Park. Fifty-two people, most of them innocent bystanders, sustain serious
injuries at the hands of the police. Much of the violence is recorded on
video. Yet the officers who are guilty of misconduct go virtually
unpunished; only one receives more than a 30-day suspension from the force.

 The city's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) comes under heightened
scrutiny. Although it has existed since 1966, the CCRB has long been
criticized for its lack of independence and secretive proceedings. Half of
its 12 members are appointed by the mayor, the other half by the police
commissioner. Most of the CCRB's investigators are police officers.

  During 1991, the campaign calls on the city's community boards to pass
resolutions in support of "a real CCRB." (The community boards are elected
bodies that have advisory jurisdiction over a variety of local matters, such
as zoning and land use). Campaign spokespersons debate police department
representatives before some 30 community boards throughout the city, and 19
boards pass resolutions calling for revisions of the present system (see
sample resolution in sidebar). Each board that passes a resolution becomes a
member of the campaign coalition. Coalition members set up tables at street
fairs and other community events to collect signatures on petitions for "a
real CCRB."

 More than 1,000 signatures are collected. The NYCLU, after garnering this
broad support develops legislation for submission to the City Council. The
bill is endorsed by 14 Council members. At this writing, the bill has yet to
be debated, but the cause of true civilian review in New York City has
already been advanced.

OFF THE WIRE
My understanding is that in the US, if you flee a traffic stop, the police can use the precision immobilization technique (PIT) to stop your vehicle. But if someone flees on a motorcycle, the police simply let the rider go.

OFF THE WIRE
By Matt Agorist
7 Simple Steps from a Cop on How to Fight Every Speeding Ticket and Win: http://bit.ly/1MZqHOU

Do you want to discover the secrets on how to beat your speeding ticket in court?
25% of all Speeding Tickets Are Issued in Error!

It is estimated that in 2014 that there were over 41,000,000 speeding tickets issued in the USA and that over 25% of these were issued in error.

The most common errors include shadowing, RFI inference, cosine angle error, mechanical interference and devices that are out of calibration.

But out of these 41,000,000 speeding tickets only 5% challenged their citation in court.

And out of this 5% less than .05% beat their ticket or have it dismissed.

Why?  Because they were not prepared!

The radar gun or lidar gun the police officer used to issue you your speeding ticket is a scientific instrument and because of this the officer must be certified and by law, must follow certain requirements.

So if you’re planning on fighting your ticket in court, we put together this guide to help disqualify the officer’s testimony and his/her equipment, so you have a better chance of winning your case.
Prepare Yourself Before You Ever Get Stopped

Before, during, and right after the stop are the most critical times to prepare your defense if you plan on fighting your speeding ticket.

image: http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Speeding-Ticket.jpg
Speeding-Ticket

Because of this, it’s CRITICAL that you remember EVERYTHING that is happening around you and document it:

    What was the traffic flow like
    What signs are on the roadway
    The condition of the roadway
    Other witnesses
    What is the weather like

As you’re doing this, look for a safe place to pull over for you and the police officer.

If you’re on the highway in busy traffic, put your flashers on, pull over to the right and consider exiting at the first exit.
The Approach

Once you’re pulled over and stopped STAY IN YOUR CAR!

Many police officer shootings occur as the officer is approaching a violator. Because of this, his/her stress levels are high, and he/she is watching everything you and the occupants of the car are doing.

DO NOT:

    Reach into the glove box
    Reach under your seat

DO

    Keep your hands in plain sight

Your only job at this point is to reduce the officer’s stress level as much as possible.
The California Stop

One strategy to reduce the officer’s stress level is called the California Stop.

As the officer is exiting his car, roll down the driver’s side window.

If it is at night, turn on your interior lights

Then place your hands on the top of your steering wheel palms up, facing your face.

Doing this, the officer can immediately see that you’re not an immediate threat, and his stress level is reduced.
License, Registration, Insurance Card, any Weapons?

Now that the officer is standing next to your car one of the first things he is going to ask you is for your license, registration, insurance card and if you have any weapons in your possession.

If you do have any weapons, tell him where they are and follow his/her instructions and hopefully you’re properly licensed to possess them.
Do You Know Why I Stopped You?

Remember, everything you say or do will be documented by the officer so don’t admit anything, especially that you were not paying attention.

Just say “no officer, can you explain to me why you stopped me?”
Obey the Officer’s Requests

After the officer obtains the required documentation he may ask you to step out of your car or to remain in your car, just follow his commands.

Can I See Your Radar/Laser Gun?

If the officer says that he used a radar or laser gun, seem curious and ask the officer if you can see it and if he would be willing to explain to you how it works.

If the officer does allow you to see it, take a mental picture of the device, getting the manufacturer’s name and model number.

If he refuses to show you the gun, then just ask him if he could explain to you how it works.
The Citation

As some point, the officer is going to either have you sign the citation or just hand you a copy.

While he is still with you, review the citation to see if he documented the type of device he used to measure your speed.

If he didn’t ask him/her to put on the citation the type of device he/she used.
Documentation

Remember everything you do or say is being documented and possibly even being recorded by the officer.

It’s your job to do the same!
After the Stop

After the stop, find a safe place to pull over and write down EVERYTHING that happened. Then return to the area and snap photos of the area with a camera or your smartphone.
Get Ready for Your Case

Next it’s your job to get ready for your trial.
Step #1 – Know What the Officer Shot You With

To properly prepare your case, you first need to know what type of device the officer used to clock your speed.

image: http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Police-Radar-Gun.jpg
Police-Radar-Gun
Police radar guns transmit microwave radio signals, and it this type of enforcement that accounts for most speeding citations.

Police lidar guns transmit a narrow beam of light in the near inferred light spectrum and they account for 20% of all traffic citations.

Other ways an officer can clock your speed are using a timing device such as a stopwatch or VASCAR, or following behind you clocking your speed using their speedometer.

Because of this, you need to know EXACTLY what the officer used to measure your speed.

Many jurisdictions will note on the citation what type of device was used and even the device’s serial number.

If this is not documented on your citation, then you may need to follow-up with a friendly telephone call to the agency or officer that issued you the citation and inquire.
Step #2 – Start by Downloading These Free NHTSA Guides

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for developing training programs responsive to the Uniform National Standards established by the Highway Safety Act of 1996.

Because of this, the NHTSA has published guidelines both police agencies and officers MUST follow when operating radar or laser.

As we will be referencing several portions of each of these guides in this article to help you build your case, we would recommend “googling” these titles and download these free PDFs now:

Speed-Measuring Device Performance Specification: Across-the-Road Radar Module

Lidar Speed Measuring Device Performance Specifications

Police Radar Instructor Training Course

Basic Training Program in Radar Speed Measurement
Step #3 – Have an Understanding of Case Law
Case Law Regarding the Use of Police Radar

If you were cited by an officer who used a police radar gun, your next step is to have a understanding of these most significant case laws pertaining to the use of radar in speed enforcement.

State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979)

This infamous case is known widely as the Miami Radar Trial. After a local television reporter showed a house clocked at 28 mph and a palm tree clocked at 86 mph, the story broke nationwide and radar was quickly shown to be less than accurate. In this case the Dade County Court sustained a motion to suppress the results of radar units in 80 speeding ticket cases.

The court’s opinion stated that the reliability of radar speed measuring devices as used in their present modes and particularly in some cases, has not been established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, nor has it met the test of reasonable scientific certainty.
United States v. Fields (1982)

District Court in Ohio ruled that it was not possible to establish from the radar results whether the defendant was traveling at 43 mph or whether the Speedgun 8 radar unit was measuring the rotation of the ventilation fan at the sewage pumping station next to the officer’s car.

The court also found that the officer was not qualified to operate the radar unit since he did not know the requirements for correct operation of the unit. In addition, the officer did not calibrate it before use, on that occasion.

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Honeycutt (1966)

This case is a very common prosecution weapon against the 24 hours of classroom and 16 hours of field training requirement. In this case the court ruled that an officer should not be required to know the scientific principles of radar.

The court also ruled that the officer only needs to know how to properly set up, test and read the radar unit. As such, a few hours of instruction should be enough to qualify an officer to operate the radar unit.

State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli (1966)

In the case, which is the same year as the Honeycutt case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that “outside influences may affect the accuracy of the recording by a police radar set sufficient to raise a doubt as to the reliability of the speed recorded.”

The court also stated that tuning forks must be proved to be accurate to be accepted as valid tests of a radar unit. In order to establish the accuracy of the radar unit the operator must testify to the following:

    That he made tuning fork tests before and after the defendant’s speed was recorded.
    That the tests were made by activating 40, 60 and 80 mph tuning forks and by observing that the unit responded correctly in each case.

State of Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971)

The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that where the only means of testing the accuracy of a radar unit is an internal mechanism within the unit, and there is no other evidence of the motorist’s speed other than the radar reading, the conviction cannot be sustained.

