MC Club Basics

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≪ Previous: FYI - License-plate readers let police collect millions of records on drivers

The Club

The intent of this section is to give you an overview of the structure and philosophy of the traditional motorcycle club (MC). This does not necessarily express the feelings or priorities of any particular club, as all motorcycle clubs differ on some points. Regardless of the basic philosophy of this group, it is important that you understand the perspectives of other clubs that you may be associating with from time to time.
If motorcycles influence your lifestyle, then you are part of the motorcycle community. Of all the types of organizations found within that community, the traditional motorcycle club stands apart and ranks highest in stature.

Respect
A serious MC club commands respect for one reason. Those who are correctly informed recognize the deep level of personal commitment and self discipline that a man has to demonstrate and sustain in order to wear a patch. They realize that a club's "Colors" are closely guarded and the membership process is long and difficult. Other factors notwithstanding, they respect Patchholders for what they have accomplished by being able to earn and keep the patch they wear. This is respect born out of recognition of dedication and accomplishment. The MC Club strives for respect for this reason. This is especially true as it pertains to those persons outside of the motorcycle community. This segment of society is by far the larger, and therefore represents a larger market for any fund raising activities that the group might undertake. It stands to reason that cultivating a relationship with these people is important, and to be perceived by them as "Biker Scum" would not be advantageous to the group. They will therefore conduct themselves as upstanding citizens in every way... "Good neighbors" so to speak. The goal is to be admired and respected by the general public rather than feared. The serious club, and all of its members and guests, will always conduct themselves publicly in a highly professional manner.

Club Colors
The general public does not draw a distinction between different club colors. In many cases, they simply can't tell the difference: we're all "Biker Scum" to them. If one club causes a problem that touches the public sector, the offending club's identity is either confused or ignored and the heat comes down on all clubs. The general public does not make the distinction between a MC and an RC (Riding Club), therefore EVERYONE needs to be aware that no matter whether they are in an MC and RC or an Independent rider, their actions reflect on all in the motorcycle community. The MC clubs tend to police themselves to avoid such incidents.

Participation
A Patchholder will not discuss any club business whether it's about membership numbers, club goings on, or any member's personal information with anyone outside of the club. They understand that they are a Patchholder 24 hours a day whether or not they are wearing their colors. Everything they say or do in public can affect the club. They also understand that if they get out of line, that they are subject to be counseled for their own good and for that of the club. Wearing a patch is more than getting together for good times. It also means getting together for the other times, too. It constitutes a lot of work. It's committing themselves to a lifestyle in which they do not look for how their brothers or sisters can help them, but for ways that they can be of help to their brothers and sisters. They always look to give rather than to receive. All of this may seem very idealistic, and in some cases it's just that. But it is an ideal that all clubs profess and are always striving for in principle and practice.
Always be aware of the "Golden Rule" of conduct while traveling in club circles: If you give respect, you'll get respect. If you act with disrespect, then you'll be treated with the same.

Levels of Commitment
When someone earns their patch, it does not mean that he or she has reached the ultimate goal and from that point they can kick back and coast. Moving from guest to probation to Patchholder is not climbing from the bottom to the top, but rather more like climbing a constantly ascending slope, and in time becoming a stronger and more committed brother or sister. A person's probationary rocker and later their patch are merely presented in recognition of what they have demonstrated along the way. In this fashion, the more senior the Patchholder is in the club and the more they experience, the more of a brother or sister they should be to all.

Purpose of Probation / Prospecting
Probation is not an initiation, as you would find in a fraternity. It is instead a period of time that is sustained until the person, in every sense, conducts themselves with the respect that is mandated to be a Patchholder. It's a time in which:
The attitude is conditioned so that he/she displays a sense of responsibility and respect toward the patch holders of the club, without which they will not develop a sense of respect for the group.
He/she is educated in basic MC protocol and etiquette.
He/she is given time to develop the habits that are basic to good security and good communications.
To get into the habit of participating.
To become accustomed to trusting the judgment, at times blindly, of those patch holders who will someday be his or her brothers and sisters.
The list could go on but the point here is to demonstrate that probationary period has definite objectives and that a person will go nowhere in the club if he/she is not aware of this and does not apply themselves to those ends. It's not possible to make a checklist of what is expected from a person in all cases. There isn't any formula for success, but the key is ATTITUDE AND RESPECT. Everything else can be learned in time, but a person's attitude comes from the heart.

↧

Protocol Basics

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - While Your Phone Calls Are Tracked & Stored – Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques

≪ Previous: MC Club Basics

These are some things for you, as a Riding Club member, to consider when dealing with motorcycle clubs. They are also things to consider if and when you are going to be around motorcycle clubs.

1. Patchholders are people too. They have good and bad days, they have jobs, families, and normal everyday problems and concerns just like anyone else. There are those who no matter what you say or do, it will not be right with them. Just like with any group, you will find both good and bad.
2. Protocol and Respect are primary rules when dealing with a motorcycle club patchholder.
If you are FORMALLY introduced to a patchholder, make sure either the person doing the introduction (or you) make sure they know what club you belong to & if you are an officer, what position you hold. Under no circumstances do you interrupt to correct a mistake while that person is introducing you or while they are talking. Wait till the introduction is done & politely introduce yourself correctly. i.e.….
Joe Rider, xxxxxxxxxxxx Riding Club, 1st Officer, Anytown Chapter.
Fred Spokes, Anystate Officer, xxxxxxxxxxxxx Riding Club
(Use your name - not your nickname. Nicknames may come later.)
3. Greet them as you would meet anyone else & wait until the offer is made to shake hands. DO NOT interrupt, wait for them to recognize you. DO NOT be offended or make a big deal if they do not offer to shake your hand. Many times they want to get to know about you and your club a little better before they will offer to shake your hand.
4. Never, Ever, Lie. You can refuse to answer a question in a polite manner by saying something like, "That seems like club business, and I would like to refer that to one of our officers in order to get better information for you." Be prepared to answer questions about what your club is about. Such as....
A.) "We are a riding club & not a motorcycle club and have no intention of ever trying to become a motorcycle club".
B.) The Patch is bought & not earned.
C.) No dues or Dues - as applicable.
D.) All makes and models of motorcycle are welcomed. Or it's a brand specific or special requirements club.
E.) We are a non-territorial club.
F.) We are a neutral club and do not wear any MC support patches.
G.) Women riders are welcomed and in many cases are club officers.
H.) We are an AMA chartered riding club.
J.) Do not offer forum links or web sites, It's better to refer them to a club officer.
K.) Do NOT brag about how large the local or national membership is.
L.) Do not volunteer club info. If they ask a question about the local chapter answer it if you can. If they start asking questions about the number of members, or the National chain of organization refer them to one of the club Officers.
5. Women in leadership positions or being a patchholder in motorcycle clubs, while not totally unheard of, is very rare. That's just the way it is. Most motorcycle clubs would also rather deal with a man if there is business to conduct. Most realize what a riding club is about & will for the most part accept a woman as an officer, and a woman officer will most likely be allowed to attend any meeting. Whether or not they will deal directly with a woman officer or not depends on the individual motorcycle club/chapter. There is no set rule for this and they will let you know if it's ok with them or not. Many motorcycle clubs do not care to deal with the National officers. They would prefer to deal with the local or state representatives.
6. If anyone knows a patchholder, don't let him/her throw the patchholders' name/nickname/club's name around like you're a great buddy of theirs (even if you are). Many clubs consider that as a major disrespect to the whole club.
7. Watch where you are when speaking about them, and never say anything about them in public because you never know when that woman, man, or kid in regular clothes standing near you might be one of them, or a "support member". Patchholders do not always wear their colors. By the time the story gets back to the top club in your area, it will have been changed many times over and could be blown up way out of proportion.
8. Anything said about them between club members is club business ONLY. If comments, even those said in a joking manner were to get out, problems could start. Discussion outside the privacy of the chapter can start rumors which could cause a lot of problems for not only the chapter, but also for other chapters in and out of the state.
9. If for some reason you have to say something while in public about a motorcycle club, take the person you're talking to aside, alone, and say ONLY what you need to say to get your meaning across. Say as little as possible so anyone else can't overhear it & misunderstand what you're talking about.
10. Watch where you wear your patch (RCs don't wear colors, colors are earned, not bought) and it's just common sense to stay in numbers when wearing the patch. (Some motorcycle clubs can be very territorial and some clubs don't see any difference between a RIDING CLUB and MOTORCYCLE CLUB, good or bad.) If you are unsure of the areas or places normally frequented by motorcycle clubs, find out from your club Officers. If you are planning on traveling and are concerned about what the situation may be in regard to the relationship with the local motorcycle clubs in the areas you'll be traveling through or staying in, talk to your local officer and ask if they can find something out by contacting the officers in the areas you will be in.
11. "SHOW THEM RESPECT." That's A #1 with them! (and worth repeating).
12. If you already know a patchholder, or get to know one in the future, don't just walk up to him/her and interrupt when they are with other members. Wait till he/she acknowledges you first and NEVER touch them or put your arm around them like a buddy. Don't put your hand out to shake theirs; wait for them to extend their hand first. If for some reason you're not acknowledged at all, then just keep walking. If you need to talk to an officer of a Motorcycle Club the proper way is to go through the Sgt at Arms or one of the patchholders.
13. You have to decide whether or not you want to show respect by going to any of their functions or if you want to avoid all of them all together. If you do choose to show respect and go, you can do this in a way that may make you feel more at ease by going to one of their "support's" functions instead of the top club's function (if they have a support patch then you're still indirectly showing the top club respect). But if you do go, then you also have to go to their rival clubs' function or you'll be telling everyone that you're not a "NEUTRAL" club as you said you were. (Example: If you go to the Club A's function then YOU HAVE TO GO to the Club B's function, etc..) You have to decide how you want to stay neutral, by going or not going and you have to let all the other area chapters know if you're going too, so they're not in the dark and we can ALL stay on top of things.
**** NOTE ***** A better way to support them and still give the appearance of being a neutral club is to attend only "open to the public" events that a motorcycle club may be sponsoring.
If you feel that you do want or need to go to a "limited event", then you'll have to go representing yourself as yourself, preferably without wearing any patches identifying your club. Remember, if you're wearing your club patch, you are considered by everyone to be representing your whole club. If anything were to turn sour, then your whole club could wind up with problems down the road. Also, once the rivals of that club you visited find out (and they will within a day or two), then those rivals will see you as no longer being neutral & you could be considered a rival of theirs too.
14. No CLB's (Chapter Location Bars), any territory rockers, or anything giving the appearance of a rocker should be worn with the RC patch. State flags, state logos may be worn in some areas and not in others. It's best to check with the local RC officers to make sure what is ok in your area.
15. If someone from a motorcycle club requests that you remove your vest/patch, don’t argue. The best reply is, "No Problem" & politely take it off and let your Club Officer know what motorcycle club it was so they can deal with any potential problems. You normally will only get asked once.
16. If an establishment has a sign indicating “No Colors”, even though your patch is not considered “colors”, the vest should be removed out of respect to the other clubs and the policy of the establishment. While you may just be a Riding Club, it's only respectful to honor the house rules. Motorcycle clubs that honored the "house rules" would probably be deeply offended that you didn't. Also remember, many establishments choose to have this policy and it applies to all clubs that use any kind of patch; they do not distinguish between a MC and a RC. Be aware of the local motorcycle club hangouts & it's best not to wear the RC patch into them without an invitation.
17. Do not wear your Patch into a motorcycle club clubhouse unless you have asked if it's ok to do so or have been invited for a "sit down" with the officers of the motorcycle club, or been invited As a Riding Club Member, to attend a function there.
18. In regard to women who are with a MC club, but not in the club: Old Lady is not a negative or derogatory term, it's just a slang term commonly used. "Property Of" patches are their way of showing support for their man and the club he's in.
19. A patchholder may not, and many times will not, acknowledge your wife or girlfriend, especially upon a first meeting.
20. DO NOT touch or sit on a patchholder's bike unless invited to do so. Do not expect the invitation.
21. A prospect can usually be identified by the back patch they are wearing. There are many different ways motorcycle clubs identify prospects. They can have the rockers without the main patch. They can actually have a patch saying "PROSPECT". Some do not wear any patch, because all the Patchholders know who the prospects are. You want to treat a prospect or even someone you suspect is a prospect the same way you would treat a patchholder - with respect and courtesy. Many clubs will take offense to someone outside their club using the prospect term. Calling someone "Prospect" if you are not a patchholder of that club more often is considered disrespectful.
22. Have absolutely no doubt that a motorcycle club is serious and many have been known to physically educate a person who shows disrespect or displays a bad attitude.
23. Be aware of the behavior and attitude of the other RC members who are with you (especially if anyone has been drinking) at events. If necessary, try to take action to avoid problems before they happen. For example, if someone appears to be getting too angry or loud and possibly disrespectful, take them aside or suggest going somewhere else until things settle down. You could also let one of the officers of the club know about the situation. If an incident should occur in spite of your efforts when no Officers are present, make sure to let your officers know as soon afterward as you can. If no club officers happen to be there, then ALL of the RC members that are there need to make the attempt to take that person aside, and strongly suggest that the offending RC member go somewhere else to settle down.
24. Be aware that problems created in one part of the country by a RC member or issues with the RC in one area have the potential to affect RC members in other areas and states.
25. The term Brother or Bro has special meaning to a Patchholder, do not call a Patchholder Brother or Bro. Their Brothers are fellow Patchholders and those that have earned that term.
26. Don't ever touch any part of another club member's colors, which includes the vest or jacket it's sewn on. That is considered serious disrespect, which could cause them to aggressively educate the un-informed.

↧

USA - While Your Phone Calls Are Tracked & Stored – Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - When Dealing With The Police - a helpful cheat sheet

≪ Previous: Protocol Basics

OFF THE WIRE
Posted by Jim Hoft

While information on your emails and phone calls were stored en masse, the Obama administration restricted spying on mosques.
Investors.com reported:

The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.
That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Read the rest here.

↧

USA - When Dealing With The Police - a helpful cheat sheet

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Who Polices The Police? Eyewitnesses Document Misconduct And Brutality

≪ Previous: USA - While Your Phone Calls Are Tracked & Stored – Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques

OFF THE WIRE

↧

Who Polices The Police? Eyewitnesses Document Misconduct And Brutality

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: H.R.1861 - Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act

≪ Previous: USA - When Dealing With The Police - a helpful cheat sheet

OFF THE WIRE

For Andrea Prichett, the reality of police misconduct didn’t sink in until she saw it with her own eyes.

“I started to explore the issue and began hearing all kinds of stories that were hard for me to believe. We took it upon ourselves to watch the police. We would find the red and blue lights, just stop and be a witness, write down the badge numbers of the officers and any details of the event. It became clear to me that we had a real problem with police accountability and lack of it. Officers feeling like they could treat people in ways that really violated their constitutional rights,” Prichett, founder of Berkeley Copwatch, told Mint Press News.
Allegations of police misconduct are widespread, with thousands of claims across the U.S. each year. The Cato Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, one of the most comprehensive research projects examining incidents of police brutality in the U.S., found 4,861 unique reports of police misconduct involving 6,613 sworn officers and 6,826 alleged victims in 2010.
Cato recorded 1,575 officers involved in cases of police brutality. In most cases, the incidents involved police throwing punches or hitting victims with batons, but one-quarter of cases involved firearms or stun guns.
At times, the use of physical force has led to the deaths of victims, prompting a backlash from citizen watch groups.

Investigating police abuse
One recent incident covered by Berkeley Copwatch, a citizen patrol group active since 1990, involved the death of a transgender woman named Kayla Moore. Moore, a drug addict and paranoid schizophrenic, died while in police custody in February. Advocates of police accountability believe her death was caused by forceful police response during an arrest.
“Kayla Moore died in police custody in her own home after officers responded to calls for a mental health evaluation and told that person she was under arrest for a warrant that wasn’t really valid,” Prichett said. “The person objected and a struggle ensued and this person who was already paranoid schizophrenic, well known to the police department, now finds herself face down on her own futon with six cops on top of her. So of course when she stops breathing and dies in their custody, they say, ‘Oh well, she’s a drug addict and she’s overweight.’”
Moore was reportedly high on methamphetamine and wanted to borrow money from her roommate. When he refused, Moore became belligerent, causing him to call the police. Earlier this month, the Alameda County coroner’s bureau ruled that Moore died because of “acute combined drug intoxication,” prompting Moore’s family to call for a new independent investigation.
“Clearly that sort of response by the police to somebody who is paranoid schizophrenic and has major health issues had to have contributed to her death,” Prichett said.
Allegations of police abuse like this are widespread, but few government statistics exist documenting incidents of abuse. The Department of Justice conducted a 2006 inquiry into police abuse using 2002 data. The findings showed that although many claims of abuse were deemed “unfounded” or thrown out, at least 2,000 cases of credible police abuse occurred across the U.S. in 2002.
“During 2002 large State and local law enforcement agencies, representing 5 percent of agencies and 59 percent of officers, received a total of 26,556 citizen complaints about police use of force,” the report concluded. “About a third of all force complaints in 2002 were not sustained (34 percent), 25 percent were unfounded, 23 percent resulted in officers being exonerated, and 8 percent were sustained.”
Some citizens, unsatisfied with the internal review of police department reviews, have formed volunteer police watch groups in an attempt to break the the “Blue Code of Silence” — an alleged bond preventing individuals within the police force from speaking out against misconduct.