The court also established the following conditions for proving the accuracy of the radar unit:

    The officer must have adequate training and experience in the operation of the radar unit.
    The officer must testify as to how the unit was set up and the conditions the unit was operated under.
    it must be proven that the unit was operated with a minimum possibility of distortion from external interference.
    The unit has to be tested with an external source, such as a tuning fork or an actual test run with another vehicle with an accurately calibrated speedometer.

People of New York v. Perlman (1977)

The Suffolk County District Court ruled that the radar device was not proved to be accurate since no external test had been performed before or after the arrest. This case is significant since it established the criteria of testing before and after a citation is issued.

State of Wisconsin v. Hanson (1978)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin set minimum conditions for the use of radar as evidence. Sufficient evidence to support a speeding conviction with moving radar will require testimony by a competent operating officer that:

    He had adequate training and experience in radar operation
    The radar unit was in proper working condition at the time of the arrest
    The radar unit was used in an area where there was a minimum possibility of distortion
    The input speed of the officer’s car was verified; the car’s speedometer was expertly tested within a reasonable period after the citation was issued
    All testing was done without the radar unit’s own internal calibration device being used

State of Florida v. Allweiss (1980)

The Pinellas County Court ruled that the testing methods for radar equipment are legally insufficient. “The use of such a tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer in this court’s opinion is tantamount to allowing the machine to test itself.

A tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer is merely an extension and part of the total speed measuring apparatus.
Case Law Regarding the Use of Police Lidar

If an officer used a police lidar gun to cite you, then your next step is to have a basic understanding of these most significant case laws that pertain to the use of lidar in speed enforcement.

Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings
714 A.2d 381, 391-92 (New Jersey Superior Court 1998)

The Superior Court of New Jersey ordered that admissibility to lidar is subject to the following rules:

    Expert testimony is not required.
    Officers must be properly trained in the use of lidar and that training must be documented.
    The lidar must be tested according to procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
    The court further ordered that the lidar be tested against a known speed.
    Speed reading obtained by lidar are not affected by temperature, the degree of ambient light, or light to moderate rain. Readings shall not be accepted during heavy rainfall or while snow is falling.
    Speed reading made at distances up to 1,000 feet are admissible. Readings obtained in excess of 1,000 feet shall be admitted only with supporting evidence and expert testimony

State of Hawaii v Abiye Assay

Once an officer has completed a course of instruction and certified to operate lidar – training is not done. Officers must understand (memorize) 11.2 Principles of Operation.

For example, during the known-distance test officers must testify that the lidar uses proven time-distance formulas (pulse principle) and the speed of light (universal constant) to determine the known distance. Since the lidar utilizes one microprocessor to calculate time-of-flight and thus confirms the correct pulse repetition frequency, the lidar can accurately determine speed.

Then officers must obtain, read, and understand the manufacturer’s operator’s manual (10.7 Certification) for the particular lidar used and follow the manufacturer-recommended procedures for testing. Officers must further test the lidar as outlined in 11.16 Testing the LIDAR:

Known Speed Test. All lidars must include a Technician Certification (10.7 & 11.16) every 3 years in accordance with manufacture’s specifications and NHTSA standards. (Note: New lidars come with a Technician Certification from the factory.)

Officers must successfully complete Visual Speed Estimations, Enclosure 13.2 and be prepared to present this information in a court of law. During operation officers must understand and follow a proper tracking history (11.4 Lidar Tracking History) and be prepared to testify as to visual observations and speed estimates prior to clocking with lidar.

Officers must understand all lidar effects (11.5Lidar Effects), including proper operation to avoid any of these effects. Officer must be currently certified (10.7 Certification) to operate radar/lidar. Finally, the officer must prepare all court cases as outlined in this manual. (10.8 Court Testimony, 10.9 Traffic Evidence Kit)
Step #4 – Get the Manufacture’s Manuals

Next you will want to obtain the manuals from the manufacturer for the speed measurement device used by the officer.

Sometimes a simple search on Google can locate these.

If not, you then may have to contact the manufacturer to purchase a copy and/or subpoena the manual through the courts from the police agency.

Take special note what the manufacturer’s recommendations are as far as:

    Installation
    Calibration
    Use and Care of
    Any training and certification that may be required
    Recommended record keeping
    Tuning fork care of the device and recommendations

Step #5 – Subpoena Records

image: http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Subpoena-1.jpg
Subpoena (1)



Next, you will want to contact the court to find out the procedures in obtaining the following records from the police agency through a subpoena:

    Officers training records
    Officers disciplinary reports
    Radar/Laser device maintenance records
    Tuning fork calibration records (radar)
    Officers certification records for the device
    Annual calibration records for the device
    Daily calibration records for the device

Step #6 – POST Records

All states have what is called Police Officer Standard Training (POST) regarding the certification and use of speed measurement devices.

Contact your state agency and request copies of these.
Step #7 – Preparing Your Defense

Now that you have all the information you need, it’s time to go through all these manuals, training records, and training guides to discredit the officer and the equipment he/she used to issue you your citation.
Here are some examples:

Was the Officer Properly Trained/Certified to Use the Equipment?

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and case law requires that the officer issuing you the citation be properly trained and certified for the device he/she used to issue you your citation.

Once you receive his training records, check this, along with the operator manual for that particular radar/lidar gun to see if any updated training was required.

Was the Radar/Lidar Device Operated Properly?

One example we assisted in preparing a defense on was regarding an officer who targeted vehicles with his laser gun, aiming at their reflection in his side view mirror.

During the questioning of the officer, the defendant asked in what training guide and/or manual could the officer reference that this type of targeting was approved.

Because the officer could not provide this information, the case was dismissed.

When Was the Radar/Laser Gun Last Certified?

In 2004, a reporter from the Hartford Courant newspaper contacted us regarding a speeding ticket she received and asked for some tips.

The first thing I asked her to do was to check the calibration certification records on the radar gun the officer used to issue her the citation.

A few days later she called us back and related that the last certification was done over 4 years ago.

Did the Officer Properly Calibrate the Radar/Lidar Gun?

It is required that the officer perform a calibration check prior to and after issuing any citations during his/her shift as outlined in the manual for that particular make/model.

However, we have found that even if the officer may have performed this calibration test, they never documented it. This is how you can impeach an officer regarding his/her test.

One of the first things a police recruit is ever taught in training is to document EVERYTHING.

Thus, this calibration test should be documented by the officer either on the citation that was issued, in his personal notebook, on the logbook, or on the units calibration records.

Did the Officer Use the Correct Tuning Fork(s)?

Each tuning fork used for calibration is designed for a particular make/model of radar and/or laser gun and is serialized.
Check this serial number against the calibration records for that particular unit while also noting the last date of the calibration of the tuning fork(s).

Are There Any Cracks or Chips in the Tuning Fork?

A strategy we have shared with clients is to subpoena the tuning fork(s) used during the calibration and check them prior to the trial.

Because tuning forks are made from a light aluminum alloy, if dropped, small chips and/or cracks may form, which will impact the accuracy of the tuning fork.

If these chips and/or cracks are observed, then while the officer is on the stand, introduce these tuning forks into evidence asking if these were the ones used to calibrate the gun.

Once he/she does confirm this you can then introduce into evidence the facts on how this could impact the officer’s calibration test.

Was There a Shadow Error?

A Shadow Error occurs when the moving radar’s “Low Doppler” incorrectly locks onto a large metal object like an 18 wheeler in front of the patrol car and adds the speed differential to the opposite lane target vehicle’s speed.

Was There a VSS Error?

Low Doppler is used to determine the patrol vehicles speed. Shadowing has and is being eliminated by interfacing the police radar gun into the vehicle’s speed sensor. This is known as VSS or Vehicle Speed Sensor interface.

Now that the patrol car’s speed is obtained by the vehicle’s own speed sensor, the low Doppler signal from the police radar gun can be compared and accuracy is increased.

Was There a Cosine Error?

Cosine error is standard with both radar and laser guns. The greater the transmission angles of the gun to the target vehicle, the greater the error.

Who does the error favor?

Well if it was a stationary radar gun or a laser gun, the error is in YOUR FAVOR!

An example would be a stationary speed radar/lidar gun transmitting at a 10′ degree angle from the approaching target vehicle. The target vehicle’s actual speed is 60 mph, but the radar gun shows 59 mph.

However, if it is a moving radar, the consign angle could put you at a disadvantage.

Moving radar was developed so an officer could measure your speed while he is driving.

To do this, the moving radar has to capture the speed of his vehicle and the speed of your vehicle and then the internal computer displays both his speed and your speed on the display.

The speeds are computed accurately as long as the officer is within a ten-degree angle as you approach.

However, if your vehicle is at a greater angle than this, it’s anyone’s guess who has the edge.

Was the Officer’s Heater or Air Conditioner On?

In 2004, the Pennsylvania State Police purchased hundreds of new radar guns.

They were clocking rocks at 70 mph.