Limits of recourse
Even in some cases where individuals present seemingly clear video evidence indicating excessive use of police force, disciplinary boards have failed to punish officers for any wrongdoing. During the height of Occupy Wall Street protests, Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran, suffered a skull fracture during protests in Oakland, Calif.
Eyewitnesses believe a tear gas canister was fired at Olsen at point-blank range. As other demonstrators tried to carry him to get medical treatment, the police continued to fire tear gas. Nearly two years later, no officers have been disciplined for what happened, although the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild filed information requests to push for a thorough review in October 2011.
Some involved in the documentation of police brutality note that there are limitations, even when clear video footage of abuse is presented.
“It think [the video footage] shows real promise of an accountability mechanism. The problem is that you don’t know when the video starts and when the video ends,” said Bill Dobbs, press liaison for Occupy Wall Street, to Mint Press News.
In April, the Manhattan district attorney decided not to prosecute two high-ranking New York Police Department officers for pepper-spraying and punching Occupy Wall Street protesters in 2011 — events that Occupy activists claim were acts of police brutality against non-violent protesters.
Onlookers recorded video of the incident, showing NYPD deputy inspectors Anthony Bologna and Johnny Cardona using pepper spray against against non-threatening protesters associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
“After a thorough investigation, we cannot prove the allegations criminally beyond a reasonable doubt,” said the district attorney’s chief spokesperson, Erin Duggan.
“The civilian review complaint board in New York City is more or less an internal process. The prosecutors have to rely upon the police to make their case. People have called for an independent review. What comes out most often is money judgments, not policy change,” Dobbs said. “Very rarely do police pay anything out of their own budget. Why is this so hard? Because the police enjoy wide support. It is a politically powerful institution.”
The use of cameras on mobile phones has provided citizens with a powerful tool to track police activities and report misconduct.
In response, many citizen watchdog groups have formed to patrol their neighborhoods and watch the police. It’s a right protected in every state, allowing citizens to film police doing their jobs in a public.
“We are victims of a growing police state. My experience is particularly with the war on drugs,” said Ademo Freeman, founder of Copblock.org, to Mint Press News.
“In my early teens I was arrested for distributing marijuana and bought into the whole paradigm that I was a drug dealer and I was doing wrong and I should pay my debt to society,” Freeman said. “I was sentenced to jail time, fined, and convicted of a felony. Through this process I learned this system is not about justice. I was in a correctional facility but I don’t recall being corrected of any improper behavior. I remember being controlled. I remember being told what to do.”
“I came to realize in fact that I didn’t harm anybody. I was interacting in voluntary interactions, I wasn’t threatening anybody to purchase a product from me. I wasn’t using any violence. If anything, I was in fact a victim,” he said.
Based on this experience, Freeman launched Copblock.org as an open forum where victims of police misconduct can share their stories and post videos.
“It’s a one-stop shop where people can share their experience, beliefs, tactics and goals for police accountability,” he said.
In its three-plus years of existence, Freeman claims “hundreds of thousands” representing views from across the political spectrum have posted to the website and shared experiences.
“There’s a large amount of people who have had worse — physical abuse, deaths, on and on,” he said.
Other have hit the street with cameras in hand to actively watch the police. It’s an increasingly popular tactic for citizens in major U.S. cities.
Prichett formed Berkeley Copwatch in 1990 after observing police harassment of homeless populations.

“I wanted to work with homeless people and it was clear to me that one of the biggest obstacles for homeless people achieving their goals and getting themselves out of poverty was their interactions with police,” Prichett said.

The project quickly grew as dozens signed up for the regular citizen patrols patrolling Berkeley streets from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. or later on any given night. Although it’s hard to determine whether the police would have behaved differently, Prichett is confident that having at least one person filming and documenting police interactions with the public reduces the risk of misconduct.
“The officers had been instructed to be courteous, it was quite clear. They were instructed to cooperate with us. We would show up at a situation and the officer would walk up, give us a business card with their badge number on it ask us if we needed anything. There were many times when they would have someone in handcuffs and then uncuff them and let them go,” Prichett said.
After observing and filming incidents of misconduct, Berkeley copwatchers take that information and record it in a computer database, which Prichett says now includes “thousands of incidents.” The information is also made available to victims if they press forward with claims against an arresting officer in court or at a police review board.
In some instances, video footage has been used by victims to win monetary settlements for abusive police practices. Derryl Jenkins, a Minneapolis, Minn., resident, received a $235,000 settlement on Monday after the payment was approved by the Minneapolis City Council.
Jenkins filed the lawsuit in February, about a year after he was pulled over in north Minneapolis for speeding. Jenkins claims he was punched, kicked and Tasered by at least six police officers. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Police Chief Tim Dolan ordered police officers to watch the video of the incident and later ordered a review of many arrests that resulted in medical treatment. He disapproved of the officers kicking Jenkins during the incident.
Original post fromMintpressnews.com

↧

H.R.1861 - Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Back Road Rider: Do loud pipes save lives?

≪ Previous: Who Polices The Police? Eyewitnesses Document Misconduct And Brutality

OFF THE WIRE

Congressional Bills 113th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.R. 1861 Introduced in House (IH)] 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1861 To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 7, 2013 Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Jones, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr. Terry) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure _______________________________________________________________________
A BILL To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act''. SEC. 2. GRANT RESTRICTION. The Secretary of Transportation may not provide a grant or any funds to a State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government to be used for any program to check helmet usage or create checkpoints for an operator of motorcycle or passenger on a motorcycle. SEC. 3. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY. Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the section heading by striking ``and motorcycle helmets''; (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``such fiscal year--'' and everything that follows through ``(2) a law'' and inserting ``such fiscal year a law''; (3) in subsection (b) by striking ``State laws'' each place it appears and inserting ``a State law''; and (4) in subsection (f) by amending paragraphs (2) and (3) to read as follows: ``(2) Second-year grants.--A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 50 percent. ``(3) Third-year grants.--A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the second fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 70 percent.''. SEC. 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS. Section 402(a)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following: ``(iv) to prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles;''.

13th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1861

To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMay 7, 2013

Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Jones, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr. Terry) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act”.

SEC. 2. Grant restriction.

The Secretary of Transportation may not provide a grant or any funds to a State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government to be used for any program to check helmet usage or create checkpoints for an operator of motorcycle or passenger on a motorcycle.

SEC. 3. Motorcycle safety.

Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in the section heading by striking “and motorcycle helmets”;

(2) in subsection (a) by striking “such fiscal year—” and everything that follows through “(2) a law” and inserting “such fiscal year a law”;

(3) in subsection (b) by striking “State laws” each place it appears and inserting “a State law”; and

(4) in subsection (f) by amending paragraphs (2) and (3) to read as follows:

“(2) SECOND-YEAR GRANTS.—A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 50 percent.

“(3) THIRD-YEAR GRANTS.—A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the second fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 70 percent.”.

SEC. 4. Highway safety programs.

Section 402(a)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:

“(iv) to prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles;”.

↧

Back Road Rider: Do loud pipes save lives?

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: BABES OF THE DAY

≪ Previous: H.R.1861 - Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act

OFF THE WIRE

By CALVIN 'SKEET' SHEEDER

Back Road Rider, Calvin "Skeet" Sheeder (courtesy) Ahhh, yes, with the dawn of a new riding season before us it seems it's never too late to get your complaints in about those pesky and noisy motorcycles, even if it is based on a column I wrote over a year ago! Take this timely entry for example: I will let you read it. Then I will guide you through the murky waters of what this is really about. Writer stated (quoting me, BRR): "I as well as millions of other motorcycle-loving people happen to like my things loud. Loud pipes save lives. It's a fact."Writer's correction detail: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim the 'loud pipes save lives' other than the thousands of Harley riders who yell it from the mountain tops hoping that if they are loud enough people will believe it. Statistically, loud pipes have absolutely zero effect on safety -- plain and simple. NHTSA, ABATE, AMA all agree on this. It's a belief, not a fact."Also, the writer seems to miss the understanding that his 'right' to be loud conflicts directly with my 'right' to not be annoyed by noise pollution. Many noise ordinances are being passed in many municipalities because of this crazy belief... "Check your facts (funny thing about facts is they are based on evidence, statistics and real life studies, not by testimony of true believers; that is religion, not fact). My rights stop where another person's rights start. I don't have the right to cause a ruckus, it's called 'disturbing the peace.' "Additional sources: Anyone with scientific evidence; the insurance institutes, NHTSA, ABATE, AMA -- an organization that actually studies the safety of motorcyclists -- instead of a religious zealot screaming their beliefs as loud like their pipes."What the complainant is referring to is an article I wrote titled " Do Motorcycles Need Muzzled?" which was written over a year ago in response to another complaint I received about loud motorcycles -- Harley Davidsons in particular, because everybody knows only Harleys are loud. In fact the complainer at that time couldn't type the words "Harley Davidson" enough times in his complaint to make his point ... Fast forward to now. First of all Mr. or Mrs. Peace-nick, I say this because nobody bothered to sign the complaint, which tells me all I need to know about the writer, Does the word sarcasm have any meaning to you? If you knew anything about the motorcycling community, you might also know that "Loud pipes save lives" is a very popular helmet sticker which I inserted into that article. I did indeed add "It's a fact" and will stand by that. And now that you mention it, the funny thing about facts is that people have a funny way of stretching them around to fit their funny agendas. Again, I couldn't help but notice your reference to Harley Davidson and Harley riders so many times in your message. Why would that be? But let's get back to the facts thing, shall we? What's that? You need to wipe the sweat from your forehead? OK, I'll wait ... da, de, da ... After checking with fellow members of ABATE, of which I happen to be a member, by the way, I can't seem to find anybody who is even aware of a study ever being performed to say one way or another whether loud pipes save lives or not, so how could ABATE "agree they have no effect on safety" as you so proudly proclaim? It is a shame when those pesky facts get in the way, isn't it? I'm not saying that buried in a vault somewhere under mountains of more pressing paperwork there couldn't be a study somewhere, it's just I haven't nor has anyone I spoke with ever heard of one. So I'm gonna go with that. Where is your proof? As far as the AMA goes, to me it seems mostly like a metric and dirt bike orientation club with which Harley Davidson did or may even still have ties. Well, after poring over more motorcycling articles than I ever wanted to, I still failed to see one that said loud pipes do or do not save lives. There was plenty of talk about loud motorcycles and how to go about curbing excessive motorcycle noise. (I attribute most of that to the competition complaining about the top dog, Harley Davidson, simply because they have the largest motorcycle base) but the conclusion is or was it couldn't be done very effectively without singling out motorcycles beyond the scope of other vehicles and noises like lawn mowers or construction or a fireworks display or re-enactments with cannons and rifle fire -- all of which could disturb someone's peace or be considered a " ruckus" by someone. But to people like yourself I suppose you could give the information a good twist and jump to conclusions you came to. OK, let's jump back to the "loud pipes save lives" issue. Today, class, we are going to use a term I call applied logic. This is not something taught in school or that you can get a degree in, to the dismay of some people. I will be your professor. When this class is over, you will be able to come to sound conclusions on your own, that will not require years of government-funded studies, or tons of taxpayer dollars to come up with a correct answer to some of life's little dilemmas. Such as, do loud pipes save lives? Let's say, for example, a fictional driver named Mrs. Crabtree is behind the wheel of her 1987 "USS Buick." She's sitting atop a booster seat and her eyesight isn't what it used to be. She's at a stop sign getting ready to pull across the lanes of traffic when all of a sudden she hears the loud sirens of a fire truck as it passes down the road just feet in front of her. Whew! That was a close one! I think I could safely say loud sirens save lives or in this case, Mrs. Crabtree's and several fire department personnel. Now why would fire trucks have loud sirens if they didn't have any effect whatsoever on safety? You can't see a siren can you? Now let's apply some logic to this scenario, shall we? Mrs. Crabtree (I love that name!) pulls up to the same stop sign and you're on a motorcycle. Would you rather be on: A -- The motorcycle that gets her attention with the loud pipes (for this exercise let's pretend that you do have a wife and children before answering); or B -- The whisper-quiet motorcycle, and you rely on your dreamcatcher for protection? You see, Mr. and Mrs. Peacock, there are many motorcyclists out there who absolutely love nothing more than to ride their motorcycles but want that little extra protection that a louder motorcycle can and does provide. They as well as myself elect to disturb your peace for no more time than it takes a fire truck to pass -- not because they have an axe to grind with you or anyone else but because there are far too many "Mrs. Crabtrees" on the road. We have families, children and friends we care about and that care about us. As an owner of both a quiet and a louder motorcycle, I can tell you first-hand loud pipes do save lives -- it is a fact. I don't need a degree from Harvard to come to this conclusion and neither do any of my fellow riders, many of whom have written in support of this question, which by the way, if I stapled them all together and put them in a folder, would constitute a "real life study." So please come down off that high horse of yours and don't take it personally. I think what you're trying to say is you don't like loud motorcycles -- period -- day or night. That, people, is a whole other ball of wax. I stand by my conclusion. Class dismissed! Peace, love and ride! -- SkeetContacts: If you have an event or ride you would like Back Road Rider to join or list on various websites, e-mail him at Thebackroadrider@embarqmail.com; tweet him at backroadrider1 or post a note at facebook.com/backroadrider. Website: http://www.backroadrider.org Blog site: http://www.publicopiniononline.com (under Opinion tab, scroll down to Blogs)

↧

BABES OF THE DAY

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - 13NR25 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint 1 July, 2013

≪ Previous: Back Road Rider: Do loud pipes save lives?

↧

USA - 13NR25 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint 1 July, 2013

July 17, 2013, 6:00 pm

≫ Next: BABE`s OF THE DAY

≪ Previous: BABES OF THE DAY

OFF THE WIRE

MRF E-MAIL NEWS Motorcycle Riders Foundation
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE | Suite 204 | Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice) | 202-546-0986 (fax) | http://www.mrf.org
13NR25 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1 July, 2013
Contact:Jeff Hennie, Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs

Motorcycle Only Checkpoint H.R. 1861 – Needs your SUPPORT now!

Congressman James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin) introduced a bill to prohibit the federal funding of motorcycle only roadside checkpoints. Sensenbrenner has always been an MRF Champion and he needs your support now on this bill.
As we approach July 4th, our Nations Independence Day this is a perfect opportunity for you to use the system that our founding fathers set in place to make a change for the better. The bill, H.R. 1861, has nine original co-sponsors however, we need many more to pass this landmark legislation. Call your congressman and ask them to support H.R. 1861.
Sensenbrenner had this to say in a 'Dear Colleague letter' that is circulating in the House of Representatives; 'In the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 904, a bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from providing funds to state and local authorities for the purpose of creating motorcycle only checkpoints. Section one of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act contains the same language as H.R. 904. However, this bill also contains language to force the DOT to focus motorcycle safety efforts on crash prevention programs, not national helmet mandates.'
It's important to contact your sitting member of the House of Representatives and ask them to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation. Ask them to contact Congressman James Sensenbrenner and lend their support as co-sponsor of H.R. 1861. You can contact the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121
You can contact the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

↧

BABE`s OF THE DAY

July 18, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

≪ Previous: USA - 13NR25 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint 1 July, 2013

↧

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer

≪ Previous: BABE`s OF THE DAY

OFF THE WIRE

A Police Officers Worst Enemy Is A Well Informed Citizen Who Knows Their Rights!

Police officers hate to hear these words:
"Am I free to go?"
"I don't consent a search."
"I'm going to remain silent."

When a Police Officer Stops You

To stop you a police officer must have a specific reason to suspect your involvement in a specific crime and should be able to tell you that reason when you ask. This is known as reasonable suspicion. A police officer usually will pull you over for some type of "traffic violation," such as speeding or maybe not using your blinker. Throwing a cigarette butt or a gum wrapper out your car window is reason enough for the police to pull you over, ticket you for littering and start asking you all sorts of personal questions.

Your Rights During a Traffic Stop. Top Five (5) Things to Know About Protecting Yourself from the Police:

#1 - Safety. The first thing is your safety! You want to put the police officer at ease. Pull over to a safe place, turn off your ignition, stay in the car and keep your hands on the steering wheel. At night turn on the interior lights. Keep your license, registration, and proof of insurance always close by.
Build a trust with the police officer be a "good citizen" be courteous, stay calm, smile and don't complain. Show respect and say things like "sir and no sir." Never bad-mouth a police officer, stay in control of your words, body language and your emotions. "All this takes practice, try practicing with a friend." The idea is to get the police officer to understand that you're just an average ordinary citizen and let you get on your way down the road. Never touch a police officer and don't run away!

#2 - Never Talk To A Police Officer. The only questions you need to answer is your name, address and date of birth and nothing else! Instead of telling the police officer who you are, simply give him your drivers license or I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you can be found on your drivers license. Don't volunteer any more information to the police officer, if he ask you any other questions politely say "Am I free to go?" and then don't say another word.
#3 - I'm Going to Remain Silent. The Supreme Court has made a new ruling that you should Never Talk to a Police Officer without an attorney, but there's a CATCH! New Ruling Before you're allowed NOT to talk to a police officer, you must TELL the police officer "I'm Going to Remain Silent" and then keep your mouth shut! (How can you be falsely accused and charged if you don't say anything?) Anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.

#4 - Just Say NO to Police Searches! If a police officer didn't need your permission to search, he wouldn't be asking. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist and keep saying "I don't consent to this search."
#5 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him "Am I free to go?" You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think you are voluntarily staying. If the police officer says that you're are being detained or arrested, say to the police officer"I'm Going to Remain Silent"

Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!

Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them!

Never voluntarily talk to a police officer, there's no such thing as a "friendly chat" with a police officer. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that you should NOT talk to a police officer without a lawyer and you must say "I'm going to remain silent." It can be very dangerous to talk to a police officer or a Federal Agent. Innocent people have talked to a police officer and ended up in jail and prison, because they spoke to a police officer without an attorney.

Police officers have the same right as you "Freedom of Speech," they can ask you anything they want, but you should never answer any of their questions. Don't let the police officer try and persuade you to talk! Say something like "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk to you right now." If the cop insists on talking to you, ask him "Am I free to go?" The police officer may not like when you refuse to talk to him and challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me? Say again "I told you I don't have time to talk to you right now, Am I free to go?" If you forget or the police officer tricks you into talking, it's okay just start over again and tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer doesn't force you to do something, then you're doing "voluntarily." That means if the police officer starts being intimidating and you do what he ask because you're "afraid," you still have done it voluntarily. (Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what the police officer ask you to do such as allowing him to search your car or answer any of his questions, you are 'voluntarily' complying with his 'requests.'So don't comply, just keep your mouth shut unless you say "Am I Free to Go?" or "I don't consent to a search."

You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer and you should NOT speak to a police officer unless you have first consulted with a lawyer who has advised you differently. Police officers depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want from you. Police officers might say they will "go easy" on you if you talk to them, but they're LIARS! The government has made a law that allows police officers to lie to the American public. Another reason not to trust the police! So be as nice as possible, but stand your ground on your rights! Where do some of your rights come from? Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Traffic Stops and Your Rights

First of all keep your license, registration and proof of insurance in an easily accessible place such as attached to your sun visor. The less time it takes for you to get to these items, the less time the officer has to look through your windows and snoop. When pulled over by a police officer stay in the car, turn on the cab lights and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Sit still, relax and wait for the officer to come to you. Any sudden movements, ducking down, looking nervous or appearing to be searching for something under your seat is dangerous! Just sit up naturally be still and try to put the officer at ease."

Police officers like to ask the first question and that usually is, "do you know the reason I pulled you over?" The police officer is trying to get you to do two things, admit that you committed a traffic violation and to get you to "voluntarily" start a conversation with him. Remember the police officer is not your friend and should not be trusted! The only thing you should say is "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?"

The police officer might start asking you personal questions such as "where are you going, where have you been and who did you see, ect." At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your rights by asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?" There is NO legal requirement that American citizens provide information about their comings and goings to a police officer. It's none of their damn business! Keep asking the police officers "AM I FREE TO GO?" You have to speak up and verbally ask the police officer if your allowed to leave, otherwise the courts will presume that you wanted to stay and talk to the cops on your own free will.