This is an example of mechanical interference as the police car’s heater/air conditioner fan was producing the erroneous speed-reading.

The fact remains; radar and laser guns still make mistakes.

If you successfully apply all the information in this article, you should have a very good chance of beating your next speeding ticket.
Need More Help and/or Advice From Radar Roy?

Since 1997 Radar Roy has helped thousands of people just like you beat their speeding tickets in court through his helpful guides and resources found on his website RadarBusters.com

In 1995, Radar Roy retired at the rank of Lieutenant from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and then went on to teach you how to fight the system.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/7-simple-steps-fighting-speeding-ticket-win/#qodzzecmWZmx5HgD.99

OFF THE WIRE


All State Knife Laws – Interactive Map with Knife Laws by State:

Find more detailed information here, including an interactive map:

texas-knife-laws-state-knife-laws-by-state

US Knife Laws- State Knife Laws by State

1. Alabama Knife Laws

What is Legal

Alabama has one of the best knife laws in the US.If you don’t like legal speak, here is the basics of what are legal under Alabama knife laws.

Balisongs/butterfly knives are legal.
Switchblades, gravity knives, automatic and assisted opening knives are legal.
Stilettos, dirks, and toothpick knives are legal.
All folding knives are legal.
Bowies are legal if carried open (like on your hip).
Bowies are legal to carry concealed if you are on your own property.
Double sided knives are legal, no  matter the size.
If the knife fits in your pocket, it is legal.
Out the front knives are legal.
What is Illegal

Here are notes on what kinds of knives are illegal under Alabama knife laws.

Bowies and things that are like Bowies are illegal if concealed.
Bowies are illegal to have in your vehicle.
A machete might be classified as a Bowie and it would be illegal if you carry it concealed.
A 11″ butcher knife has be found to be like a Bowie in court so don’t plan on using it in a crime.
Selling Bowies to people under 18 is illegal.
2. Alaska Knife Laws

What is Legal/Illegal in Alaska

Pocket knives are legal.
Balisongs are in a legal gray area.
Stilettos and dirks are in a legal gray area.
Out the front knives are in a legal gray area.
Bowie knives are in a legal gray area.
Large knives are in a legal gray area.
Gravity knives are illegal.
Switchblades are illegal.
Above is a brief review of Alaska knife law. The law specifically states that pocketknives are legal to both own and conceal carry. It also states that gravity knives and switchblades are illegal to own. Other types of knives are not outright banned, but may fall under the “deadly weapons” or “dangerous instrument” category. Alaska’s definition of a deadly weapon is a bit vague and depends a lot on court precedence as well as how crafty your lawyer is. For instance in Liddicoat v. State, the Court held that a steak knife was a deadly weapon. It’s definition of a dangerous instrument is not much clearer, and much of the law rests on Court decisions, not the statutes.

3. Arizona Knife Laws

What is Legal/Illegal in Arizona

Pocket knives are legal.
Balisong knives are legal.
Switchblades, gravity knives, Bowie knives, and stilettos are legal.
Knives of any length are legal.
It is legal for anyone over 21 to carry knives concealed.
It is illegal to not inform a police officer when they stop you that you are carrying a concealed knife when the knife is not a pocket knife.
It is illegal for someone under 21 years of age to carry a non-pocket knife concealed.
It is illegal to bring a knife into schools.
Outside of what is listed above, it is illegal to use a knife to commit a behavior that is already illegal. What this means is that it is illegal to rob a bank with a knife and you will be penalized more severely than if you robbed a bank without a weapon.

4. Arkansas Knife Laws

What are Legal Knives Under Arkansas Knife Law

Balisongs are legal.
Switchblades, automatic knives, gravity knives, and similar knives are legal.
Dinks, stilettos, and other stabbing knives are legal.
Bowies and other large knives are legal.
Knives of all sizes are legal.
Basically, if it has a blade, it is legal.

5. California Knife Laws

Legal Knives in California

Bowie knives are legal.
Large knives are legal (no restrictions in size).
Carrying knives in the open is legal in California.
Carrying knives concealed is legal in California for most knives.
Illegal Knives under California Knife Law

Misleading knives are illegal. These include: cane knives (and shobi-zues), lipstick knives, belt knives, pen knives, air gauge knives, and pen knives.
All undetectable knives are illegal. These include knives that won’t set off metal detectors.
Dirks, daggers, and stilettos are illegal.
Ballistic knives are illegal.
What the law is trying to get at are knives usually used by criminals to commit crimes. These are knives that don’t look like knives or don’t have a use as a tool. For example, you can’t do much with a dagger besides stab things.

6. Colorado Knife Laws

These knives are legal to own:

Dirks, daggers, push knives and stilettos are legal.
Bowie knives and other large blades are legal.
Disguised knives like belt knives, pen knives, cane knives, and lipstick knives are legal.
Balisong/buterfly knives are in a legal gray area.
Ballistic knives are illegal.
Gravity knives and switchblades are illegal.
These knives are illegal to carry concealed:

All knives less than 3.5 inches are legal.
All fishing and hunting knives of any length are legal.
All knives over 3.5 inches are illegal.
7. Connecticut Knife Laws

All Knives Are Legal to Own:

Balisongs, automatic knives, gravity knives, and switchblades are legal to own.
Dirks, stilettos, daggers, and push knives are legal to own.
Disguised knives like lipstick knives, cane knives, and boot knives are legal to own.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal to own.
Basically, any knife is legal to own and have in your home.
Some Knives Can Not be Carried (Open or Concealed):

Automatic knives over 1.5 inches are illegal.
Switchblades over 1.5 inches are illegal.
Stilettos are illegal.
Blades longer than 4 inches are illegal.
8. Delaware Knife Laws

Knives that are Banned in Delaware

Balisong knives are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, and cane knives are legal.
Throwing knives are legal.
Stilettos, dinks and daggers are legal.
Knives that will not set off metal detectors and have a point tip are illegal.
Knives with brass knuckles are illegal.
Switchblades and gravity knives are illegal.
Throwing stars are illegal.
If a knife does not fall into any of the illegal categories above, it is legal to own.

Limits to Carrying Knives

It is legal to carry a 3 inch pocket knife concealed.
Other than a 3 inch pocket knife, carrying any other type of knife concealed is illegal.
If the knife is not banned, you can carry it in the open. Only concealed carry is limited. Concealed means close enough by you that you can readily use it while being covered by something. Having a knife in your car counts as being concealed.

9.Florida Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Balisong knives are legal.
Belt knives, cane knives, and other disguised knives are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Throwing stars and throwing knives are legal.
Undetectable knives (knives that will not set off metal detectors) are legal.
Ballistic knives are illegal.
The law does not limit individuals from owning, selling, or buying any knife except for ballistic knives.

Limits on Carry

You can open carry any knife.
Box cutters, multi-tools, and other work knives are legal to carry concealed.
In most cases, conceal carry of a common pocket knife with a blade of less than 4 inches is legal.
Anything outside of this has not been expressly banned or allowed.
10.Georgia Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own in Georgia

Balisong knives, often called butterfly knives, are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Throwing stars and throwing knives are legal.
Disguised knives such as cane knives, belt knives, and lipstick knives are legal.
Push knives, stilettos, switchblades, dirks, and daggers are legal.
Spring powered ballistic knives are legal.
Knives that are undetectable with a metal detector are legal.
In Georgia, there are no limits on the possession of knives. You can own any knife you want. There are only limits on carry knives.

Limits on Carry

It is illegal to carry, open or concealed, a knife that is larger than 5 inches without a permit.
For knives greater than 5 inches, you need a weapons permit.
11.Hawaii Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, and push knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives (knives that won’t set off metal detectors).
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, and stilettos.
It is illegal to own balisong knives.
It is illegal to own switchblades
Only balisongs and switchblades are banned in Hawaii. Any other type of knife is legal.

Limits on Carry

You can open carry any knife.
You can not conceal carry dirks, daggers and knives similar to that.
You can not conceal carry knives with knuckles like some WWI trench knives.
You can conceal any other type of knife.
12.Idaho Knife Laws

No Knife Ban

Balisong knives are legal.
Switchblades, automatic knives, and other quick release knives are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Throwing stars and throwing knives are legal.
Stilettos, dirks, and other stabbing knives are legal.
Disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, cane knives, and key knives are legal.
Spring powered ballistic knives are legal.
Pocket knives of any size are legal.
Age Restrictions on Possession

Need parental consent to possess a bowie or dirk if under 18.
Can not possess a bowie or dirk if under 12 unless your parents are with you.
There is no ban on the possession of any type of knife in Idaho. You can buy and own any knife you want. However, taking it outside of the house is a different situation…

Limits on Carry

It is legal to open carry any knife.
It is illegal to bring any knife (open or concealed) besides a 2.5″ pocket knife to school.
It is illegal to conceal carry any dirk, bowie, or dangerous weapon.
It is illegal to conceal carry a knife, even if you have a permit, when intoxicated
13. Illinois Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own in Illinois

Balisong knives are legal.
Disguised knives like cane knives, belt knives, and lipstick knives are legal.
Throwing knives are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Throwing stars are illegal.
Ballistic knives are illegal.
Switchblades and other automatic knives are illegal.
The state of Illinois only banned the possession of throwing stars, switchblades, ballistic knives, and knives that open with a press of the button.