Passengers in your vehicle need to know their rights as well. They have the same right not to talk to a police officer and the right to refuse a search "unless it's a 'pat down' for weapons." The police will usually separate the passengers from each other and ask questions to see if their stories match. All passengers should always give the same answer and say, "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?" Remember you have to tell the police officer that you don't want to talk to him. It's the law

How long can a police officer keep you pulled over "detained" during a traffic stop? The Supreme Court has said no more than 15 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a police officer to conduct his investigation and allow you to go FREE. Just keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?"

A good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the police officer has given you a "warning or a ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed that ticket the traffic stop is legally over says the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no law that requires you to stay and talk to the police officer or answer any questions. After you have signed the ticket and got your license back you may roll up your window, start your car and leave. If you're outside the car ask the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If he says yes then get in your car and leave.

Car Searches And Body Searches

Remember the police officer wouldn't be asking you, if he didn't need your permission to search! "The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of America's most precious First Liberties."

Just because you're stopped for a traffic violation does NOT allow a police officer to search your car. However if you go riding around smoking a blunt and get pulled over, the police officer smells marijuana, sees a weapon or drugs in plain view he now has "probable cause" to search you car and that's your own stupid fault!
Police officers swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure Fourth Amendment. Denying a police officers request to search you or your car is not an admission of guilt, it's your American right! Some police officers might say, "if you have nothing to hide, you should allow me to search." Politely say to the police officer "I don't consent to a search and am I free to go?"

The police officer is allowed to handcuff you and/or detain and even put you in his police car for his safety. Don't resist or you will be arrested! There's a big difference between being detained and being arrested. Say nothing in the police car! Police will record your conversation inside the police car, say nothing to your friend and don't talk to the police officers!

If you are arrested and your car is towed, the police are allowed to take an "inventory" of the items in your car. If anything is found that's illegal, the police will get a warrant and then charge you with another crime.

Police Pat Downs...

For the safety of police officers the law allows the police to pat down your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police officer feels something that he believes is a weapon, then he can go into your pockets and pull out the item he believes is a weapon.

A police officer may ask you or even demand that you empty your pockets, but you have the right to say "NO, AM I FREE TO GO?" There's NO law that requires you to empty your pockets when a police officer "ask you." The only time a police officer should be taking your personal property out of your pockets is after you have been arrested.

If a Police Officer Knocks at Your Door at Home-You Don't Have to Open the Door!

If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you DON'T have to open the door unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. "If the police have a warrant they won't be knocking, they'll be kicking in your door!" There is NO law that requires you to open your door to a police officer.* Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, the police will shove their way in. Simply shout to the police officers "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY" or just don't say anything at all.

Guest and roommates staying in your home/apartment/dorm need to be aware of their rights specially "college students" and told not to open the door to a police officer or invite police officers into your home without your permission. Police officers are like vampires, they need your permission to come into your home. Never invite a police officer into your home, such an invitation not only gives police officers an opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, habits, friends, reading material, etc; but also tends to prolong the conversation.

If you are arrested outside your home the police officer might ask if you would like to go inside and get your shoes or a shirt? He might even be nice and let you tell your wife or friend goodbye, but it's a trick! Don't let the police officer into your house!

Never agree to go to the police station if the police want to question you. Just say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."

* In some emergency situations (for example when a someone is screaming for help from inside your home, police are chasing someone into your home, police see a felony being committed or if someone has called 911 from inside your house) police officers are then allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.

Children have rights also, if you're under 18 click here. If your children don't know their rights and go talking to a teacher, school principal, police officer or a Federal agent without an attorney could cost your family dearly and change the lives of your family forever!

If a Police Officer Stops You On The Sidewalk...

NEVER give consent to talk to a police officer. If a police officer stops you and ask to speak with you, you're perfectly within your rights to say to the police officer "I do not wish to speak with you, good-bye. "New Law At this point you should be free to leave. The next step the police officer might take is to ask you for identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it is and ask permission to reach for it. "Some states you're not required to show an I.D. unless the police officer has reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime." Know the laws in your state!

The police officer will start asking you questions again, at this point you may ask the officer "Am I Free to Go?" The police officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this question either. Just ask "Am I Free to Go?"
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them. There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been, so keep your mouth shut and say nothing! Don't answer any question (except name, address and age) until you have a lawyer.

Probable Cause...

A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a "voluntary" conversation with you. You always have the right not to talk or answer any questions a police officer ask you. Just tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is reasonable, the police must generally show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if a search is conducted it is probable that the police officer will find evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."

Police may use first hand information or tips from an informant "snitch" to justify the need to search your property or you. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances to a judge.

Here's a case when police officers took the word of a "snitch," claiming he knew where a "drug dealer" lived. The police officers took it upon themselves to go to this house that the snitch had "picked at random" and kick in the door at 1:30 in the morning ,without obtaining a search warrant from a judge. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read How Police In Texas Are Allowed to Murder Innocent People and Get Away With It

Can We Trust Police Officers?

Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers can lie to the American public. Police officers are trained at lying, twisting words and to be manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to "out smart" the police officer or try being a "smooth talker" because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.

Teach your children that police officers are not always their friend and police officers must contact a parent for permission before they ask your child any questions. Remember police officers are trained to put you at ease and to gain your trust. Their job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect and that suspect is you!

The federal government created a law that says citizens can't lie to Federal Agents and yet the government can lie to American Citizens. Makes perfect since doesn't it? The best thing you can do is ask for a lawyer and keep your mouth shut. How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?

Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side they are wanting to learn your habits, opinions, and affiliations of other people not suspected of wrongdoing. Don't try to answer a police officers questions, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give to a police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. Keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime. "This why Martha Stewart went to prison, not for insider trading but for lying to a Federal Agent."

Police officers may promise shorter sentences and other deals for statements or confessions from you. The police cannot legally make deals with people they arrest, but they can and will lie to you. The only person who can make a deal that can be enforced is the prosecutor and he should not talk with you without a lawyer present.

Lies That Police Officers Use To Get You To Talk...

There are many ways a police officer will try to trick you into talking. It's always safe to say the Magic Words: "Am I free to leave, if not I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer."

The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk to them:
* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want to know."
* "I have evidence on you, so tell me what I want to know or else." (They can fabricate fake evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)
* "You're not a suspect, were simply investigating here. Just help us understand what happened and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."
* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."
* "Your friend has told his side of the story and it's not looking good for you, anything you want to say in your defense?"
If The Police Arrest You...

"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
* Don't answer questions the police ask you, (except name, address and age)until you have a lawyer.
* Even if the police don't read your Miranda Rights to you, refuse to say anything until your lawyer/public defender arrives. If you "voluntarily" talk to the police , then they don't have to read your Miranda Rights.
* If you're arrested and can not afford an attorney, you have the right to a public defender. If you get a public defender always make it clear to the judge that the public defender is not representing you, but merely is serving as your counsel.
* Do not talk to other jail inmates about your case.
* Within a reasonable time after your arrest or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call to a lawyer, bail bondsman, relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.
* If you're on probation or parole tell your P.O. you've been arrested and say nothing else!

↧

How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

≪ Previous: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

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.

Police complaints are allegations of misconduct and you as a citizen have the right to file a police complaint. When someone files a police complaint against a police officer an incident report is placed in the officer's record, so as to hopefully keep the officer from continuing to abuse his or her authority. It also makes the officers superiors aware that there might be a problem with an individual police officer that needs to be addressed. Filing a police complaint and reporting police misconduct is a step towards ending this abuse of power by police.

Examples of police misconduct:

Rudeness

Excessive force

Soliciting or accepting bribes

Drinking on duty

Harassment

Making a false report (good for alleging in the case of traffic tickets)

Use of narcotics (on or off duty)

Discrimination

Altering information on an official document

Careless driving (driving rapidly and/or aggressively to a minor call

Racial or ethnic intimidation

Malicious threats or assault

Sexual harassment

Police complaints will not get a victim compensated for police abuse. Police complaints are not law suits. If you file a complaint against a police officer and the police clear themselves as they often do, the only recourse you may have is a civil law suit. A civil law suit you may receive compensation if you and your attorney can prove damages or civil rights violations. Contact a competent civil rights attorney if you need more information about filing a law suit for civil rights violations.

To file a complaint on a police officer "one of a less serious nature," you need to send a written complaint "certified mail with return receipt." You can send the police complaint to Internal Affairs. Certified mail gives you some type of proof that you actually filed a complaint against a police officer. If you don't send the complaint certified mail the letter sometimes gets lost or misplaced by someone at the police department.

As soon as possible write down everything that happened. Don't worry about sending your complaint off right away. Wait a few days and go back over your written complaint and see what you might have forgotten the first time you wrote it. There's no need for "emotions" to be involved, when you write your complaint and the most important thing is to be truthful! If the police catch you in a lie, your complaint won't be credible nor will any other complaints you send in the future. You could even be charged for making a false report against a police officer and in some states be sued.

The more information in your written complaint the better. Your compliant should include:

Who is the officer you're filing a complaint against? Name or badge number?

What the officer said or did? Was he rude, abusive or used excessive force?

When did it happen? Date and time.

Where did it occur? Location?

How did the incident occur?

Do you have corroborating witnesses, whose story does not conflict with yours? If you have witnesses you should ask each of them to write a separate account of the incident.

Do you have any type of evidence, like pictures or a video recording? If you do, don't send the "original" to the police, send only a copy.

Mail the complaint "certified mail with return receipt requested," to Internal Affairs at the police department or the sheriffs department where the officer works. The complaint will be investigated and you should receive a letter back from the police agency on the status of your complaint. Most police complaints will be in the favor of the police officer, but the good thing is the complaint will stay on the police officers record.

The police may try and contact you by phone or mail to do a "follow up" about your complaint. Don't answer any questions and never go down to the police station for an interview. Tell them everything they need to know is in your letter you sent and then say good bye. Stick to what you said in your complaint letter and say nothing else!

There is a time limit on how long you have to file a complaint against a police officer. For minor police misconduct you may have only 60 days and up to 6 months for more serious allegations.

If you're interested in knowing what complaints have been filed against police officers in your community, you may request a copy of that information be sent to you from that police agency. Send your request "certified mail with return receipt requested." Request a copy of complaints of police officers from that agency be mailed to you under the "Freedom of Information Act." DON'T ever walk into a police station and ask for this information! Police officers either start acting real stupid on the subject or they get mad and start threatening you.

Never file a complaint directly with a police agency specially if the complaint is of a serious nature, see an attorney! If you do plan on hiring an attorney, get one who doesn't work in your area. Don't get a lawyer from your town, county or from the surrounding counties. Local lawyers work with same judges, prosecutors and police officers on a daily basis and may not want to win your case as bad as you do.

You may also contact your State Attorney General. For serious incidents call the ACLU hot line 1-877-634-5454 or contact the Department of JusticeClick here for the (DOJ) site.

↧

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Police Lie Under Oath; Their Testimony Shouldn’t Be Trusted More Than Any Other Witness...

≪ Previous: How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer

OFF THE WIRE
INTRODUCTION
These California Public Records Act guidelines describe the prescribed steps necessary for requesting access to inspect and/or obtain copies of public records maintained by the Department of California Highway Patrol (“the Department”) OR ANY CA POLICE DEPT...
The legislative enactment of the California Public Records Act (“the Act”) constituted a statement of policy that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. This policy was made part of the California State Constitution in 2004. It is the policy of the State that governmental records will be disclosed to the public upon request, unless the law provides an exemption from disclosure.
The general assumption is that all records held by state agencies are public and must be made available to the public promptly upon request. However, the Legislature has recognized the need to balance the public’s right to know against compelling rights to privacy and the government’s need to perform its functions in a reasonable efficient manner. As such, the Act contains several specific exemptions from disclosure and incorporates several other statutes that prohibit state employees from disclosing certain types of public records. It is the Department’s burden to justify any withholding of public records.
The Act also establishes reasonable procedures providing for prompt disclosure while allowing state agencies the time to locate records and to determine which records, if any, are exempt from disclosure. The Department’s policy is to provide all members of the public convenient access to, and to promptly make the fullest possible disclosure of, its public records. Department personnel are available to assist persons making such requests and will solicit the assistance of the requestor when clarification of requested records is needed so as to make focused and effective requests that reasonably describe identifiable records. As a law enforcement agency the Department is entitled to treat certain records as exempt from disclosure, and express provisions of the Act, Penal Code, and Vehicle Code, among others, preclude public disclosure of certain records. When a request to review or obtain records is received, whether made in person, by mail, or by other means, it may be necessary for staff to first locate, then secure, and then review the requested items so that a determination can be made whether one or more exemptions apply, prior to having the records made available for viewing or copies provided.
HOW TO REQUEST ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RECORD
Anyone wishing to make a public records request in person may do so during regular business hours at any Department office that is open to the public. Department personnel shall not ask or demand that persons requesting to inspect records provide their identification or the reasons for wanting to inspect records. However, if records are to be picked up or mailed to a requestor, relevant identifying information must be provided. Written requests to inspect or to obtain a copy of a public record should be
addressed to the Department, to any area office, field division office, or to Department Headquarters. The Headquarters address is
California Highway Patrol
601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attention: Public Records Coordinator
The Headquarters facsimile for requests under the Act is 916-322-3219. The written request need not be in any particular form, but should sufficiently describe the requested records to enable Department personnel to identify and locate the records sought. While not required by the Act, it is helpful for the request to include a telephone number or address where the person requesting the record can be reached to expedite the resolution of any questions concerning the request that may arise.
THE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
If the records are clearly disclosable, they will be made available as soon as possible. However, in most cases staff will have to review the records to determine whether all or part maybe privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure. Within 10 days from the date the request is received, the Department will determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the Department’s possession and notify the requestor of such determination. In unusual circumstances, the 10-day time limit may be extended up to an additional 14 days by written notice to the requestor, setting forth the reason for the time extension (i.e., the request is too voluminous, seeks records held off site, or requires consultation with other agencies). The Department may need to request additional information if the request is not specific enough to permit the identification of the requested records. If the determination by the Department is made to comply with the request, the records will be made available as promptly as is reasonably practicable. While the Department will disclose or otherwise make available identifiable and existing records, the Act does not require the Department to create, synthesize, manufacture, or summarize records: the Act specifically does not obligate the Department to develop new records so as to be able to respond to a request.
Any request may be denied if the records sought are determined to be privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure, or are not found in the Department’s files or records. Notification of such a determination will be provided. The Department must justify the withholding of any record by demonstrating that the record is exempt under the Act or that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In most circumstances, when the Department removes or redacts exempt information from the record, it will disclose the remainder of the record.
REQUESTS TO VIEW PUBLIC RECORDS
Public records may be reviewed during regular business hours (generally weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. excluding holidays), at Department offices open to the public. Individuals who are interested in viewing public records are encouraged to make an appointment in advance. Appointments are not mandatory but can help Department staff facilitate the request, and the failure to make an appointment may result in a delay while the records are located and reviewed. Persons wishing to enter secured parts of the Department buildings must comply with the Department’s security protocol, including providing identification.
REQUEST FOR COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS
The Department will make copies of records for members of the public upon request. The Act provides that copies of records will be made promptly available upon payment of fees that cover the direct costs of duplication. The Department currently charges $0.30 per page for copying. The direct cost of duplication includes the pro rata expense of the duplicating equipment and the staff required to make a copy of that record. Direct costs of duplication does not include the staff person’s time in researching, retrieving, redacting and mailing the record. When the Department must compile electronic data, extract information from an electronic record, or undertake computer programming to satisfy a request, the Department may require the requestor to bear the full costs, not just the direct cost of duplication.
A public record that is not exempt from disclosure that is in an electronic format will be made available in an electronic format, if requested, but only if it does not jeopardize the security or integrity of the record or any proprietary software. The requestor will be charged the cost of producing an electronic copy of the record. Alternative charges apply for public records that are maintained in other formats, such as audio or video.
HOW TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT’S DETERMINATION NOT TO DISCLOSE RECORDS
Under the Act any person may seek mandamus, injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record.
These guidelines are posted in a conspicuous public place at Department offices that are open to the public, are available free of charge to any person who requests them, and are also available on the Department’s website (www.chp.ca.gov).

↧

Police Lie Under Oath; Their Testimony Shouldn’t Be Trusted More Than Any Other Witness...

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - How to Deal with Police (cheat sheet)

≪ Previous: PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

OFF THE WIRE

By Michelle Alexander
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”
Mr. Keane, in his Chronicle article, offered two major reasons the police lie so much. First, because they can. Police officers “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.” At worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual. Second, criminal defendants are typically poor and uneducated, often belong to a racial minority, and often have a criminal record. “Police know that no one cares about these people,” Mr. Keane explained.
All true, but there is more to the story than that.
Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests. In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game. And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs — in Tulia, Tex. and Oakland, Calif., for example — have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.
Exposing police lying is difficult largely because it is rare for the police to admit their own lies or to acknowledge the lies of other officers. This reluctance derives partly from the code of silence that governs police practice and from the ways in which the system of mass incarceration is structured to reward dishonesty. But it’s also because police officers are human.
Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying. Generally, humans lie about relatively minor things like “I lost your phone number; that’s why I didn’t call” or “No, really, you don’t look fat.” But humans can also be persuaded to lie about far more important matters, especially if the lie will enhance or protect their reputation or standing in a group.
The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/motorcyle-helmet-laws/id573720859?mt=8The Worst Kept Secret Cops Lie:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/02/the-worst-kept-secret-cops-lie.aspx
This was shared by Joe via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit tab.’

↧

USA - How to Deal with Police (cheat sheet)

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Helmet Law Part 2-proof of Service and the Discovery

≪ Previous: Police Lie Under Oath; Their Testimony Shouldn’t Be Trusted More Than Any Other Witness...

OFF THE WIRE

I recently made this chart “How to deal with Police”. This information is to be used at your discretion. The tone and attitude you demonstrate towards an officer is your own choice in relationship to the circumstance. I believe it is better to know the options and your rights so you can make the best decision in the moment. I hope this information helps in any future encounters with police and remember Always film police misconduct!
- Jason Bassler
Sources:
http://www.facebook.com/policethepoliceACP

https://www.dc414.org/projects/protect-your-self/know-your-rights/

https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
http://sweetvociferation.blogspot.com/2012/07/when-dealing-with-police-helpful-cheat.html
http://jayrameylaw.com/know-your-rights/
http://rense.com/general72/howto.htm
https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/LawFactsPamphlet-21.aspx
Dont talk to police video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6wXkI4t7nuc

↧

Helmet Law Part 2-proof of Service and the Discovery

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: - No warrant needed?