Limits on Carry

You can carry any knife as long as it is not one of the banned knives listed above and that you do not have the intent to harm someone or break the law. The law goes into more details on this…

14. Indiana Knife Laws

What is Legal

Balisong knives are legal.
Bowie knive are legal.
Dirks, daggers, and stilettos are legal.
Assisted knives are legal.
Disguised knives like cane knives, lipstick knives, and belt knives are legal.
Switchblades and other automatic knives are legal.
What is Illegal

Ballistic knives are illegal.
Throwing stars are illegal.
Restriction on Carry

There are no limits to concealed or open carry as long as you do not bring a knife to school. The Indiana state code is available for anyone to read online but the excerpts below contains the code as well as an explanation.

15. Iowa Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Balisong knives are legal.
Switchblades and automatic knives are legal.
Dirks, daggers, stilettos and other stabbing knives are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Disguised knives like cane knives, belt knives, and lipstick knives are legal.
Ballistic knives are illegal.
Only ballistic knives are outlawed in Iowa law.

Limits on Carry

It is legal to open carry any knife.
It is illegal to conceal carry a switchblade.
It is illegal to conceal carry a dagger or stiletto.
It is illegal to conceal carry a knife whos blade is greater than 5 inches.
It is illegal to conceal carry a balisong knife.
It is illegal to conceal carry disguised knives like cane swords and lipstick knives.
16. Kansas Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own Bowies and other large knives.
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other stabbing knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, and cane swords.
It is legal to own switchblades and other automatic knives.
It is legal to own gravity knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives (knives that will not set off metal detectors).
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own ballistic knives.
It is illegal to own throwing stars
17. Kentucky Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own ballistic knives.
It is legal to own balisong knives.
It is legal to own switchblades and other automatic knives.
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other stabbing knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, and cane knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives (knives that will not set off metal detectors).
It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
There are no banned knife types in Kentucky.

What is Legal to Carry

It is legal to open carry any knife.
It is legal to conceal carry any ordinary pocket knife or hunting knife.
Anything besides a pocket or hunting knife can be considered a deadly weapon and would be banned from concealed carry.
18. Louisiana Knife Laws

What is Legal/Illegal to Own

It is legal to own Balisong knives, also called butterfly knives.
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other slim knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives–knives that will not set off metal detectors.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
It is illegal to own switchblades and other automatic knives.
The only banned knife in Louisiana are switchblades. However, if you are a law enforcement officer, you might be able to get an automatic opening knife because there is an exemption for “rescue knives” in the law.

Limits on Carry

Any knife is legal for open or concealed carry as long as it is not a switchblade.
19. Maine Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
It is legal to own dirks, stilettos, daggers, and other slim knives.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like cane knives, belt knives, and lipstick knives.
It is illegal to own switchblades, automatic knives, and balisong knives.
The only banned types of knives are automatic opening knives. Balisong knives were found to fall under this category.

What is Legal to Carry

It is legal to carry any knife in the open.
It is illegal to carry daggers, stilettos, and knives designed for harming others.
Any knife outside of those 3 are legal to conceal carry.
The law bans the carry of “other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person.” This means that, as long as the knife was not designed to attack other people, it is fine to carry concealed.

20. Maryland Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a balisong knife, also called butterfly knife.
it is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other slim knives.
It is legal to own switchblades, gravity knives, and automatic knives.
It is legal to own ballistic knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives and lipstick knives.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives.
It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
There are no limitation on the type of knife you can own in Maryland.

Limits on Carry

You can not conceal carry a throwing star, dirk, switchblade, gravity knife, or bowie knife.
You can not open carry a throwing star, dirk, switchblade, gravity knife, or bowie knife with the intent to harm someone.
You can open or conceal carry any sized pocket knife you wish.
If a knife is not listed above, it is most likely to be legal for concealed or open carry. Read on to see why.

21.Massachusetts Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Balisong knives, also called butterfly knives, are legal to own.
Switchblades and automatic knives are legal to own.
Ballistic knives are legal to own.
Dirks, daggers, stilettos, and push knives are legal to own.
Knives with brass knuckles are legal to own.
Disguised knives like cane knives and lipstick knives are legal to own.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal to own.
Throwing knives and throwing stars are legal to own.
There is no knife ban in Massachusetts.

Limits on Carry

It is illegal to carry, open or concealed, switchblades, dirks, daggers, stilettos, ballistic knife, double edge knives, and knuckle knives.
It is illegal to carry anything that is perceived as dangerous while disturbing the peace or being arrested.
Folding knives, Swiss army knives, and kitchen knives are legal to carry as long as you do not behave in a way that makes them dangerous.
There are a few more details to the law that can’t be explained in bullet points. Read below for the full explanation.

22. Michigan Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Butterfly knives, also called balisong knives, are legal.
Dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other stabbing knives are legal.
Throwing knives and throwing stars are legal.
Bowie knives and other large knives are legal.
Hidden knives like belt knives and lipstick knives are legal.
Undetectable knives (knives that do not set off metal detectors) are legal.
Switchblades, automatic knives, and gravity knives are illegal.
What is Legal to Carry

All knives, except for banned ones, are legal for open carry.
It is legal to carry a hunting knife concealed.
It is illegal to conceal carry dirks, stilettos, daggers, and other stabbing items.
On top of this, you can not carry a dangerous weapon with intent to harm.
The law only limits the carry of dirks, stilettos, daggers, and other sharp, double bladed stabbing tools. If a knife can not be used to stab (has no point), it can be carried concealed as long as you do not have intent to harm someone.

23.Minnesota Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Balisong knives are legal to own.
Dirks, stilettos, daggers, and other stabbing knives are legal to own.
Disguised knives like lipstick knives are legal to own.
Bowie knives are legal to own.
Throwing stars and throwing knives are legal to own.
All other knives are legal to own.
Only switchblades are illegal.
What is Legal to Carry

Knives with utility purposes are legal to carry.
Knives that can be used as weapons are legal to carry as long as you do not have intent to harm others.
It is illegal to recklessly use a knife that was designed to be a weapon.
It is illegal to carry a knife that was designed to be a weapon (and not a tool) with the intent to harm others.
Those are the general guidelines, read further to see the full details on what you can and can not own and carry.

24. Mississippi Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own Balisong knives, also called butterfly knives.
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other slim knives.
It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives–knives that will not set off metal detectors.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
It is legal to own switchblades, gravity knives, and automatic knives.
Mississippi does not restrict ownership of any type of knife for those over the age of eighteen, who have not been convicted of a felony.

What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal for a minor or a convicted felon to own a bowie knife
It is illegal for a minor or a convicted felon to own dirk knife
It is illegal for a minor or a convicted felon to own a butcher knife
It is illegal for a minor or a convicted felon to own a switchblade
Limits on Carry

It is illegal to carry concealed any bowie knife
It is illegal to carry concealed any dirk knife
It is illegal to carry concealed any butcher knife
It is illegal to carry concealed any switchblade or automatic knife
You may carry any knife concealed if it is concealed in your vehicle, and not on your person.
You may carry any knife concealed if you are participating in a sports activity where such a knife is legitimately used.
You can open carry any knife in Mississippi, unless you are a minor or a student on educational property.
25. Missouri Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own dirks, stilettos, and other slim knives.
It is legal to own boot knives and other daggers
It is legal to own Balisong knives, sometimes called butterfly knives.
It is legal to own undetectable knives–knives that will not set off metal detectors.
It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives and even throwing axes.
It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
What is Illegal to Own

It is a Class C Felony to own a switchblade knife in Missouri, unless the person possessing the switchblade is in compliance with applicable federal law. The federal law, which governs possession of switchblades, is 15 USC Chapter 29. The law allows a person to possess and/or carry a switchblade on or about his person if the blade is less than three inches long and the person has only one arm, or the knife contains a spring or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure of the blade.

26. Montana Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, stiletto, or other push knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife, or other large knife
It is legal to own throwing knives or throwing stars
It is legal to own disguised knives such as cane knives and lipstick knives
What is Illegal to Own

A switchblade knife is illegal to own in Montana unless you are a collector who is registered with the Sheriff in the county where your collection is kept.

Limits on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk
It is illegal to conceal carry a dagger
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife with a blade four inches long, or longer
It is illegal to possess or carry any knife with a four inch blade or longer in a school building
It is illegal to conceal carry any weapon while intoxicated
It is illegal to conceal carry a weapon into a government office, bank or financial institution, or a place that sells alcohol for onsite consumption
It is illegal to conceal carry any “deadly weapon”
It is legal to open carry any knife that is legal to own in Montana
It is legal to carry any knife that is legal to own in your vehicle, concealed or openly
27. Nebraska Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

Balisong knives are legal to own
Bowie knives are legal to own
Dirks, daggers, and stilettos are legal to own
Ballistic knives are legal to own
Disguised knives like cane knives, lipstick knives, and belt knives are legal to own
Switchblades and automatic knives are legal to own
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal for a person who has been convicted of a felony to own a knife
It is illegal for a person who is a fugitive to own a knife
It is illegal for a person subject to a domestic violence protective order to own a knife while knowingly violating such order
28. Nevada Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own Bowie and other hunting knives
It is legal to own throwing knives and throwing stars
What is Illegal to Own

any knife which is made an integral part of a belt buckle
switchblade knives
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to possess or carry a dirk, dagger, or switchblade on school or childcare facility property or in a vehicle owned by a school or childcare facility
It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk
It is illegal to conceal carry a dagger
It is illegal to conceal carry a machete
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife which is made an integral part of a belt buckle
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife which could be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon
It is legal to conceal carry a pocketknife
It is legal to open carry any knife that is legal to own
29. New Hampshire Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

In New Hampshire, it is legal to own any type of knife, as long as you have not been convicted of a felony against the person or property of another or of a felony drug related offense. Yes, machetes are legal.

What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal for a person who has been convicted of a felony against the person or property of another or of a felony drug related offense to possess a:

Stiletto
Dirk or dagger
Switchblade knife
knife considered to be a deadly weapon
30. New Jersey Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own disguised knives like lipstick knives
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to won throwing stars and throwing knives
Any weapon for which a person has an explainable lawful purpose for owning
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own any weapon, with the purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another
It is illegal for a person convicted of certain crimes (see below) to own a gravity knife, switchblade, dirk, dagger, stiletto, or other dangerous knife
It is illegal for certain mentally ill people to own a gravity knife, switchblade, dirk, dagger, stiletto, or other dangerous knife
It is illegal to own a gravity knife, switchblade, dirk, dagger, stiletto, or other dangerous knife with any explainable lawful purpose
A conviction for aggravated assault, arson, burglary, escape, extortion, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, bias intimidation, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of weapon for an unlawful purpose, manufacture or transport of a prohibited weapon, unlawful possession or sale of a controlled dangerous substance, or endangering the welfare of a child prevents a person from owning certain types of knives in New Jersey.

31. New Mexico Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own throwing stars or knives
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a switchblade
It is illegal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
32. New York Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a hunting knife
It is legal to own a dirk or dagger
It is legal to own a stiletto
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a pilum ballistic knife
It is illegal to own a metal knuckle knife
It is illegal to own a cane sword
It is illegal to own throwing stars
It is illegal to own any knife if you are not a U.S. citizen
It is illegal to own any knife adapted for use primarily as a weapon
It may be illegal to own a gravity knife, without a valid hunting and/or fishing license
It may be illegal to own a switchblade knife, without a valid hunting and/or fishing license
33. North Carolina Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own bowie knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a switchblade
It is legal to own a gravity knife
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as in a pen or lipstick
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own any spring-loaded projectile knife
It is illegal to own a ballistic knife
It is illegal to own any weapon of similar character to a projectile or ballistic knife
34. North Dakota Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own any type of knife in North Dakota. North Dakota has no laws making it a crime to own any kind of knife.

Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a gravity knife or switchblade
It is illegal to conceal carry a machete
It is illegal to conceal carry a scimitar, backsword, or sabre
It is illegal to conceal carry a stiletto
It is illegal to conceal carry a sword
It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk or dagger
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife with a blade 5 inches or longer
It is legal to open carry any type of knife
35. Ohio Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a switchblade or gravity knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife as well as Balisong trainers
It is legal to own a ballistic knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
What is Illegal to Own

It is legal to own any type of knife in Ohio.
36. Oklahoma Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own a switchblade or gravity knife
It is legal to own a sword cane
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife as well as Balisong trainers
It is legal to own a stiletto
What is Illegal to Own

It is not illegal to own any kind of knife in Oklahoma.
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal or open carry a dagger
It is illegal to conceal or open carry bowie knife
It is illegal to conceal or open carry a dirk knife
It is illegal to conceal or open carry a switchblade knife
It is illegal to conceal or open carry a spring-type knife
It is illegal to conceal or open carry a sword cane
It is illegal to conceal or open carry a knife with a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife
It is illegal to conceal or open carry any “offensive weapon”
As the no carry law states that it is illegal to carry a weapon, “upon or about” the person, Oklahoma’s no carry law extends to items carried in a vehicle, not just on a person.

37. Oregon Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a switchblade or other automatic knife
It is legal to own a ballistic knife
It is legal to own a gravity knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife and Balisong trainer
It is legal to own a stiletto
What is Illegal to Own

Oregon law does not restrict the ownership of any type of knife for those who have not been convicted of a felony. As a matter of fact, in 1984 in State v. Delgado, the Supreme Court of Oregon found that former Oregon statute § 166.510(1) was unconstitutional because it prohibited the mere possession and mere carrying of a weapon. The Court believed that restricting the possession and open carrying of weapons for non-felons was a violation of a person’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

38. Pennsylvania Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own Bowie knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a penknife
It is legal to own a concealed knife, such as in a lipstick or belt buckle
It is legal to own any kind of hunting knife
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a dagger
It is illegal to own any automatic knife
It is illegal to own a sword cane
It is illegal to own any implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which serves no “common lawful purpose”
39. Rhode Island Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a sword cane
It is legal to own a concealed knife, such as in a belt buckle or lipstick
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a switchblade
What is Illegal to Own

It is not illegal to own any type of knife in Rhode Island, so long as you do not intend to use it unlawfully against another.
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is illegal to conceal carry a stiletto
It is illegal to conceal carry a sword cane
It is illegal to conceal carry a bowie knife
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife with a blade more than 3 inches in length
It is legal to open carry any type of knife in Rhode Island
40. South Carolina Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a switchblade
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly, knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as in a lipstick or belt buckle
What is Illegal to Own

It is legal to own any type of knife in South Carolina.
Restrictions on Carry

It is legal to conceal carry dirk
It is legal to conceal carry a switchblade knife
It is legal to conceal carry a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to conceal carry a Bowie knife
It is legal to conceal carry a stiletto
41. South Dakota Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a switchblade, or any type of automatic knife
It is legal to own a ballistic knife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a sword cane
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as in a belt buckle or lipstick
What is Illegal to Own

It is not illegal to own any type of knife in South Dakota
In 2006, the legislature repealed the only law prohibiting ownership of any type of knife. The former statute, 22-14-19, made it illegal for a person to own, possess or sell a ballistic knife.

Restrictions on Carry

Any knife may be carried openly or concealed
South Dakota’s statutes discuss dangerous weapons and carrying concealed weapons, however neither of the statutes apply to knives, as its definition of “concealed” is “any firearm that is totally hidden from view.”



42. Tennessee Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a disguised knife such as in a belt buckle or lipstick
It is legal to own a stiletto
It may be legal to own a butterfly knife, however, one should check with an attorney first, as Tennessee’s definition of a switchblade could include a butterfly knife. Courts in most states would call a butterfly knife one that opens by “gravity or inertia”, which is how Tennessee defines a switchblade knife. However, other Courts have viewed butterfly knives, not as automatic or gravity knives, but as a type of pocketknife. As of June 2013, Tennessee’s Courts have yet to weigh in.

What is Illegal to Own

Tennessee Code § 39-17-1302 makes it illegal to own a switchblade knife or any other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury or death, which has no common lawful purpose.

Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to open or conceal carry a switchblade
It is illegal to open or conceal carry any knife with a blade exceeding four inches in length, with the intent to go armed.
43. Texas Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own throwing stars or any type of throwing knife
It is legal to own dirks, daggers, stilettos, and other stabbing knives
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own a sword or spear
It is legal to own a switchblade knife
It is legal to own a pocketknife
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a gravity knife
The Texas state legislature does not limit other knives.



44. Utah Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own an automatic or gravity knife
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as a lipstick or belt buckle
What is Illegal to Own

Utah law creates two categories of people who may not own certain weapons, defined as “dangerous weapons”.

A category I restricted person is someone who:

has been convicted of a violent felony under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.5
is on probation or parole for any felony
is on parole from a facility is under contract with the Division of Juvenile Justice Services, that provides 24-hour supervision and confinement for youth offenders who have been committed to the division for custody and rehabilitation
has been adjudicated delinquent, within the last 10 years, for an offense that if committed by an adult would have been a violent felony under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.5
is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
45. Vermont Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as a lipstick or belt buckle
It is legal to own throwing starts or knives
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a switchblade with a blade that is 3 inches or longer
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to carry openly or concealed a dangerous or deadly weapon with the intent of using it to harm another.
It is illegal to carry openly or concealed a dangerous or deadly weapon onto school or government property.
Vermont law does not place any other restrictions on the carrying of knives. In 1903, in State v. Rosenthal, Vermont’s Supreme Court said that under the general laws, a person may carry a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, unless he did it with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring another.

46. Virginia Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own a switchblade
It is legal to own a ballistic knife
It is legal to own throwing stars or other throwing knives
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
What is Illegal to Own

It is legal to own any type of knife in Virginia.
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk
It is illegal to conceal carry a bowie knife
It is illegal to conceal carry a switchblade knife
It is illegal to conceal carry a machete
It is illegal to conceal carry a ballistic knife
It is illegal to conceal carry throwing stars or oriental darts
It is illegal to conceal carry any knife of a like kind to one of the above listed knives
47. Washington Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own bowie knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a disguised knife, such as a lipstick or belt buckle
It is legal to own throwing stars
What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a switchblade or other spring blade knife in the state of Washington.

Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk
It is illegal to conceal carry a dagger
It is illegal to conceal carry any dangerous weapon
It is illegal to open or conceal carry any weapon into a Courtroom
It is also illegal to carry or display a dagger, sword, knife, or other cutting or stabbing instrument in a manner or under circumstances that would cause alarm or show an intent to intimidate another. In 1994, in State v. Spencer, the Supreme Court of Washington held that there must be a sufficient basis for the alarm, such that a reasonable person would be alarmed. Also in 1994, the Court held, in State v. Byrd, that because the display of a weapon in a manner that caused reasonable fear or alarm could be done without intent, a violation of the statute did not require intent. This means that one does not have to intend to cause alarm or fear in order to be guilty of a crime under the statute.



48. West Virginia Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own

It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a switchblade
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a Bowie knife
It is legal to own a ballistic knife
What is Illegal to Own

West Virginia law does not prohibit the ownership of any type of knife.

Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal to conceal carry a dirk, dagger, or other stabbing knife with a blade over 3 ½ inches
It is illegal to conceal carry a switchblade, or any automatic knife
It is illegal to conceal carry a gravity knife
It is illegal to conceal carry a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is illegal to conceal carry any instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds
It is illegal to conceal carry any “deadly weapon”
49. Wisconsin Knife Laws

What is Illegal to Own

It is illegal to own a switchblade knife
It is illegal to own a gravity knife
It is illegal to own a butterfly knife
It is illegal to own any knife substantially similar to a switchblade, gravity knife, or butterfly knife
Restrictions on Carry

It is illegal in Wisconsin to carry a concealed and dangerous weapon.

Definition of Various Knives

A switchblade is defined as any knife having a blade which opens by pressing a button, spring or other device in the handle or by gravity or by a thrust or movement. In State v. Krause, the Appellate Court upheld Mr. Krause’s conviction for carrying a concealed dangerous weapon, finding that his knife, which had a blade that was serrated on one side, sharp on the other, and had a point at the end, was a switchblade. The blade was contained in two casings: the serrated blade fit into one of the casings and the cutting edge in the other. The casings were secured by a clasp, that when removed, allowed one casing to fall away from the other by the force of gravity, exposing the blade.

Neither the Wisconsin code nor its case law offers a definition of any other type of knife. When words or terms are not defined by the legislature, in the state code, Court’s use the ‘plain English meaning’ of the word, or that meaning provided in Webster’s dictionary.

50. Wyoming Knife Laws

What is Legal to Own
It is legal to own a switchblade
It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
It is legal to own a bowie knife
It is legal to own a dirk, dagger, poniard, or other stabbing knife
It is legal to own a stiletto
It is legal to own a gravity knife
What is Illegal to Own
Wyoming law does not prohibit the ownership of any type of knife.
Restrictions on Carry
It is illegal to conceal carry a deadly weapon in Wyoming.

OFF THE WIRE
BySimon Davis-Cohen
Cops are using roadside traffic stops to throw the Fourth Amendment out the window.
Checkpoints occupy a unique position in the American justice system. At these roadside stations, where police question drivers in search of the inebriated or “illegal," anyone can be stopped and questioned, regardless of probable cause, violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “general warrants” that do not specify the who/what/where/why of a search or seizure. Though the Supreme Court agrees that checkpoints skirt the Fourth Amendment, the Court has been clear that the “special needs” checkpoints serve, like traffic safety and immigration enforcement, trump the “slight” intrusions on motorists’ rights.
We have checkpoints for bicycle safety, gathering witnesses, drug trafficking, “illegal” immigration and traffic safety. Many states, like California, require cops to abide by “neutral” mathematical formulas when choosing which drivers to pull over (like 1 in every 10 cars). In reality, these decisions are left to the discretion of individual police officers, which results in a type of vehicular stop and frisk.
That’s why people in Arizona have sued the Department of Homeland Security for its wanton deployment of immigration checkpoints in their state. Among their complaints are racial profiling, harassment, assault and unwarranted interrogation, and detention not related to the express “special need” of determining peoples’ immigration status.
A key legal detail about checkpoints is that they cannot be used for crime control, as that would require individualized probable cause. But legal scholars argue that non-criminally-minded checkpoints are also illegal. They point out that the Fourth Amendment protected the colonists from being searched for non-criminal “wrongdoing.” Doing nothing wrong at all, they argue, is not grounds to be searched or have your property seized. 
Regardless, unlike DUI checkpoints, these immigration checkpoints, expanded by the 2006 Secure Fence Act, are only allowed within 100 miles of the continental United States’ border. But that’s a big perimeter. Nine of the country’s 10 largest cities, entire states and some two thirds of the US population reside within this constitutionally exempt zone.
At these checkpoints—some of which have become permanent fixtures on the highway—people are forced to stop when flagged down, again regardless of probable cause. But the extent to which people are legally obliged to answer officers’ questions is unclear and seemingly arbitrary. Not surprisingly, the military's immigration checkpoints have garnered outspoken criticism from across the political spectrum. Legalized by the Supreme Court in 1976, these checkpoints seem to have taken on a new momentum in the post-9/11 era. (Private militias have even taken to setting up their own versions.)
DUI checkpoints, on the other hand,  deemed constitutional in 1990, monitor roadways in 38 states. But they have been outlawed by 12 others that have invoked states’ rights to increase federal civil liberty protections. In the Court’s 1990 opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that states’ interest in eradicating drunk driving is undisputable and that this “interest” outweighed “the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints,” which he described as “slight.”
In the dissent, William Brennan reminded the Court that, “some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action.” In pulling people over at random, checkpoints remove this individualized component.

Today, the practice seems to be experiencing a renaissance of sorts. With the help of local police, private government contractors have used the tactic to collect anonymous breath, saliva and blood ( DNA) samples of American motorists for the federally funded National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving. Participation in the survey is voluntary, despite the confusion that may come with uniformed police asking for bodily fluids. Motorists are offered $10 for cheek swabs and $50 for blood samples. These practices have sparked considerable public outrage; law enforcement officials in St. Louis, Missouri and Fort Worth, Texas have stated their intent to limit their future participation in the study.

OFF THE WIRE
 Never ... ever... walk into a police station by yourself and try to file a complaint against a police officer. Civilian testers have shown that you may be harassed or falsely arrested for doing so.
 

OFF THE WIRE
Before a person can begin to understand the importance of an Outlaw Motorcycle Club (OMCs), they must understand what that is. An Outlaw Motorcycle Club is a very unique societyof very few men who choose to be a part of something bigger than themselves and a brotherhood beyond any that cannot be found elsewhere. Its origin and structure evolved from the Military many years ago, utilizing the leadership structure and rank system. Furthermore, there is a very unique few who make up the 1% er Outlaw Motorcycle Club community. Clubs such as the Bandidos, Hells Angels, Outlaws, Pagans, Mongols, and Sons of Silence are all a part of the 1%er Motorcycle Club community. The 1 % er designation was labeled by the AMA (American Motorcycle Association) back in 1947 in a statement they wrote for their magazine, stating that 99% of motorcycle riders were law abiding citizens and that only 1% were criminals (“AMA 1947”).
          The earliest form of Outlaw was Jesus Christ himself, it’s because Jesus didn’t fit into           the religious mold, or the government mold like the other 99% of society. Jesus and               his followers were the 1% that didn’t “bow down” to the worlds ways. They were in               the world, but not of the world.  Jesus was an outlaw, but he was not a criminal.                       Being an “outlaw” doesn’t mean you are a criminal; it just means you don’t conform             to the world system or its leaders and its officers. (Ridenour)
Many people will disagree with the importance of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs. This is largely due to the lack of understanding and positive exposure to what these clubs do for our communities and some will dispute the negative claims while maintaining the integrity of their beliefs of the OMCs.
        Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs date as far back as post World War II era when soldiers came home longing for continued brotherhood. They have always played a major role in urban cities social culture. Their existence, although grotesque to some, has always served their communities in a positive light. The actions of individuals at times are spotlighted by the media, which often is government driven, to gain support for banning identifying patches (also known as colors) of the OMCs. For example, the U.S.’s ATF agency tried to ban the Mongols Motorcycle Club’s patches in 2013. However, it would have broken the First Amendment rights of the club (Girardot).  The Government wanted to ban the club from being able to wear their patches publically, due to a few incidents of select individuals who are most likely not in the club anymore, since Clubs often police their own. OMCs all follow strict guidelines or bylaws which consist of their rules and regulations. If a member disobeys these rules, they can be punished by being stripped of their patches then banned from the club. It is possible the Government is afraid of these clubs around the U.S., because of their open display of unity and commitment. They are men willing to stand their ground, even against the court system, to fight for rights, as a whole. These men are veterans, fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, and uncles. The rights they fight to protect are the same rights that affect non club members, other motorcycle riders, as well as, the general public.
      There are many positive examples of these OMCs, that many only see in a negative light.One such positive example was the Hells Angels Toy run of 2015, where the club gathered funds that had been raised throughout the year to purchase a large number of bicycles (“Hells Angels Toys 2015”). They waited in line at Walmart for 5 days to catch the Black Friday sale and bought every bike in stock, roughly 200 bikes, in order to give bicycles to children whose families were too poor to purchase them themselves. Acts like this one can be seen throughout the United States by clubs of all levels. Clubs range from Christian Clubs, Veteran Clubs, Support Clubs, and OMC’s. All of which contain some of the biggest-hearted men and women one could ever meet. These are the types of people who manage fundraisers for burn victims, families who have lost their homes, children with special needs, and even the elderly.
        Make no mistake, these Clubs are not the Boy Scouts; they abide by a strict code and rules of the road protocol (Devereaux). At times incidents can occur by the acts of individuals that belong to these organizations. These incidents are often made to be more serious than they really are, and some are no worse than the crimes committed by the arresting authority or an average civilian. On May 17th of 2015 in Waco, Texas, men and woman from all clubs throughout the state of Texas gathered for a Coalition of Clubs meeting, which is to educate riders both independent and Patch holders within clubs of current laws and policies that may or may not affect them. It is also a social gathering amongst riders, and information is commonly shared about upcoming events and benefits. On this day, shots rang out, leaving nine people dead and another eighteen wounded. According to Brian Doherty, who writes for GQ, a grand total of 177 individuals were wrongfully arrested. To this day, it has yet to be proven that the gunfight that broke out started with shots fired from club members, and no police officer has been charged with illegitimate arrest or excessive force. Reports indicate that the first couple of shots were small arms fire, and the rest that followed were all automatic weapons, but no one has been able to identify the first shooter (Doherty). Everyone present that day was arrested, including both civilians and members of Motorcycle Ministries, all of which are innocent and spent a great deal of time in jail with extremely high bails. An interview was conducted by KXANS Brian Collister with Bandido Jimmy Graves, who is the Coalition of Clubs President in Waco, where he expressed the Bandidos recognize and respect law enforcement for doing their job, that they do not condone the violence portrayed upon them (“Bandidos”).  “To get the story crooked is to understand that the “straightness” of any story is a rhetorical invention: a story told from a particular perspective, informed by specific trainings told for a particular reason, to serve particular purposes. History is at best a reasoned report on the documented sources of the past” (Kellner 18).

        Members of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs are professionals; they may not look like professionals by some individuals’ standards, because they are bikers. Despite the positive actions of club members, the media still portrays them in a negative light by focusing on the bad behavior of a few; for this reason alone, bad behavior and negative publicity is not condoned by clubs or members. The 1%er clubs often police the activities of the clubs within their area to ensure they are “behaving” accordingly and following protocol within the community of clubs. If they do not do this, then there is the possibility of individuals creating negative chaos in the area in which they reside, causing the local law enforcement to crack down on all bikers and provoke unlawful use of force. In turn, the 1%er Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs are protecting the local community in which they reside by protecting all bikers and keeping the negative activities to a minimum. If more individuals would spend time amongst these men, they would see, with their own eyes, the good they do for the community, and all of the charity events along with donations raised to help people in need. They would also see the love and the brotherhood shared by the members of these Clubs as well as the bonds from club to club. These men are the kind of men filled with passion to fight to make things like brotherhood and sisterhood possible by protecting an individual’s rights and protecting people in need, helping friends and strangers alike, standing tall for freedom, love, loyalty, respect, and trust. In which they believe, in a very powerful and sometimes intimidating force. Similar to a battalion of soldiers on the battlefield who have gone to fight and protect what they believe to be right. While protecting these rights, they provide a blanket of freedom for others to sleep under. A positive impression from an experience in this community could help to spread a positive influence throughout our society. This influence would encourage society to stand together to help others in need, even those who are members of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs.

Over the past few months I have forwarded some inappropriate pictures and jokes
To friends who I thought shared my same sense of humor..
Unfortunately this wasn't the case and I seem to have upset quite
A few people who have accused me of being sexist and shallow..
If you were one of these people, please accept my sincerest apologies.
Looking to the rest of 2016 and onward, I will only post or send e-mails with cultural or educational content such as old monuments, nature and other interesting topics.
 Below is a picture of the Pont Neuf Bridge in Paris . It is the oldest bridge
 In Paris and took 26 years to build. It was completed in 1604..

OFF THE WIRE

Understanding the 1% Rule: Motivations

What motivates the people who make up the content contributors found in "The 1% Rule?" Perhaps the following story offers some clues. (This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book "Citizen Marketers.")

As a patch, it’s pretty simple: A diamond shape surrounded by a blue border, with "1%" embroidered in the middle. It's worn over the heart by members of motorcycle clubs that celebrate their outlaw status from mainstream motorcycle society. They call themselves the "One Percenters."

The inspiration for the patch and its meaning can be traced to 1947, when members of the Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington motorcycle club and the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club, showed up in Hollister, California, for that town's annual motorcycle race. As parties involving beer in summer heat sometimes do, things got out of hand.

A photographer for Life magazine happened to be attending the race and snapped a picture of a drunken biker perched atop a Harley Davidson, surrounded by broken beer bottles. The photo was published in Life with a caption that read, "Cyclist's Holiday: He and Friends Terrorize Town." A brief story accompanying the photo said 4,000 members of a motorcycle club were responsible for destructive mayhem. The photo and story provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99 percent of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1 percent" as outlaws.

The story has been the inspiration and founding principle for outlaw motorcycle clubs around the world. One Percenters organize and wear their patches as the proverbial finger raised toward society’s expectations of them. For decades, the story of what happened in Hollister has been repeated by numerous writers in magazines and newspapers, codifying its legend.

William L. Dulaney, a visiting professor at Western Carolina University spent months researching the history of the One Percenters for the academic periodical, "The International Journal of Motorcycle Studies." From months spent conducting field research around the United States, and having spent years as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club himself, he argues that contemporary One Percenters in "outlaw" motorcycle gangs are not necessarily pro-criminal, they are anti-bureaucracy. They rebel against the commonality of mainstream expectations.

Furthermore, the One Percenter clubs are organized around the idea of a community, and their unconventional lives and motorcycle lifestyles are reinforced by the strong-as-steel bonds with other members. They revel, sometimes raucously in beer-soaked pandemonium, in a culture that conventional society frowns on. Forget seeking the approval of conventional governing bodies; the One Percenters revel in their minority status.

They are outlaws of culture.

Dulaney surprises us, though, by debunking parts of the Hollister legend. The photo of the drunken biker? The Life photographer staged it. There was rowdiness in Hollister on that fateful weekend, but police made only one arrest. And there’s no evidence the American Motorcyclists Association denounced the bikers, one percent or otherwise. The source of "1%" was likely due a letter to the editor that Life ran in a subsequent edition, taking the magazine to task for its coverage of Hollister. The letter writer wrote, "We regretfully acknowledge there was disorder in Hollister – not the acts of 4,000 motorcyclists, but rather of a small percentage of that number." Someone, somewhere, interpreted that to mean one percent and it stuck.

Even if the facts about Hollister were off, its premise still resonated with a slice of American culture. Today, earning a One Percenter patch is a badge of social status that continues on in a tiny number of American motorcyclist communities.

That's why their story seems to be an apt analogy to describe a good deal of citizen marketers and their motivations, like someone who spends years blogging about Netflix, or campaigns to bring back a discontinued soda, or takes over the marketing for an upcoming movie, or volunteers to secret shop their favorite fast food chain, or anyone who contributes time and attention to a commercial cause. They, too, are outlaws of culture.

What they do is beyond the norm. Sometimes there is little recognition, but they are dedicated to and protective of their work and the community they're involved in. They excel on the edges of culture even if their percentage as content creators is little more than a rounding error to some companies. Numbers-wise, they are not huge, but the impact of their work can be.

(In a follow-up post, we'll look at the One Percenters and Netscape's desire to hire them.)

Update: This post showed up on the front page of Digg yesterday (thanks Bloodjunkie), and it sparked a -- let's say interesting -- round of 100+ comments within the Digg community. Ian Delaney sorts through some of them.

Update 2: A big hat tip to Colin McKay for the pointer to a story about the One Percenters who are going through a transition in Kansas City. It was his pointer that led us down the path toward this post. I'm a dope for not including a hat tip to him when this was first published.

OFF THE WIRE
Authorities openly target motorcycle clubs, particularly 1% clubs, selectively enforcing the law, in order to harass or investigate individuals based on the belief that they are definitionally criminals. This perspective is based on an outdated stereotype that is ignorant of statistical reality and foundational constitutional principles that have been consistently confirmed by the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Many federal and state authorities insist that what they call “outlaw motorcycle gangs/OMG’s” are a significant organized crime threat in America, despite the statistical data that proves criminal activity involving these clubs is negligible at best. (Note: the OMG tag is universally rejected by the clubs labeled gangs by law enforcement.)

Tens of millions of dollars are spent targeting and prosecuting motorcycle clubs based on a fallacy of composition. The regurgitated actions of the few are used to create a generalized assumption about thousands of people, regardless of statistical reality. Crimes committed by individual members of motorcycle clubs are highly sensationalized and presented to be representative of the entire community.  In fact, the statistical data that does exist, including the data generated by these same agencies, proves definitively that clubs labeled OMG’s represent a myopic percentage of criminal activity in this country.  Indeed, data suggests that law enforcement agencies commit and sanction many more major crimes than motorcycle clubs.

The Numbers

To begin to paint an accurate picture it is necessary to know how many members of these clubs and convicted felons there are in the US. Statistics say that there are 44,000 members of clubs labeled OMG’s, 24,000,000 convicted felons, and 6,851,000 whom are currently under correctional supervision.

• The FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center estimates that there are 44,000 members of so-called OMG’s in the U.S. According to the NGIC, “OMGs are organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises. Although some law enforcement agencies regard only One Percenters as OMGs, the NGIC, for the purpose of this assessment, covers all OMG criminal organizations, including OMG support and puppet clubs.”

• According to the Princeton University study, GROWTH IN THE U.S. EX-FELON AND EX-PRISONER POPULATION, 1948 TO 2010, 20 million people in 2010 had a felony conviction. Accounting for growth rates, there were approximately 24 million people in 2014 with a felony conviction.

• According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 6,851,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2014. (see BJS, “Correctional Populations In The United States, 2014”)

Statistical Reality- Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Members a very small fraction of convicted felons in the US.

Although there is no statistical data tracking the number of motorcycle club members who are convicted felons, law enforcement would have you believe that all members of clubs they have labeled OMG’s are criminals.

Despite the obvious inaccuracy of this claim,- most members of clubs labeled OMG’s have no criminal record- let us assume for the sake of argument, and to demonstrate the absurdity of law enforcement assumptions, that every member of every club that authorities label a criminal gang is a convicted felon.

Even if all 44,000 members of clubs labeled OMG’s were convicted felons, the overall impact on felony convictions would be minuscule. Do the math. 44,000 members/24,000,000 convicted felons=0.00183333 or .183333%.  The impact on those currently under correctional supervision would be similarly insignificant. 44,000 members/6,851,000 currently under supervision=0.00642242 or .64%. A fraction of 1% does not justify the stereotype of criminality. It’s that simple.  The following Pie Chart graphically demonstrates the absurdity of focusing on motorcycle clubs as a law enforcement priority.

Actual Number of Convicted Felons Among Clubs Labeled OMG’s

Although the NGIC estimates the number of members, no data on how many members are actually convicted felons is available.  On August 2, 2016 the MPP conducted a short survey with a small national sampling to generate data on the issue.  The survey data is derived solely from motorcycle clubs labeled OMG’s by law enforcement.   The survey asked two questions; 1- number of members in your Chapter; and 2- number of convicted felons in your Chapter.

Survey Results:

# of Chapters included in Survey: 5 (States surveyed include Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, and Maryland.)

Average Number of members: 15
Average number of Convicted Felons per Chapter: 3 or 20%

15/3 WA
16/4 OR
14/3 TX
14/1 MD
16/4 CA

The survey results revealed that there was an average of 1 convicted felon in 5, or 20%.  Although the above example, which counts every member of targeted clubs as convicted felons, demonstrates that clubs definitionally have a minimal crime print, 20% of members is a far more realistic projection than 100%.  20% of 44,000 = 8,800 club members that are convicted felons.  8,800 represents an almost non-existent 0.036% of the 24,000,0000 total convicted felons in the US.

Why Are There Felons In Motorcycle Clubs?

Options in society for most felons are extremely limited in terms of employment and some basic civil liberties and often felons feel rejected and stigmatized by society. Motorcycle club culture was created by individuals that had been rejected by society after having returned home from war. Motorcycle clubs provide an opportunity for reintegration to those released from incarceration without the constraints of a judgmental mainstream.

The motorcycle club world is a classless society in terms of mainstream establishment social hierarchy.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re a common laborer or an executive.  When you walk into the club world, status is dictated by respect and honor and not your education or job title.  Club culture provides an alternative way of life free from the condemnations of the mainstream. Everyone has to live by the same legal schematic. But not everyone has to reinforce or acknowledge mainstream social hierarchies or elitist behavior.

Note: Some crimes are definitionally despicable and individuals that have committed these crimes are not accepted, or they are ostracized, from the club community. Crimes targeting children are an example of such an offense.

Hypocrisy Defined: LE Authorizes Informants To Commit Thousands of Major Crimes Annually

For decades, law enforcement agencies have authorized informants to commit major crimes.  Labeled “otherwise illegal activity”, these sanctioned major crimes are considered to be necessary for undercover informant work.  But, aside from the FBI, “otherwise illegal activity” has not been quantified by other state and federal agencies.

In 1997, according to the criminal defense firm O’Brien Hatfield, PA, “It came to light when reporters revealed the FBI had authorized mobster “Whitey” Bulger to continue his criminal enterprise long after he became an FBI informant in 1975. Since that revelation, the U.S. Attorney General has required the FBI to keep reports on “otherwise illegal activity” by its “confidential human sources.”

But obtaining these reports has proven difficult over the years. At least until members of the press were able to obtain some quantifiable numbers from the FBI. The Huffington Post Reported on December 27,2013:

“In a Jan. 14, 2013, letter to Justice Department officials, obtained by The Huffington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request, FBI officials disclosed that its 56 field offices authorized informants to break the law at least 5,939 times during the 2012 calendar year. USA Today reported earlier this year that the bureau allowed its informants to break the law 5,658 times in 2011.”

O’Brien Hatfield explains that the reports “indicate the otherwise illegal activities were considered Tier I and Tier II violations. The Justice Department defines a Tier I violation as activity that would be criminal if not for the authorization of a federal prosecutor, and includes major crimes such as drug trafficking, public corruption and crimes of violence. Tier II violations aren’t necessarily less serious but can authorized by a senior FBI field manager.”

“Unfortunately, other law enforcement agencies are not required to keep such reports, although it is widely assumed that all levels of law enforcement allow informants to commit crimes during investigations”, says O’Brien Hatfield.

Annually, nearly 6,000 major crimes are being authorized by the FBI alone. Considering that all levels of law enforcement authorize criminal acts, the actual numbers would be truly staggering.

All levels of law enforcement sanction informants to commit major crimes in order to arrest and convict other individuals for committing these same crimes. This hypocrisy overwhelms the amount of criminal activity in the club community many times over.

Study Proves Police Commit More Felonies Than Outlaw Bikers

Police officers are arrested about 1,100 times a year, or roughly three officers charged every day, according to a new national study, thought to be the first-ever nationwide look at police crime, conducted by researchers at Bowling Green State University through a grant from the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice.

The most common crimes were simple assault, aggravated assault, and significant numbers of sex crimes. About 72 percent of officers (825 annually) charged in cases with known outcomes are convicted, more than 40 percent of the crimes are committed on duty.

The number of convicted felons in clubs labeled OMG’s, as explained above, is approximately 8,800 total. The number of convicted cops over the last 11 years, according to the only data that exists, is 9,075. (825 convicted cops per year x 11 years). More cops have been convicted of felonies in the last 11 years than the total number of felons in clubs law enforcement labels OMG’s.

This is hypocrisy at the highest level. Statistically, without bias, police are more of a threat to public safety than outlaw motorcycle clubs have ever been.

Conclusions: Motorcycle Clubs Are Not A National Law Enforcement Issue.

Considered in context with data suggesting law enforcement is a larger contributor to crime, the analysis leaves no doubt that clubs targeted by law enforcement are targeted based on stereotype as opposed to statistical reality.  The vastly expensive surveillance, investigations, harassment and profiling campaigns conducted by authorities are simply not justified based on the irrefutable statistical reality that motorcycle clubs mathematically have a negligible to non-existent impact on the level and magnitude of felony crime in the United States.