≪ Previous: USA - How to Deal with Police (cheat sheet)

You have now typed up your Informal Discovery and now need to deliver it to the arresting agency (the cops). I prefer to hand deliver. Reason is dealing with the cops and the courts is scary, it makes your heart palpitate. So to overcome my fear, I prefer to meet it head on. Plus it gives me a feeling of empowerment. And when I deliver the Proof of Service, I always have my voice recorder turned on just to record any kind of argument. When you deliver the POS, you are serving the cops...legally. When you deliver, you need to get the person's name who took the discovery and note the time. That has to be noted on the POS. Now if you can't deliver in person, you can also mail. But do it Certified. Then note the POS mailed through United States Post Office...and give the address.

You then take two copies of your informal discovery request along with 2 copies of your proof of service and deliver to the court clerk. The clerk is to stamp one copy and give back to you. One copy will go in the court file, that way the judge can see you requested the discovery; the other copy goes in your file in case you have to prove to the judge you requested and filed with the Courts.

Now study the Discovery. The things asked are really an excellent starting point for creating questions for the officer. It is best to try and come up with as many questions as possible. This is your opportunity to make the cop jump. You do not want to drop the hammer right away, you have to lay a "foundation."

I would recommend acquiring a copy of the California Vehicle Code book...they cost about $11.00 and can be purchased at the DMV. You can look things up on line, but I prefer the book. Mark prefers on line, but he is much more in tune with the laws and knows how to pinpoint exactly what he is looking for. Me, I end up weeding through too much on crap on the internet.

Also, the BOLT website is an excellent source of info. It is a bit hard to navigate , but Mark did a great job of getting the info on line. One of the problems is you need to know what to look for or it doesn't make much sense.

Back to the informal discovery; why request 1a? This is the biggest area (besides getting the ticket) that bikers get screwed on. They simply do not take the time to understand why and how the cop/courts are screwing them. BOLT has corrected this through lawsuits, yet if the bikers are unwilling to learn and keep being suckers...what good were those lawsuits?

The helmet violation is under Division 12 of the Motor Vehicle Code. Division 12 is equipment...tail lights, head lights and so on. All are to be written as CORRECTABLE unless 3 disqualifying conditions are met...in regards to a helmet citation...if the cop let you ride off with the same helmet he has just violated the law if he wrote your ticket as non correctable. The second attachment is from the BOLT website.

You really really and really need to understand this. The court clerk will jerk you around, the cops will jerk you around and sometimes the judge. Writing the ticket as non correctable is a civil rights violation...which we will go over in the internal affairs complaint. Understand this. Email me with questions. Knowledge is power. You will have to have some understanding of the law, not necessarily as well as Mark does, but some understanding which we will go over further down the road.

All of what we are doing; you or the ticketed biker are working on this right after the ticket was received...weeks if not months prior to the arraignment date. You simply cannot procrastinate. It is a learning process. Little steps

I have been asked to discuss what to do at the time of the stop...I will go over that in a bit. Because you really need to have some understanding of the law and the vehicle code. You cannot do something and say "BOLT said so", you must understand why.

1b) Why this one? Many times I asked the violated biker, did the cop take a picture? Usual response, "I don't know". We want to see any and all photos AND audio recordings AND a copy of all of the officers notes way in advance of the actual hearing. That is why you must start the process right after getting the ticket; It is preparing for battle. You must remember YOU (we) are coming from the moral high ground. We have not violated the law, the cop has. We want to enter that battle from a position of strength which is OFFENSE...not defense. We want to put the cop of the defense.

Email me with any questions. Any questions that I share will not have your name or info. All questions are good and I will do my best to answer or find the answer.

End of the lesson for today. I will finish up on the informal discovery on part 3

Thank you for taking the time to learn

First Middle Last xxxx Price Street Yuba City, CA 95962 Defendant in Pro Per (530) 555-xxxx	FOR COURT USE ONLY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SUTTER Courthouse East, 463 Second Street Yuba City, CA 95591 (530) 822-3303
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Citation # A 93xxx v. FIRST MIDDLE LAST, Defendant.


I served a copy of the following documents (list the title of each document served): Discovery Request per Penal Code 1054 and 1054.5 On (person served): __________________________ [ X] By personally delivering copies to the person served, as follows: Date: September 2, 2011 Time: __________ a.m./p.m. 1545 Poole Blvd. Yuba City, California 95993 [ ] By mailing copies to the person served, as follows: Date: Place of mailing (address): At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and [ ] am [X] am not a party to this cause. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: September 2, 2011 Name of Server : First, Last Signature of Server: _______________________ Address : 2267 Juice Street, Steel, CA 95xxx Proof of Service

↧

- No warrant needed?

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

≪ Previous: Helmet Law Part 2-proof of Service and the Discovery

OFF THE WIRE
Reported by: Bailey Miller

The more I see, the more I shake my head in disgust at what we have become.
"I told him, 'I will release my son to you upon viewing those orders.' Those were exactly my words," The complainant said. "He said, 'This is how you want to play?' He took two steps back, turned around to the officer and said, 'Take her.' They turned me around, handcuffed me, and took me in."

Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant..

VIDEO -javascript:void(0);

Slaton police came to this woman's house, who wishes to remain anonymous, to arrest her son. But by asking one simple question, she found herself behind bars instead.

"I told him, 'I will release my son to you upon viewing those orders.' Those were exactly my words," The complainant said. "He said, 'This is how you want to play?' He took two steps back, turned around to the officer and said, 'Take her.' They turned me around, handcuffed me, and took me in."

The complainant said she was aware police would be coming to apprehend her 11-year-old son based on a criminal complaint, and that she just wanted to see the warrant. As it turns out, that warrant didn't exist. She spent the night in jail while her son was left at home.

"He told me it was their duty to come pick up my son," She said. "Yet, I had someone stay the night at my house. They never came back that evening, they never came to pick up my son, or do what they told me they were there to do in the beginning."

"This occurred on May 29 when they went out to apprehend this young man," Dwight McDonald, the family's attorney, said. "The directive to apprehend was not signed until May 30, which is another indication that they didn't have the authority to go out and arrest him or apprehend this young man."

The Slaton Police Department is willing to issue an apology, but McDonald said that's not enough.

"If she moves out of Slaton and tries to find a job elsewhere, you can Google her name, and at that point, the arrest, my guess is, is going to show up," McDonald said.

"I will accept an apology, but what is that going to do?" The complainant said. "It's not going to take my picture off the internet sites that have been posted, from being published in the newspaper, from where I work. I've never been in trouble, in 32 years of my life, from anything, and to get thrown in jail because I asked a question is not right."

McDonald said the Slaton Police Department will issue an apology as long as the mother agrees not to file a lawsuit. He said unless she is compensated for her expenses and the trauma she's been through, a lawsuit won't be out of the question.

We attempted to contact Slaton's city attorney and city manager. Due to the possibility of litigation, both declined to comment.

http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/slaton-police-lubbock-wrongful-arrest-warrant/0vJ1Rr-6OkqWHtfsUtvqGg.cspx

↧

Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

July 18, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Nevada Knife Laws

≪ Previous: - No warrant needed?

OFF THE WIRE
WASHINGTON -- A police officer can't pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.
In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."
John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection in St. Johnsville, N.Y. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York's disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York granted summary judgement to the officers in July 2011, but the Court of Appeals on Thursday erased that decision and ordered the lower court to take up the case again.
Richard Insogna, the officer who stopped Swartz and his wife when they arrived at their destination, claimed he pulled the couple over because he believed Swartz was "trying to get my attention for some reason." The appeals court didn't buy that explanation, ruling that the "nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness."

↧

Nevada Knife Laws

July 17, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Babes of the Day - This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude hum or and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.

≪ Previous: Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

OFF THE WIRE

Overview of NV Knife Law | Nevada Knife Case Law
Nevada Revised Statutes | City and County Ordinances

Overview of Nevada Knife Laws

State Law
Generally speaking, Nevada law is silent on the carrying of knives, with certain specific exceptions which we will address later on. This means that unless explicitly prohibited by NRS or by city or county ordinance, it is legal to carry a knife in Nevada. Since there is no state preemption law for edged weapons like there is for firearms, municipalities and counties may make any law they wish with respect to the carry of knives. The Nevada Revised Statutes do not specify any maximum allowable blade length, or any restrictions as far as open or concealed knife carry. NRS 202.350 prohibits the possession of any switchblade or belt buckle knife, and makes it illegal to carry a concealed dirk, dagger, or machete. Additionally, NRS 202.320, which prohibits the drawing of a deadly weapon in a threatening manner in any situation where a person's actions do not constitute legitimate and necessary self-defense, applies to knives as well as to firearms.

Note that depending on circumstances, it is possible that carrying a concealed knife that does not fall into any prohibited category might still result in an arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, if it appears that the intent exists to use that knife primarily as a weapon rather than a tool. Remember also that a Nevada concealed firearms permit (CCW) applies to firearms only, and does not allow the carry of any concealed knife that would normally be illegal to carry under state or local law.
Nevada state law (NRS 202.265) makes it illegal to carry certain "dangerous weapons" on property of, or in a vehicle belonging to, a school or child care facility; this includes campuses of the University of Nevada system and the College of Southern Nevada. Prohibited items under this statute include dirks, daggers, switchblades (as defined below), and trefoils (aka throwing stars). While no other prohibited places are listed in Nevada state law, as a general rule, no knives may be taken into any facility with a metal detector at the entrance, including court facilities.

Definitions
Certain of the terms used in the Nevada Revised Statutes discussed here are defined in very specific ways, and an understanding of these definitions is essential to properly understanding what the laws do and do not permit. Interestingly, the words "dirk" and "dagger," although they appear in multiple statutes as a class of prohibited weapon, are not explicitly defined anywhere within the NRS itself. The definitions of these words as a matter of Nevada law derive from a number of Nevada Supreme Court decisions (see below), in which the Court noted that a dagger is traditionally "a short weapon used for thrusting and stabbing and that stabbing is using a pointed weapon to wound or kill" (Huebner v. State, 1987). A dirk is noted in the same decision as functionally being nothing more than a type of dagger. The court also noted in other decisions that any knife cannot automatically be classified as a dirk or dagger at the whim of an arresting officer or a judge, and that some "relevant factors" to consider when making such a determination include whether the knife has handguards and/or a blade that locks in place. In short, the Nevada courts currently accept the legal definition of a dirk or dagger as a pointed knife with a fixed or locking blade, designed primarily or solely as a stabbing weapon. Any double-edged knife with a fixed blade is generally considered to be a dagger.
A switchblade knife is defined by NRS 202.350 as "a spring-blade knife, snap-blade knife or any other knife having the appearance of a pocketknife, any blade of which is 2 or more inches long and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle or other mechanical device, or is released by any type of mechanism. The term does not include a knife which has a blade that is held in place by a spring if the blade does not have any type of automatic release." An automatic-opening knife with a blade less than two inches in length is not considered to be a "switchblade" as a matter of Nevada law, and is thus legal to possess and carry.
The blade of a knife is generally considered to be "that portion which is customarily sharpened from the tip of the knife to the tang, or the unsharpened extension of the blade which forms the hinge connecting the blade to the handle," as per the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Bradvica v. State, 1988 (see below). In other words, only that part of a knife which is designed to be sharpened is considered to be the "blade" for purposes of determining length.
A concealed weapon is defined by NRS 202.350 as any weapon described within that statute, which is carried upon one's person "in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation." By this definition, if a weapon, or part of it, cannot be seen without first moving clothing out of the way, it is considered to be concealed. The Nevada Supreme Court, as part of its ruling in Huebner v. State (1987), found that a weapon which is visible or partially visible, but appears to be something else (for example, a knife contained within an item such as a pen or hairbrush), is still a concealed weapon even though it is not covered or hidden from view.
NRS 193.165 defines a deadly weapon as "(a) Any instrument which, if used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will or is likely to cause substantial bodily harm or death; (b) Any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing substantial bodily harm or death; or (c) A dangerous or deadly weapon specifically described in NRS 202.255, NRS 202.265, NRS 202.290, NRS 202.320 or NRS 202.350." Additionally, the Nevada Supreme Court, in Zgombic v. State (1990), ruled that for any instrument not so defined by statute to be considered a "deadly weapon," it must satisfy what the Court refers to as the "inherently dangerous" test. A weapon is inherently dangerous in this analysis if it, when “used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will, or is likely to, cause a life-threatening injury or death.” By this standard, most pocketknives or utility knives would not meet the "deadly weapon" criteria because they are designed and constructed for use primarily as tools and not as weapons. Note that under Nevada law, an instrument that does not meet the "deadly weapon" criteria might still qualify as a "dangerous weapon," the test for which is less stringent and is based on whether that item is merely capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm under the circumstances in which it is used.

City and County Knife Laws
In the absence of a state preemption statute, Nevada counties and municipalities are free to enact knife laws which are more restrictive than state law. Very few have done so. Those which have include Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Reno. Following are synopses of these jurisdictions' knife laws; links to the relevant ordinances can be found below.

Clark County - Prohibits concealed knives with blades longer than three inches. No limitation on blade length for knives carried openly.
Las Vegas - Prohibits concealed knives with blades longer than three inches. Does not limit blade length for openly carried knives. Prohibits switchblades or automatic opening knives with blades of any length. Prohibits any person from loitering, fighting, or engaging in disorderly conduct while carrying a concealed "deadly weapon" as defined by city ordinance.
North Las Vegas - Prohibits concealed knives with blades longer than three inches. No limit on blade length for knives openly carried. Prohibits any switchblade or automatic opener, regardless of blade length. Prohibits the carry of ice picks or "similar sharp stabbing tools" and straight razors. Prohibits loitering, fighting, or disorderly conduct while carrying any concealed weapon.
Henderson - Prohibits concealed carry of knives with blades longer than three inches. Prohibits the possession of any knife "commonly known as a switchblade, spring-blade or push button knife," with no limitation on blade length.
Reno - Defines a "dangerous knife" as having a blade of more than two inches, and prohibits carry of same in any city park or recreation area. Prohibits, by city ordinance, the carry of any knife in a city courthouse.

State and National Parks
Nevada law does not specifically address carrying a knife within a state park, although NAC 407.105 does state that it is illegal to throw knives or other projectiles in state parks. As far as carrying a knife in any National Park, the only specific statute addressing this is 18 USC 44 § 930, prohibiting "dangerous weapons," which are understood to include knives, in any Federal park building, provided notice is given by means of a sign at the building entrance. Follow relevant state laws otherwise.
Back to Top
No Duty to Retreat
In May of 2011, Nevada's governor signed AB321 into law. This bill amended NRS 200.120, which deals with the use of deadly force, by specifying that a person who uses deadly force to defend himself has no legal "duty to retreat" prior to doing so as long as he:

Is not the original aggressor;
Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

This statute applies to any use of deadly force, including self-defense with edged weapons.

Nevada Court Cases

Since the Nevada Revised Statutes are largely silent regarding knives, case law has given us a number of important precedents. Following are synopses of a few relevant NV Supreme Court cases, with links to the full text of each decision.

Huebner v. State, 1987 - This case is important from the standpoint of Nevada knife law, since it codified two central principles. When arrested for a separate offense, Huebner was in possession of a four-inch knife concealed in what appeared to be a ballpoint pen, and was charged with possession of a concealed weapon and convicted. Huebner claimed that the weapon was not concealed, since the "pen" part of it was clearly visible in his pocket at the time of his arrest, and appealed. In upholding his conviction, the Court clarified that a weapon is still concealed, even if visible, if because of the appearance of the visible portion it appears to be some other implement. A footnote to the Court's decision also specified the definition of "dagger" that has been used by Nevada courts since then, even though such a definition was not central to the case.
Bradvica v. State, 1988 - Bradvica was arrested for an unrelated offense and found to be carrying an automatic opening knife with a blade measuring 2 5/16 from tip to handle. He was convicted of carrying a "dangerous knife" under the (since superseded) wording of NRS 202.350 at that time. He appealed his conviction to the Nevada Supreme Court, which found that the wording "dangerous knife" was sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. The Court's opinion also defined the "blade" of a knife as "that portion which is customarily sharpened from the tip of the knife to the tang, or the unsharpened extension of the blade which forms the hinge connecting the blade to the handle." By that definition, the blade of Bradvica's knife only measured 1 15/16 inches, meaning that the knife did not meet the definition of a "switchblade" under Nevada law, being less than two inches long. His conviction was overturned.
Zgombic v. State, 1990 - This case introduced the requirement that in order for an item to be a "deadly weapon" for purposes of sentencing or enhancements to sentencing, it must satisfy the "inherently dangerous" test. In Zgombic's case, the object in question was a pair of steel-toed boots, which was demonstrably not, when used "in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction," inherently likely to cause death or substantial bodily harm. While this was not a knife law case per se, the "inherently dangerous" qualification to determine whether or not an instrument should be considered a "deadly weapon" has since been used by the Court in cases that did involve knives.
Buff v. State, 1998 - The Nevada Supreme Court's opinion in this case applied the "inherently dangerous" standard for a deadly weapon introduced in Zgombic v. State to a Swiss army knife. The court found that even though the knife in question was used as the weapon in an murder, it was not by definition a "deadly weapon" as it did not meet the requirements of that test.
Knight v. State, 2000 - In this case, Knight was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after being arrested while carrying a steak knife concealed on his person. The Nevada Supreme Court recognized that the steak knife did not constitute a "dirk or dagger" as specified in the CCW statute, and further codified the definition of these two implements by introducing the "relevant factors" of handguards and a locking blade to be considered when determining whether or not a knife meets that definition. The Court also recognized that under the totality of the circumstances surrounding Knight's arrest, it was evident that he was carrying the steak knife to use as a weapon, and therefore his conviction was upheld.

Nevada State Knife Laws

Nevada Revised Statutes
The short titles of each statute are listed below; click on a statute to read the entire text. This is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive list of all Nevada knife or self-defense laws.

NRS 202.265 - Possession of dangerous weapon on property or in vehicle of school or child care facility; penalty; exceptions.
NRS 202.320 - Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner.
NRS 202.350 - Manufacture, importation, possession or use of dangerous weapon or silencer; carrying concealed weapon without permit; penalties; issuance of permit to carry concealed weapon; exceptions.
NRS 202.355 - Manufacture or sale of switchblade knives: Application for permit; eligibility; public hearing; restrictions.

Nevada Administrative Code

NAC 407.105 - Possession or use of weapons in state parks.

City and County Knife Ordinances

The short titles of each city and county ordinance are listed below; click on an ordinance to read the entire text. This is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive list of all city and county knife laws or self-defense laws.
Clark County Ordinances: