Quantcast
Channel: Bikers Of America, Know Your Rights!
Viewing all 6498 articles
Browse latest View live

Tips for Recording Police Interactions

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
Jesse Halfon submitted the following post via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit‘ page.
Anyone who has had a confrontation or other adversarial contact with police understands the frustration in dealing with this power imbalance. First, any refusal to cooperate completely with police orders (whether legal or not) can lead to an arrest or worse. Second, if there is ever a disagreement over the facts of such a confrontation, Courts will typically take the word of police officers over the word of a citizen/arrestee. Third, police agencies have complete control over the storage of recording equipment (such as in-car video) used in prosecutions and other legal proceeding.
In many cases where a criminal defendant claims that the police violated their constitutional rights, the in-car recordings of the arrest are destroyed (“per internal policies”) before a copy can be requested.
However, the spread of smartphones and other technology has armed citizens with a valuable tool to address this power imbalance. All citizens should be aware of their right to document interactions with law enforcement. In addition, anyone who is concerned about police abuses should have the basic technological know-how to create and preserve such a recording.
The Right to Record may be especially valuable in the context of a traffic stop where police often run a ‘warrant check’ against the stopped vehicle’s license plate number. Although this typically causes the citizen an excruciating delay in waiting for the officer to approach, it will provide ample time for the citizen to enable his or her device for recording if they choose.
The Law
For years, the legality of recording police conduct was unclear and varied from state to state. Several states had even passed laws that banned the practice altogether. Indeed, many websites and blogs still contain outdated and misleading information on the Right to Record. Fortunately, recent legal developments have clearly defined certain rights in this area.
First, several federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice have affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. Any law prohibiting this conduct is therefore unconstitutional. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn this Right to Record and the current Supreme Court appears reluctant to do so.[ref]After a Federal Appeals Court last year overturned an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings of police, the state of Illinois appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to revive the Illinois law by denying further review of the case. However, because the Court did not issue an opinion, this doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling.[/ref]
Most of the notable cases dealing with this issue have involved the third parties (typically media) filming or photographing police interactions with other citizens. However, the law is clear that any citizen may openly record their own communications with police.[ref]Note: Citizens are also protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from having their recording equipment illegally seized by police under these circumstances and can sue the police for damages under federal law.[/ref]
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether or not citizens may secretly record law enforcement acting in public. Several courts have explicitly held that individuals do have this right. Further, in a recent court filing (03/04/13), the U.S. Justice Department stated “[i]t is now settled law that the First Amendment protects individuals who photograph or otherwise record officers engaging in police activity in a public place.” This is a broad affirmation of the right to record public police conduct from the highest law enforcement agency in the country and could reasonably be relied on to justify secret police recordings.
To be clear, the current status of the law is as follows:
You DO have the right to openly record official police conduct performed in public.
You MAY have the right to secretly record police conduct performed in public.
You DO NOT have the right to record the private conversations of police (or anyone else) without consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
The Recording
Most interactions with police are unplanned and uninvited. It is therefore important to understand (and practice) how to properly record video/audio from your smartphone or other device now.
General Considerations
1) Use a Passcode Lock. This is good practical advice for anyone as this protects your information in the event that your smartphone is lost or stolen. For the purposes of this post, if you are arrested, your recording is virtually useless if a cop seizes your phone and deletes your recording. Even if you do not record a police interaction, officers today often will ‘search’ an arrestees phone immediately and without a warrant if a Passcode is not enabled.
2) Always keep at least 500 MB of available storage on your phone. Again this is practical advice for any smartphone user, particularly if you ever need to record video in an emergency situation. An iPhone video uses approximately 80 MB per minute. 500 MB of available storage will therefore allow you to record only 5+ minutes of video before the recording is stopped. By contrast, the same amount of storage will allow more than 10 hours of audio.
3) Some audio recording apps have other additional advantages for this type of situation. For example, the paid app DropVox has the option of recording in the background and of automatically sending recordings to Dropbox (a free app which stores files in the cloud thus preventing easy deletion).
Practical Advice
I will use a standard iPhone as an example (though I invite anyone to comment with similar instructions for a Droid or other device). Most people can take photos/video using a standard camera app. But equally important for police recordings is the standard iPhone Voice Memos app that records audio with a single touch. If you are secretly recording a police interaction, an audio recording is preferable for several reasons. Practically speaking, useful video is difficult to obtain undercover, especially at night. Video also takes excessive storage space and prevents your device from going into Auto-Lock and Password Protect mode.
If you are stopped in an automobile and believe that the communication should be recorded, follow these steps. Calmly pull out your iPhone, open the Voice Memos app and hit the record button once. Check to make sure the recording has begun and that you did not double-click the record button. Set the Ring/Silent switch to silent mode (muting your phone will avoid any attention being drawn to your phone in the event of an incoming call or message). If you have pockets, it is recommend that you place your phone in your pocket top down (i.e. with the microphone facing out of the pocket). Although this will slightly impair the sound quality of your recording, it has the important advantage of following you if you are arrested or asked to step outside the vehicle.
If you do not have a pocket, turn the device face down (i.e. hiding the screen) anywhere near you with the microphone facing in your direction.
One should be aware that the standard iPhone app will leave a red pulsing banner message atop the phone display the entire time the device is recording. Fortunately, the iPhone will auto-lock and dim completely while recording (temporarily hiding the message). However, if an officer seizes your phone and hits the Home button, the ‘recording’ message will become visible even in auto-lock mode. This highlights the need to enable the Passcode feature on your phone as an officer will not be able to bypass the code without a warrant.
Important Note: A police officer who discovers you secretly recording them may become hostile and even arrest you simply for the “illegal” recording. If you are confronted with this situation, be polite and explain that you understood that the law permitted such recordings. Do not give an officer your passcode. If you are arrested, politely ask to speak with a lawyer before you discuss the matter any further.
In summary, you have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. If you are arrested for openly recording the police or if your camera or other device is seized, you can sue for damages. You may or may not have the right to secretly record police. Because the legality of surreptitious police recordings remains unclear, this practice cannot be recommended without exceptions. Trust your instincts and use your best judgment under the circumstances. If you are arrested, ask to speak with a lawyer and then be quiet.
-Jesse Halfon

Helmet Law Part 2-proof of Service and the Discovery

$
0
0
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




BABE OF THE DAY..

Back Road Rider: Do loud pipes save lives?

$
0
0
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)

BONER PICS

Illusion Motorsports

$
0
0

"Dont forget to let the guys know you saw it here..."
" Premiere motorcycle customizing shop of Orange County California "
Picture

Illusion Motorsports The place to go to in the Orange County area when you want your bike pimped out. A one stop shop that does it all for a fair price and in a timely manner.
One of the cleanest and best organized shops anywhere.
As an EPA/CARB certified motorcycle manufacturer we can build or sell you a bike that is legal in California or all 50 states. Need financing? No problem, if you qualify.
 Business hours 8-5 Mon-Fri. Pick-up and delivery available.
* PARTS * FABRICATION * PAINT * ELECTRICAL * TUNE UPS * SERVICE on custom and OEM motorcycles * CUSTOMIZING * NEW OR USED MOTORCYCLES * COLLISION REPAIR
 714-894-1942 office
 714-894-1922 fax
 714-262-2370 alternate
14726 goldenwest Street #F Westminster, Ca. 92683
 
illusionoc@gmail.com  email



Illusion Motorsports

 

Illusion Motorsports

PictureFor excellent service from tune ups to complete motorcycle builds call Illusion. We are the premiere v-twin customizing shop in the southland.
Apparel * wiring * fabrication * sevice * paint
open 9-5 monday through friday
714-894-1942 office
714-894-1922 fax
email
illusionoc@gmail.com  <illusionmotorcycles.com>  
14726 goldenwest street Westminster, Ca. 92683

Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer

$
0
0
Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
PoliceCrimes.com Breaking News and Top Stories


Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR
Read what rights you have when dealing with a police officer http://www.policecrimes.com/police.html

Washington — The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision on Tuesday, ruling that a crime suspect's words could be used against him if he failed to clearly invoke his rights clearly and, instead, answered a single question.

In the past, the court has said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights.

But in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said that a citizen must invoke his rights. If he fails to do so, anything he says can be used to convict him, the justices said.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that police were "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him."

In this case, Michigan police had informed the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or speak to a lawyer.

But he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

"Yes," Thompson said and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins' conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling of a lower court ruling and reinstated the conviction. "A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings and has not invoked his Miranda rights waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police," Kennedy said. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The court ruled that an ambiguous situation would be treated in favor of the police.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent longer than the majority opinion, argued that the majority misread precedent and reached beyond the facts of the case to impose a tough new rule against defendants.

"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak."

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined her dissent.

The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the Obama administration and Supreme Court nominee U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In December, she filed a brief on the side of Michigan prosecutors and argued that "the government need not prove that a suspect expressly waived his rights."

She said that "if a suspect knows and understands his Miranda rights," anything he says can be used against him in court."Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR » 02 Aug 2010, Mon 8:30 pm

Supreme Court trims Miranda warning rights: `Death by a thousand cuts' says defense attorney

You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.

You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."

The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."

The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.

This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.

The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

Lawyers — and the Florida Supreme Court — said that didn't make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.

"Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel's presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced," Ginsburg said. "Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation."

The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.

The high court said for the first time that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.

Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.

"In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.

And finally, the court's conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their "right to remain silent" and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"American citizens must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter intuitively requires them to speak." "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."

Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. "Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court," Pasco said. "This will be no different."

But Fisher thinks the court's Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don't want to confess. "Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda," Fisher said.


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0802/expert ... k-miranda/"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR » 02 Aug 2010, Mon 8:31 pm

When U.S. law enforcement officials captured suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, they did the unthinkable: They read him his Miranda rights. Despite the fact that Shahzad continued to cooperate after the reading of his rights, defense hawks criticized the move as soft on terrorism. Now, one member of Congress has introduced a startling solution:

The bill filed Thursday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would change federal law by creating a procedure to question a suspected terrorist for up to four days before taking him or her to court without jeopardizing prosecutors’ ability to use statements made by a suspect during that time.

It would also express Congress’s view that authorities can delay reading Miranda warnings “for as long as is necessary” to elicit intelligence from a terror suspect.

The White House has yet to take a position on Schiff's bill, but you can bet Attorney General Eric Holder will like what he sees.

Under the bill, the attorney general or the director of national intelligence or their top deputies could certify to a court that an individual is a terrorism suspect and “may be able to provide intelligence to protect the public safety.” In such cases, authorities could question the individual for up to 48 hours without facing an automatic presumption that the statements couldn’t be used in court. A judge or magistrate could extend the period for another 48 hours “for good cause shown.”

While "for good cause shown" sounds like the legal equivalent of "just for fun," Ben Wittes, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said he liked the bill, except for the only-four-days-of-detention part.

Wittes also said 48 to 96 hours really doesn’t give interrogators much time to talk to a suspect. “If you’re going to do this, you might as well give the government more time than that,” the Brookings expert said.

That's right, federal authorities "might as well" gain the power to hold and question suspected criminals for extended periods of time. While one would expect less hawkishness from a bill written by a California Democrat, the fact that Schiff is up for re-election against this guy puts things in context. When your opponent lists his first two credentials as "former military, former law enforcement," it's time to move to the right, no matter how misguided curtailing prisoners' rights may be.

The bill filed Thursday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would change federal law by creating a procedure to question a suspected terrorist for up to four days before taking him or her to court without jeopardizing prosecutors’ ability to use statements made by a suspect during that time.

It would also express Congress’s view that authorities can delay reading Miranda warnings “for as long as is necessary” to elicit intelligence from a terror suspect.

The White House has yet to take a position on Schiff's bill, but you can bet Attorney General Eric Holder will like what he sees.

Under the bill, the attorney general or the director of national intelligence or their top deputies could certify to a court that an individual is a terrorism suspect and “may be able to provide intelligence to protect the public safety.” In such cases, authorities could question the individual for up to 48 hours without facing an automatic presumption that the statements couldn’t be used in court. A judge or magistrate could extend the period for another 48 hours “for good cause shown.”

While "for good cause shown" sounds like the legal equivalent of "just for fun," Ben Wittes, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said he liked the bill, except for the only-four-days-of-detention part.

Wittes also said 48 to 96 hours really doesn’t give interrogators much time to talk to a suspect. “If you’re going to do this, you might as well give the government more time than that,” the Brookings expert said.

That's right, federal authorities "might as well" gain the power to hold and question suspected criminals for extended periods of time. While one would expect less hawkishness from a bill written by a California Democrat, the fact that Schiff is up for re-election against this guy puts things in context. When your opponent lists his first two credentials as "former military, former law enforcement," it's time to move to the right, no matter how misguided curtailing prisoners' rights may be.


http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/02/those ... y-coming-t"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
 
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR » 25 Mar 2011, Fri 7:42 pm

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

The Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the memo ensures that "law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents." He said "the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks—which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots—creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases."

The new guidelines could blunt criticism from Republicans, many of whom have pushed for terror suspects to be sent to military detention, where they argue that rigid Miranda restrictions don't apply. But many liberals will likely oppose the move, as might some conservatives who believe the administration doesn't have legal authority to rein in such rights.

The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.

New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder's call to change Miranda. At a hearing last year, Mr. King said, "It's important that we ensure that the reforms do go forward and that at the very least the attorney general consults with everyone in the intelligence community before any Miranda warning is given."

The Miranda protocols have been controversial since the high court formalized a practice that was already in use by the FBI, albeit not uniformly. Conservatives have long argued that the warning impedes law enforcement's ability to protect the public.

President Barack Obama has grappled with a web of terrorism policies cobbled together since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before becoming president, Mr. Obama had criticized the Bush administration for going outside traditional criminal procedures to deal with terror suspects, and for bypassing Congress in making rules to handle detainees after 9/11. He has since embraced many of the same policies while devising additional ones—to the disappointment of civil-liberties groups that championed his election. In recent weeks, the administration formalized procedures for indefinitely detaining some suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allowing for periodic reviews of those deemed too dangerous to set free.

The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, chose to bypass the Miranda issue altogether as it crafted a military-detention system that fell outside the rules that govern civilians. Under Mr. Bush, the government used Miranda in multiple terror cases. But Mr. Bush also ordered the detention of two people in a military brig as "enemy combatants." The government eventually moved both suspects—Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, and Ali al-Marri, a Qatari man—into the federal criminal-justice system after facing legal challenges. In other cases, it processed suspects through the civilian system.

An increase in the number of domestic-terror cases in recent years has made the issue more pressing.

The Miranda change leaves other key procedures in place, notably federal rules for speedy presentation of suspects before a magistrate, normally within 24 hours. Legal experts say those restrictions are bigger obstacles than Miranda to intelligence gathering. The FBI memo doesn't make clear whether investigators seeking exemptions would have to provide a Miranda warning at the time of such a hearing.

Also unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn't be admissible in court, the memo says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 19898.html"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.

"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."

"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."


Never talk to a police officer even if he hasn’t read your Miranda Rights to you. There’s no law that requires you to answer any questions a police officer or a Federal agent ask.

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers

$
0
0
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!

COMMENT
Yesterday, when I was discussing this law with a group, a citizen asked "If you have nothing to hide, why not comply with the officer?" I answered with a sime question: "If the police have no probably cause, why are they intruding into my life?"
When did government intrusion become patriotic or accepted? For heaven's sake, this country was founded on the government staying out of our lives.
Lawyer Motorcycle Association
If a police officer demands that you produce identification, that demand is not a valid.
In The Hiibel case, the US Supreme Court (highest court in the land) specifically interprets Nevada's "Duty to Identify" statute (NRS 171.123) and ruled:
"It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any ...other documentation. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs." Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada, 542 US 177 (2004)
Please note: the driver of a vehicle is required to produce a driver's license under a different law (but NOT the passenger)
 COMMENT`
Don’t kill a cop. You will lose in Court. Enjoy life, get even as a juror (providing you’re eligible for jury service) and vote not guilty no matter what the evidence shows.
Slapstick and Pig,
If driving or riding and you have been pulled over, turn over your license, registration and insurance when asked. If cop starts asking ANY questions simply ask “am I free to leave?” If cop says “yes” then leave. If cop says “no” then say I “want a lawyer.” And continue to remain silent!
If walking down street and cop detains you in any way ask if you are free to go about your business. If cop says no then request a lawyer and remain silent. You do NOT have to take off your glasses, hat, do-rag, whatever … You do NOT have to turnover your cell phone. Do NOT allow a cop to search you or your house, car, bike, etc. without a warrant. When the cop does search without a warrant in violation of your Constitutional Rights immediately file a complaint against that cop. Immediately! Go to the cops station/division and file that complaint.
Cops put paper on us, we put paper on them. That simple.
And ALWAYS password protect your cell phone. Cops can search your cell phone in many instances without a warrant. Remain silent and don’t give up the password.
All of the above aggravates the shit out of cops. I know, I have done it many times.


How to Beat a Photo-Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
by Nate Cox
Last year I received a letter in the mail from the Washington D.C DMV claiming I was speeding. As you can see it was one of those Photo-Enforced Speeding Tickets and they had multiple pictures of my CAR. I knew better to just submit and pay a fine like the majority of people do in this country, unfortunately. I am in the habit of not taking “plea deals”, and I am always in the habit of fighting my tickets and NOT pre-paying them so I don’t have to go to court – like many folks do. I just about always record my interactions with the police, whether it’s a traffic stop or not, that way it keeps the entire situation objective, transparent and I can hold the public servant accountable if he/ she violates my rights.
IMG 0002 1024x884 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
IMG 0003 1024x885 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
I can’t recall why I got the next letter, but I think it was because I didn’t respond promptly enough.
Front: IMG 00011 786x1024 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
Back: BackPg2 793x1024 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
As you can see these criminals issuing these tickets are hoping that the people will just get scared and pay, or not want to waste their time with it. However the government has to provide evidence that it was actually ME driving, it’s their burden of proof. Just because they got pictures of my car doesn’t mean I was driving. So, in response to the first letter, I mailed them back the following letter (copied and pasted):
To Whom it May Concern,
I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the District of Columbia on 04/21/2012. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 4th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.
If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.
Sincerely,
Nathan Cox
United States Army Veteran
HUGE thanks to super activist Meg McLain. I was slammed with work and was about to miss the deadline to mail the rebuttal letter in. She was my roommate at the time, I told her about how I needed it to read and she came up with a fantastic piece. I HIGHLY recommend Meg for any of your Graphic Design or Video Animation needs – She’s stellar!
After sending that letter I received this post card:
IMG 0004 1024x689 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
MANY months later (much more than six months), just the other day I get this post card showing that the ticket is DISMISSED.
IMAG2481 1024x577 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)
So PLEASE, NEVER EVER opt to pay these Photo Enforced Speeding AND Red Light tickets! You do NOT have to incriminate yourself OR implicate anyone else. It’s the government’s responsibility to provide evidence that YOU were the person driving, don’t help them in their “investigation”. ALWAYS go to court and fight your tickets, if there is NO VICTIM.. there is NO CRIME!
This write-up wasfirst posted to VirginiaCopBlock.org by Nate Cox on May 10, 2013

How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer

$
0
0
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.

USA - Police Using License Plate Reader Surveillance to All Track Drivers

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
 Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
You are being watched!!!
 Find out how police departments use surveillance endeavors on Americans by recording license plate numbers as drivers pass by to strengthen their information databases without foreknowledge by the public. Police Using License Plate Reader Surveillance to All Track Drivers
Share This Article: http://www.occupycorporatism.com/police-using-license-plate-reader-surveillance-to-all-track-drivers/

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented how police departments use surveillance endeavors on Americans by recording license plate numbers as drivers pass by to strengthen their information databases without foreknowledge by the public.
Over 26,000 pages were gathered through researching public records and the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) to conclude that nearly 600 local and state police departments in 38 states across America, including the District of Columbia, are participating in this scheme.
Millions of digital records have been amassed using this system that gives enforcement agencies the ability to locate any car at any time. The scanners are able to “capture images of passing or parked vehicles and note their location, uploading that information into police databases. Departments keep the records for weeks or years, sometimes indefinitely.”
Using automatic license plate readers (ALPR) surveillance technology, there is a clear and “startling picture of a technology deployed with too few rules that is becoming a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance.”
The ACLU relayed in a statement that “the documents paint a startling picture of a technology deployed with too few rules that is becoming a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance.”
More disturbing is that “private companies are also using license plate readers and sharing the information they collect with police with little or no oversight or privacy protections. A lack of regulation means that policies governing how long our location data is kept vary widely.”
High-speed cameras are used in conjunction with software to analyze photographs wherein license plate numbers are retrieved. The data is compared to “hot lists” of plate numbers and produces an instant alert when a match, or “hit,” registers.
The ACLU explains: “License plate readers would pose few civil liberties risks if they only checked plates against hot lists and these hot lists were implemented soundly. But these systems are configured to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location where all vehicles are seen — not just the data of vehicles that generate hits.”
Effectively, hot list information is gathered from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
The ACLU admonished that this practice violates our 4th Amendment rights because “systems are configured to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location where all vehicles are seen — not just the data of vehicles that generate hits.”
This enables the enforcement industry to create “s police to create “a single, high-resolution image of our lives.”
Catherine Crump, chief author of the ACLU report said: “At first, we didn’t think it posed much of a privacy problem.”
Upon examination of the documents, the ACLU was able to reveal “a system that triggered a real-time alert to the presence of a stolen vehicle, or a car linked to a fugitive, and that seemed acceptable. But then the group realized police were storing the license plate scans — whether or not there had been a ‘hit’.”
The Portland City police department (PCPD) has joined with those agencies that are tracking drivers and recording license plates.
The PCPD has 16 cameras attached to their cars that are armed to work with the surveillance software and database network.
Sargent Pete Simpson of the Portland Police Bureau explained that the PCPD has “scanners on patrol cars for several years. He said police use the scanners to alert officers if a car is stolen or if the owner of the car has a warrant for their arrest.”
The PCPD retains “the data for a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 40 years. The data is also only accessible by police.”
According to the ACLU report: “The documents show that many police departments are storing for long periods of time huge numbers of records on scanned plates that do not return ‘hits.’ For example, police in Jersey City, N.J., recorded 2.1 million plate reads last year. As of August 2012, Grapevine, Texas, had 2 million plate reads stored and Milpitas, Calif., had 4.7 million.”




VIDEO 
 ACLU challenges police on license plate scanners 
 http://youtu.be/HgNik2UaZ78

BABE OF THE DAY

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

NO SNITCHIN` NO SNOOPIN` NO RATTIN`

$
0
0


Cover
Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgements

This book is for you if ...
What exactly is a snitch?
What makes snitches so dangerous?

PART ONE: Recognizing and Avoiding Snitches

FIRST RULE: Learn and practice good security consciousness
Recognizing a snitch
What makes snitches so persuasive?
"Mere" snitching vs active entrapment
Dangerous myths about snitches and undercover agents
What to do if you believe a snitch is personally targeting you

PART TWO: A Snitch Uncovered

If you believe there's a snitch in your group
HISTORICAL ways of dealing with known snitches
How do YOU treat an exposed snitch?
Repairing the damage snitches do
Beware of accusing someone who might not be a snitch

PART THREE: WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET BUSTED?

You may be pressured to become a snitch
Do NOT talk to cops. Period.
The police officer is NOT your friend
The Prisoner's Dilemma
Mindset: The common territory between snitches and victims
What happens if you refuse to snitch?
What happens if you become a snitch — and regret it?
What happens to you if you snitch and your friends find out?
The rest of your life if you do snitch

Appendix 1: The Reid Interrogation TechniqueTM
Appendix 2: Some Commonsense OpSec
Appendix 3: Line up a lawyer
Appendix 4: Other helpful resources




Rats! Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commerical-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
That mouthful means that it is okay to copy and distribute this booklet for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute it to the original source. Feel free. Go for it. Have at it. Spread the word.
On the other hand, you may not alter or add to the text in any way.
And you may not reproduce or distribute any part of this work for commercial purposes, period. Do not do either of those things.


Acknowledgements

I intended to acknowledge the dozens of people who contributed to this book. Given its touchy subject matter, I figured I'd use only their online nyms, not real names. But, sadly, almost everyone I asked responded, "Don't mention me!"
Such is the nature of the police state.
So the only contributors credited anywhere in the book are those who wrote items especially for this project or whose comments on my blog, Living Freedom I reprinted here. Their nyms appear with their contributions.
Despite the lack of credits, this book was truly a collaborative project. Contributors included lawyers, former cops, security specialists, political activists, members of the drug culture, business executives in "sensitive" fields, outlaw bikers, and in a couple of cases people whose identities are so deeply secret that I couldn't credit them even if I wanted to. (To guard against the possibility of any snitch sympathizer planting misleading information, outlaws, former snitch victims, and lawyers checked the text after more "official" folk had their say. I'm relieved to state that, while many people added valuable information as the book grew, nobody in this very experienced crowd spotted anything false or suspiciously "coppish.")
Contributors came from all walks of life — from the ultra-respectable to the underground. All shared the same goal of helping non-violent people save themselves from snitches and — hopefully, someday — ending the corrupt and evil "snitch culture." Once I pulled the book together with all that help, an anonymous proofreader and a friendly layout artist took it from there. There are two people I am allowed to credit: cover designer Keith Perkins and illustrator Travis Halverson, whose "no rattin'" drawing you'll find at the end of the book.
Each and every contributor was a volunteer. This book couldn't have happened without them.


This book is for you if ...

You are a non-violent person engaged in any activity that may be controversial, illegal, or merely "sensitive" or unconventional. These days, anything out of the ordinary can make you a target.
Some people who could use this book:
  • Anti-war or environmental activists
  • Recreational drug users
  • Participants in the underground economy or anybody who does business in cash
  • Critics of local or national powers-that-be
  • Anyone whose profession involves "sensitive" information or activities
  • Gun owners or dealers
  • Third-party or "fringe" political activists
  • Hobbyists who work with dangerous materials
  • Photographers/videographers
  • Religious dissidents
  • People with offshore or unconventional investments (including perfectly legitimate ones)
It doesn't matter where you fall in the political spectrum or even if you're apolitical. If police might target you or your activities, you need to understand how snitches could mess up your life.

This book is NOT for you if ...

You aim to commit violence against innocent people. In that case, reporting on you isn't snitching, it's self defense.


What exactly is a snitch?

There are a lot of different types of snitches. We could write an encyclopedia defining them. But we're going to keep this simple.
For purposes of the book, a snitch is anybody who inserts him- or herself into your non-violent activities on behalf of government. "Government" may mean local cops. It could also mean the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or a host of other state or federal agencies. It's absolutely mind-boggling how many seemingly innocuous agencies these days have arrest powers, armed enforcers — and snitches employed in sneaky sting operations. And thousands of them use snitches.
There are two common categories of snitch you need to look out for:
The infiltrator/agent provocateur. This is someone (often a professional) who is inserted into a group for an active purpose, such as disrupting the group, or worst, talking formerly innocent (or at least formerly non-violent) people into committing crimes in order to bust them. Agents provocateurs may, among other things, try to turn non-violent protest into violent action, thus discrediting movements, giving excuses for crackdowns, and giving more publicity and power to government agencies.
The informer/informant. This snitch is often a legitimate member of a group or social circle who continues to be active while giving information to the police. This person may be acting under duress (to save his own skin after being arrested, for instance). This person may be hoping the cops will pay with money, drugs, or ongoing criminal immunity for her dubious "services." While this person isn't necessarily a professional agent provocateur, he may nevertheless try to talk friends into committing crimes so he can get more credibility or rewards from his police handlers.
These aren't the only types of snitches. For example, there's also what we'll call the "accidental snitch"— though idiot snitch might be more appropriate. This is the person who simply can't keep her mouth shut about illegal or controversial activities. Cops love these guys! They don't even have to threaten them, pay them, hire them, train them, or gain any leverage over them. They just sit back and listen to them reveal secrets.
Then there's the type of snitch the British call a grass and old American gangsters might have called a stool pigeon. This is a person who blabs to cops or other government agents after you (and probably he) have already been arrested. This person isn't going to interfere with your activities; that's already been done. He's "only" going to give sworn affidavits and courtroom testimony against you, justifying it as a means of saving his own skin. There's not much you can do about this person. By the time you learn one of your former friends is a "stoolie," it's too late.
There are vengeance snitches— people who turn on friends and associates after having a falling out or not getting their way. There are jailhouse snitches— either deliberately planted in your cell after you've been arrested or just opportunists who happen to be there and are willing to share whatever you say (or make up lies about things you said).
Each and every one of these people is a betrayer of friendship and trust. All of them are just plain rats— and they're as welcome in the company of good people as rats are in a pantry.
To keep things simple we're going to call them all snitches — though we'll differentiate when we need to help you look out for specific problems.


What makes snitches so dangerous?

Snitches are everywhere and their use is growing. In many cases, genuine police investigations into actual crimes are almost a thing of the past. Government agents just round up some snitches, get them to lie or arm-twist them into spying and — voila!— an instant and easy case against virtually anyone they want to target. Sometimes they get everything they need from some anonymous person who makes false accusations via a tips hotline.
Snitches (and cops) lie all the time and get away with it. So do prosecutors and virtually all government investigators. Good luck "proving your innocence" if some liar says you were part of a drug deal, laundered money, plotted to blow up a bridge, or asked him to help you murder somebody. Never mind that, in our legal system, the government is supposed to have to prove your guilt; that's become a quaint notion.
Snitches damage individuals, organizations, and movements even before they actually rat on anybody. The mere fear of them destroys trust, friendship, and cohesiveness. Some are deliberately inserted into groups to cause exactly that sort of chaos and dissension.
They tarnish otherwise legitimate political movements. When the media reports that members of Group X or Movement Y have been caught running drugs or guns or plotting to dump toxic chemicals in a reservoir, guess what sticks in the public's mind — your legitimate goals or the "fact" that you're a bunch of terrorist whackos? Later, when it comes out that the entire plot was a fiction created by an agent provocateur who got a few marginal members to go along with a scheme the government itself cooked up, hardly anyone notices. All they think is, "Oh, Group X; yeah, they're a bunch of violent loonies. Thank God the FBI saved us from them."
A fact to remember
This book could help you avoid becoming the victim of a snitch. It could even help you avoid being pressured into becoming a snitch yourself.
But there are NO guarantees. Snitches are effective precisely because they're so hard to detect.
Snitches prey on the naive and unsuspecting and on misplaced friendship. No book is a substitute for common sense and healthy skepticism. You have a brain: USE IT.
You have a gut. When it tells you you're in danger, BELIEVE IT.
They send people to prison. Sometimes innocent people. Often the victims of snitches have committed "crimes" that are much less serious than those of the snitch himself. A snitch is often either a real scumbag who's in the pay of police or a formerly decent person trying to save herself (or family members or friends) from a long prison sentence by getting others to commit crimes.
They may literally cost you your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor. Not to mention your family, your freedom, your friends, your job, your savings, and your reputation. And don't imagine that "mere" innocence will protect you. The more innocent you are, the more you're likely to be blindsided and hurt by one of these betrayers — because innocent, naive people make easy targets.
They corrupt entire cultures. Think of East Germany under the STASI or the old Soviet Union. Literally husbands couldn't trust their wives. Parents couldn't trust their children. Brothers couldn't trust brothers because so many were reporting to the state. Now, some countries that knew the horror of snitch culture forbid or limit the use of snitches. At the same time, formerly free nations are relying on snitches for everything and encouraging every moron in the land to "see something and say something."


PART ONE

Recognizing and Avoiding Snitches



FIRST RULE:

Learn and practice
good security consciousness

The military calls this OpSec — Operational Security. It means conducting yourself in such a way as not to give away secrets or walk stupidly into avoidable dangers.
  • Don't talk about secret or illegal activities outside your group.
  • Within your group, talk about them only to people who have a need to know.
  • Keep groups small. Maybe even as small as a "cell of one."
  • Attorney safety tip:
    A lawyer who consulted on this book says:
    "When dealing with police, prosecutors or their agents, do NOT base your theory-of-the-game on TV, movies, or other sources. Or on constitutional theory you may have learned in school. The other side is playing for keeps and to them rules are irrelevant inconveniences. Ask Bradley Manning."
  • If you use email, encrypt it. Not only that, but encrypt all email you possibly can, not just email containing sensitive material. Encrypt your cute cat jokes and your discussions of last night's favorite TV show (that way you don't call special attention to your most confidential exchanges).
  • Do not post sensitive material on social media (a no-brainer, but apparently some still do it).
  • Do not post sensitive material on social media even when your privacy settings allow only "friends" to see it. A 2012 court ruling said it's perfectly okay for those "friends" to turn around and show your allegedly private info to government agents.
  • Do not talk to cops or indeed any government agents — about anything. Ever. The most innocent remarks can be used against you. The "nicest" cop is still not your friend. (We'll have more on this in Part Three and in the appendixes. This is extremely important!)
  • Know the laws, potential sentences, and likely prosecutorial practices against any crimes you're committing. Do not be caught unprepared.
  • Tip from experience:
    This comes from a friend of mine who spent "the worst two weeks" of his life in jail, courtesy of a snitch: "Don't hang with people who are dishonest or lie, even in small, unimportant things. They have no honor to lose and everything they say and do is based on profit or benefit to them."
  • If you're a political activist, keep your nose clean in other ways. For instance, if you're an anti-drug-war activist, don't sell drugs on the side. Don't make yourself an easy target for spurious (or worse, real) criminal charges.
  • Unless you actually want to be arrested to become a test case (a dangerous but sometimes useful tactic), then do everything you can to avoid giving anyone ammunition to tarnish you or your cause.
  • Do your best to make sure your associates also follow good security practices.
  • Get yourself away from associates who are blabbermouths, boasters, loose-lipped drunks, or "friends" who insist on posting their (and your) every activity on the Internet.
  • We repeat: GET YOURSELVES AWAY from anybody who can't keep his mouth shut!


Recognizing a snitch

While some clumsy snitches are obvious, many more are nearly impossible to recognize. What follows are only guidelines. Use them as an aid to your own brain and your own gut, but understand that when you organize with others to do controversial things, you very probably will have at least one snitch in your midst. There is simply no group that cannot be infiltrated. The longer you continue and/or the more controversial your activities, the more likely you are to attract one or more rats.
Some typical things snitches and/or agents provocateurs do:
  • A stranger or casual acquaintance tries to get you to do or advise on illegal activities.
  • A friend suddenly starts pushing you to do or advise on illegal things.
  • A person joins your group and statements he/she makes about his/her background just don't add up.
  • A person joins your group and starts stirring up trouble and creating divisions.
  • A person joins your group and is overly eager to be useful, to pay for the group's activities, to initiate activities, supply equipment, to escalate dangerous activities, etc.
  • Someone goes out of his way to gain your trust, to be really buddy-buddy with you. Then, when you resist getting into dubious activities, he drops all interest in you (he's looking for an easier mark).
  • Advice from the underground
    This ultra-basic piece of advice goes back at least to the agitators of the 1960s. Yet people still get entrapped by ignoring it: "You can always tell the FBI agent. He's the one who's trying to get you to bomb something."
  • You're asked to do illegal or dubious business with a "friend of a friend." This is a big one. It's amazing how many "friends of friends" (where controversial activities are involved) are actually undercover cops.
  • Someone asks you to do something illegal or dangerous that he could just as easily do himself or have done elsewhere.
  • Someone starts agitating to have your group do something outside the group's purposes. ("Hey, we just run a little of this 'stuff' across the border and it'll make us a lot of money that we can use to do good.")
  • An older, "more experienced" person joins your group or circle and soon becomes a counselor of sorts to the youngest, most edgy, most insecure, most angry, or most naive members. He "cuts them out of the herd" in order to pull them into illegal plots. (This is a classic tactic of the agent provocateur.)
  • Anyone in your group starts agitating for violent action. People who agitate for illegal activities may be snitches; or they may be genuine fools who will attract snitches.
These are not the only ways snitches get you in trouble. But they're among the most common ones.
On the other hand, appearances can be deceiving.
An online commentator who goes by the handle Bulucanagria recalls:
Some years ago I was returning from a job interview. I was changing buses in downtown Cincinnati when I saw that there was a hemp rally about to begin. Naturally I stayed on to enjoy the festivities.
Coming from a job interview I was dressed casually, but rather nicely; slacks, button down shirt, decent shoes. Also, I'm a fairly large white guy with short hair, my preference because when my hair grows out I look like a used Q-tip.
So, I'm standing at the back of the crowd when a band comes on to warm up the crowd. The singer intros the song by saying, "This is dedicated to all the undercover cops out there today ..." and about a dozen people turn and look at me with knowing expressions. I had to laugh out loud!
The first speaker comes out (Gatewood Galbraith RIP), and soon some naif sparks up a joint ... and is immediately arrested by the tie-dyed, long-hair, bearded hippie! Again I couldn't help myself and laughed out loud. I've smoked my share of The Devil's Lettuce but sometimes potheads just ain't too bright.
My point is that another potential sign of a plant is somebody who seems to match all the stereotypes of the group you're in. The agent involved may be smart and subtle enough to provide a nuanced portrayal of a "fellow traveler," or he may be an ignorant jackwagon who believes all the hype put out by his overlords and thinks of his quarry as cartoon characters. It's true that stereotypes become so by generally being true, but it's doubtful that any one individual would embrace them all.
Again, this seems like something a savvy person would already understand but, since we're trying to explain these things to ignorant fools (i.e. me 30 years ago), I thought I'd share.


What makes snitches so persuasive?

Snitches, especially professional agents provocateurs, can be master manipulators. Many otherwise-smart people have been drawn into their traps because they failed to recognize not only the specific techniques listed in the last section but because they failed to understand the psychology of snitchery and entrapment.
Case in point: Steve Haug
Haug is one of the agents provocateurs the FBI planted with the Hutaree Militia — a group that basically did not do much while its members spouted unpleasant political rhetoric. Haug inserted himself so persuasively into the group that he became the best man at the leader's wedding.
And all the while he was recording hundreds of hours of conversations and aggressively trying to get the group to cook up a "bomb plot." A judge eventually threw out all the major charges, but not until some Hutaree members had spent two years in jail awaiting trial.
* * *
It's also worth noting: One of the other snitches who helped bring down the Hutaree was a mouthy radio-show host called Hal Turner. Turner used another infamous tactic of snitches; he constantly urged, and even threatened, violence against public officials. All the while he was on the air, rousing dimwits into a frenzy, he was also a paid FBI informant, reporting on the very people he was inciting. And that's not at all unusual or surprising.
  • Snitches play on your trust and/or your desire to go along with others.
  • They may appeal to your loyalty or your fear or some other emotion ("You won't do it? Wow, and here I thought you were one of us." "C'mon, if you had any guts you'd do this." "How are we ever going to change things if we don't take radical action?")
  • They may literally "cut from the herd" the most naive, trusting, foolish, or discontent of your associates, isolate them, and psychologically manipulate them into committing crimes.
  • They may pretend to be your friend. — especially a friend in need. ("I know you don't usually deal, but couldn't you just sell me a little from your stash?" "Look, just help me get this money out of the country; it's no big deal." "Hey, I know you have a machine shop in your garage; how about helping me cut down the barrel on this shotgun? I'll pay you.")
  • They may actually be your friend — but a friend who has gotten into legal trouble and has turned to snitching to save themselves from a long prison sentence. (Same sorts of urgings as in the last bullet point, but this time coming from somebody for whom that wouldn't be characteristic behavior.)
  • They may make it easy to commit crimes by not only pushing the idea, but actually supplying the funding, the equipment, the transportation, and the planning for the crime. They may come across as natural leaders ("Trust me, I know how to do this!")
  • They may make hyper-strong appeals to your cause — then use the leverage they gain to make equally strong appeals for committing crimes.
  • They often play upon a normal human desire to want to DO something - which is likely why, if you're a political person, you're a member of the group in the first place.
  • And finally — let's never forget — some snitches play on that most basic instinct of all — S.E.X. Spy agencies have known this as long as there have been spy agencies. The KGB used to call it "the sparrow trick"; get a red-blooded heterosexual male up close with an attentive, manipulative female and said male will eventually whisper all manner of secrets into her ear. These days, it probably works the other way around, too. And no doubt homosexual attraction can blind eyes and loosen lips just as effectively.
Another point to remember about snitches
This comes from "just waiting," who also contributed the excellent primer on interrogation that you'll find in the appendices. He notes: "While all snitches are cowards, not all snitches are wimps or sissies. Just because we talk about them as lesser beings doesn't mean some of them aren't tough as nails — fighters and brawlers.
"If nothing else, snitches show a very developed sense of self-preservation and a willingness to do anything to save their own ass. Being a rat doesn't diminish their ability to fight, it just changed their tactics and focus temporarily."
So beware: Another way snitches can be dangerous is to physically hurt you if you get in their way.


"Mere" snitching vs active entrapment

Back in the late sixties or thereabouts, there was a federal case in which Treasury agents latched on to a printer who was willing to fantasize about doing some counterfeiting. Undercover Treasury agents encouraged him to really do it. Despite being a printer, he didn't have the special plates required to print money. So the Treasury agents provided them. Then he didn't have the special paper required to print money. So the Treasury agents provided it. And so on.
Times have changed...not for the better
In a Playboy article, James Bovard wrote: "Up until the early Seventies, defendants often successfully challenged entrapment as a violation of due process. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, gutted most defenses against government entrapment by focusing almost solely on the 'subjective disposition' of the entrapped person. If prosecutors can find any inkling of a defendant's disposition to the crime, went Rehnquist's logic, then the person is guilty, no matter how outrageous or abusive the government agents' behavior. Justice William Brennan dissented, warning that the decision could empower law enforcement agents to 'round up and jail all 'predisposed' individuals.'"
A judge tossed the case. And rightly so. There would never have been a crime, had the federal agents not provided the means and a big chunk of the motivation. That's entrapment.
Today, that dumb sap of a printer would be in prison for a long, long, time. As Bovard says, standards have changed. Although a jury will occasionally decide that some act of entrapment is so outlandish they'll refuse to convict (do an Internet search on "FCPA Africa Sting" for a great example), victims of entrapment have ended up serving decades in prison for going along with plots cooked up entirely by government agents. Even those eventually found not guilty may lose everything in the effort to save themselves.
With courts allowing more and more acts that would once have been considered illegal entrapment, more and more "mere" snitches are using their wiles to talk people into illegal deeds and are even providing the means and money to carry those deeds out. The lines between "mere" snitches and agents provocateurs are blurring.
Beware of anybody who not only wants you to commit illegal acts but goes out of his way to "help" you do so!


Dangerous myths about
snitches and undercover agents

There are two huge myths about snitches, narcs, undercover agents and other cop-associated rats that you'll hear all the time. The people spouting this BS always sound as if they know it for a fact. But the only fact is that they're misinformed — and are dangerously misinforming you.
Here are the two myths:
Myth #1: If you ask if someone is a narc, they have to tell you.
NO they don't. The myth holds that if you say, "Are you a narc?" or "Are you a cop?" and the person replies, "No," then they can never, ever bust you. Baloney! Every variety of snitch can look you straight in the eye and say, "I'm not a snitch" — then turn right around and land you in jail. Court cases around the nation - a search engine is your friend, here - have affirmed the "right" of government agents to lie to their targets. Which brings us to:
Myth #2: Cops are never allowed to lie to you.
OMFG, cops — and all kinds of other government agents — lie and they lie and they lie. And in nearly every case the courts allow them to get away with it.
But that brings up a related subject. Increasingly, you can get in trouble for lying to them. Even an innocent and harmless misstatement can be twisted into a prison sentence for you (search on "Martha Stewart prison" for an example).
There are a few sorts of lies that are so egregious that if a police officer tells them the case against you may be thrown out of court (attorney Jamie Spencer gives an example here). But only after you've been busted, scared out of your wits, deprived of your property, and perhaps driven into bankruptcy.
Attorney safety tip:
A day or two spent in jail because of a frustrated government agent beats a lifetime spent there because of a verbal misstep.
So just remember: Cops and other government agents are the most evil liars in the world — because they have power to hurt you, they'll use it ruthlessly, and they know they can get away with almost anything. If you know, or even have good reason to suspect that someone is a cop or any sort of government agent, DO NOT TALK TO THEM. About anything. Don't try to outwit them. Do not try to turn the tables on them. Don't even talk about the weather around them. The only things you ever want to say to a cop are things like, "Am I free to go?," "I do not consent to a search," or "I will not speak to you without an attorney present."


What to do if you believe a
snitch is personally targeting you

Let's assume that you suspect — but aren't sure — that someone in your circle is a snitch. And worse, you think the person is, or even might be, targeting you. What do you do?
  • Again, get away from the person
  • Do not try to outsmart the person
  • Do not feed the person false information (because if that person is an undercover agent this could be a crime in and of itself)
  • Do not commit violence against the person
  • Just get away — even if it means leaving a group
  • If you think you've already said or done something compromising with this person, see a good lawyer and read the section of this booklet on how to conduct yourself if you get arrested.
  • Another tip from this book's helpful attorney: "Consider making your OWN complaint to the authorities about this 'nutball' [the person you suspect of being a snitch]. This a) puts you on the record as NOT being in bed with the snitch, b) alerts the snitch and his handlers that you're aware of him and are thus less likely to be an 'easy target,' c) creates an appearance that you're not one of the bad guys - since you're not hiding anything, and d) maybe - with a little luck - the snitch ends up in jail himself for some time. I would not consider this 'do not try to outsmart' described above (which I agree with)." Of course, if he turns out not to be a snitch, you may have harmed an innocent person by calling the cops on him. It's a risk. But if the person really is an agent of the government, this can be a pretty good act of self-protection. Oh, and one of my friends who speaks from experience, points out that if you're going to report a snitch to the cops, it's best to do it through a lawyer. Otherwise you're talking to cops, which is a no-no.
It's an old joke, but...
SterlingStrings writes:
Back in Soviet Russia, twin brothers were born. They slept in the same crib. As they grew older, they went to the same schools, and entered the same military duty side by side. After the military, they started work next to each other in the same factory. They were married on the same day, and raised their families next door to each other in the same apartment building.
The years go by, and the brothers find themselves as old men, sitting on a park bench, sharing a bottle of vodka.
"What do you think of these new reforms they keep talking about?" asks one brother.
"Nyet" Says the other, "One of us might be KGB!"
As I said, old joke, but an element of truth. The sad reality is, everyone has their version of the "thirty pieces of silver." Pressure on a family member, fear of jail time, exposure of a dark secret ... anybody can be turned. The trick is in riding the fine line between necessary trust and over extending yourself and putting yourself at risk. Personally, I'm in favor of compartmentalizing information. Discuss "X" with one person/group, share "Y" with another group, and keep your yap shut about "Z".
Also, remember that the Internet is the greatest snitch out there. Every click, every search, every action CAN be recorded. I have no evidence that it's being done successfully, but it can be done. That's enough for me to never use a single point of entry to the WWW. Visit the public library for some, your local coffee shop for more, do some lightweight stuff at home, and don't surf and research at the same time. Find stuff, data dump it to a secure source, and read it later. If you find it irrelevant, trash it then.
Heads down, eyes up!


PART TWO

A Snitch Uncovered



If you believe there's
a snitch in your group

We've talked about how to recognize snitches and what you, as an individual, should do to protect yourself. Again, we have to stress that there are no magic bullets; you might be blindsided and severely damaged by a snitch despite your best instincts and best efforts at OpSec. The advice in this booklet can lessen the chance of that, but nobody can give you any guarantees.
Let's say, though, that you believe you've spotted a snitch and this snitch is not only in a position to harm you, but also a group you belong to — whether that be a bunch of dope-smoking friends, a group of hobbyists or gun owners, an activist political organization, or a religious group.
One interesting (though
dangerous) way to ID snitches
In his youth, Steve was a member of a number of groups that attracted the attention of cops and snitches. There were so many iffy hangers-on that the tiny core of solid people weren't sure who was a cop or who just smelled like one, or who was a snitch and who might just be a misfit or an idiot.
Then three people hit on a plan. Steve explains:
"Three of us who fairly trusted each other wondered how bad we were compromised and decided to try a test. We were a lot of loosely organized groups with a variety of hangers on. Each of us met with some of these people and called a 'secret' meeting. It was a cop's wet dream — with guns, drugs and heavy people promised. One of us went to each of these meetings and it was only some of the people told about it and a massive police presence at all of them. (The smart people stayed home.) It became unpleasant when the Feds, cops and such realized it was a trick.
"It left me with the depressing feeling that it was next to impossible to put a heavyweight group of more than one person together without a snitch."
The first thing to do, as we have said before and will say again, is to get away from that person and his or her influence. However, now you've got other people to worry about.
Some members of your group may be absolute innocents. Some may be blabbermouths or edgy types who are walking stupidly into the snitch's trap. Some may be friends with the snitch and hostile to anybody who expresses doubts about the person. Some may even be associates in the snitch's plan to bust you (it's not unusual for government agencies to plant multiple agents into one operation and the bitter old joke that, if not for the snitches, some meetings would be empty, isn't that far wrong).
What do you do?
  • Document your suspicions.
  • If possible, conduct some careful, subtle investigation to see if your suspected snitch's background and life matches her claims. Does she really live where she says? Has she been seen with police? Do her statements about her education or her friends hold up? If not, you may not have a snitch, but you have an untrustworthy person, for sure.
  • Share your specific reasons for suspicion with people in the group that you trust. Yes, we know that snitches destroy trust, so be very careful when choosing one or two others to confide in.
  • If you can do so without violating your state's law, quietly begin video or audiotaping all interactions with the suspected person. If state wiretapping laws forbid recording without the consent of all parties, then at least consider openly recording meetings to counteract any lies the snitch may tell his handlers.
  • Start a 'Facts, Acts, and Circumstantial file.' After each incident write details down. Facts are the time, date, occasion, incident, characteristics of the person(s). Acts are what they did. Circumstantial is the impressions and anything odd about the situation. Use the FAC file and keep notes from unsettling situations and see if a pattern emerges. (Note: This item also appears in Appendix 2, where you will find details on how to do this, along with many other commonsense OpSec tips.)
  • Do not make open accusations unless you have proof positive of snitchery or copness (as when New York Libertarian Party activists (see below) spotted a former "suspicious" member in the New York Times, helping the FBI with an arrest).
  • Discuss with your most trusted associates what to do.
  • Here's one way to spot a snitch!
    Online commenter BusyPoorDad writes:
    Years ago, when the New York Libertarian Party was starting up, a new member joined and became active. He said he was from a low-income neighborhood, worked a manual labor job, and did not know much about politics. He looked the part but things just did not add up.
    He knew how to set a table for a formal dinner, used the Robert's Rules very well, and fit in very well with the highly educated members. After about four months of working with us, he just stopped coming. This sort of thing happened a lot but there were no signs of discontent. He was always willing to do everything he was asked to help do (petition, run Nolan chart tables, etc.).
    About a year later he was spotted in the NY Times holding on to someone arrested by the FBI for something.
    His background just did not fit with him. We never saw him reading books, he talked about watching TV and working at a warehouse, but he was able to be cultured, had a good vocabulary, and really wanted to be part of everything.
  • Just as your first individual move is to keep away from the suspect individual, the best group action may be to simply shut the person out. Stop talking with them. Stop inviting them to meetings. Stop asking them to be involved in projects. Freeze them out of all activities and discussions.
  • In a serious case, you may end up having to shut down the entire group to foil a snitch or agent provocateur. If so, have a plausible excuse if you can.
  • Always, always make sure that you and the other "on the up and up" members of your group remain on record as NOT advocating illegal, and in particular violently illegal, activities. Got a blog, a Twitter account, a Facebook page? Make your opposition to certain activities clear and public.
  • Furthermore, make sure you stay on record as NOT advocating things that the snitch wants. Do not line up behind, or even pretend to agree with, that person's policy recommendations, strategies, or tactics. Remember, you may well be being recorded. You do not even want to appear to superficially agree with things an undercover operative is trying to talk you into.
  • Again, finally, you may have to recognize that you can neither help nor save those who do not wish to be helped or saved. It may be that your final act has to be turning your files over to some other trusted member of the group and leaving. You always have a chance of finding another group. You're not going to have a chance to find another you.


HISTORICAL ways of dealing
with known snitches

Since, as one wag observed, the first snitch arose shortly after the first secret, history offers us lots and lots of examples of how groups have handled the betrayers in their midst.
We do not recommend any of these methods! On the contrary, we advise in the strongest terms possible against them. This is just to note how seriously people have historically taken those who betray them. But, again, to be blunt - DO NOT DO ANY OF THIS! These examples are for historical, educational purposes only.
  • The IRA used to shoot betrayers in the kneecaps. It wouldn't kill them, but everyone who saw a former activist lurching down the street on destroyed knees knew what he was.
  • The Mafia would famously send stool pigeons to "sleep with the fishes."
  • Resistance groups, particularly during wartime, have been known to leave the bodies of betrayers in public squares with messages pinned to them — or even carved in them. While still saying it's a bad idea, it did have the effect of discouraging the general populace from working with the enemy. Today snitches and betrayers often see benefits and face nowhere near enough drawbacks for their dirty work.
  • In the 1980s and 1990s, the African National Congress punished perceived collaborators with the monstrous method called "necklacing." They'd shove a gasoline-filled tire over a miscreant's neck and arms and kill the person by setting the tire alight.
  • After World War II, many women who had slept with or otherwise collaborated with Nazis were humiliated by having their hair hacked off while mobs screamed, "Nazi whore!" This might not sound like much compared with beastly punishments like necklacing. But public humiliation, shunning, and the attack on their femininity was hugely degrading and psychologically damaging.


How do YOU treat an exposed snitch?

Since you are not a Mafioso, and since (so far) we are not in an outright shooting war with an enemy state, there is no justification for historical hardcore tactics. We'll say it again: your best bet is just to get away from the snitch and take protective measures as described above.
However, if you're very sure a person is a rat and you want to take further steps to render the snitch ineffective or miserable, here are some milder, but potentially effective, tactics. Again, we DO NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMEND any of these things. They may be good or bad ideas, depending on the people and the circumstances. They're just possibilities:
Spread the word. Use social networks both online and in the real world to notify others that the person is an informant. Be as factual and give as much evidence as possible. (There is even a website that contains a national database of known rats, but since it's a paid membership site, we're not recommending it here. Do a Startpage.com or DuckDuckGo.com search to find it if you're interested.) Post the snitch's photo, address, or other personal details online unless that violates a law in your area. This strategy is, however, a serious two edged sword - as those methods are ones that may be used by agents provocateurs in attempting to damage a group by further destroying trust. In fact, such tactics may well end up with YOU being labeled - no matter how unfairly or incorrectly - as the snitch! In fact, removing competent and trustworthy personnel from a group is high on a snitch's to-do list, and this can be a gift from on-high to a snitch.
Expel the person from the group. You can do this quietly — perhaps just by moving meetings and failing to inform the person of the new place. Or you can do it publicly, literally holding a purge or a type of trial where you present the evidence against the person.
Organize a shunning. Shunning has historically been a huge tactic in close communities. Shunning means shutting a person (and sometimes his family members) out of virtually all ordinary activity. A target of shunning isn't welcome into people's homes, can't get served at restaurants, doesn't have his greetings returned, can't get help from any of her former friends, and is generally unable to function within the community. Obviously in many ways this has become harder to do as we've become less reliant on our towns and neighborhoods. On the other hand, the Internet has made other, non-traditional forms of shunning possible.
Turn them in to the "legitimate" authorities. We mentioned this option before as a means of protecting yourself and your true friends. The same tactic may work to halt the snitch in its tracks or even put it in jail. Snitches are often serious criminals. They may well be up to nefarious deeds that their handlers in the police departments or government agencies don't know. Or a snitch who's working for the local PD may be unknown to the FBI, who might be interested to learn about other things he's up to. Again, we are very, very squeamish about the idea of turning any non-violent, non-thieving person into to any law-enforcement agency. But ... well, you'll need to judge for yourself what the snitch in your midst deserves. And of course, do this through a lawyer. Don't talk directly to government agents.
Fun and games. Again, this is a tactic we do not recommend. However, traditionally it's been used as a lovely bit of revenge and a way to keep snitches busy without letting them know you're already on to them. The idea is to keep the snitch running in circles with false leads. Set one snitch spying on another. Or give the snitch false evidence to focus on while you go about your real business unmolested. We consider this to be in the category of trying to "outsmart" the snitch — which is not wise. And you must be especially careful that you never put yourself in a position where you can be accused of "lying to law enforcement," since you can go to prison for that even when you're innocent in every other way. But such games can be fun while they last.
Rehabilitate and take the snitch back into your circle. There are people who believe that some snitches — especially young, inexperienced people who get in over their heads, get in legal trouble, and are intimidated into becoming snitches — should be forgiven, rehabilitated, and eventually brought back into the fold of trust. A very humane anarchist, Tom Knapp, took this position when young anti-drug-war activist Stacy Litz was arrested and pressured into becoming a drug informant. Not many people sympathized (and Litz made her own reputation worse with her online writings). But some very decent folks might want to open their arms to a "reformed" snitch. All we can say is, if you want to go that way, make damned sure the rat has actually reformed first — and can prove it through actions, not mere words.
A modern shunning
In the mid-1990s, Bob Black was a very well-known anarchist. Then, after a personal dispute with fellow writer Jim Hogshire and Hogshire's wife (a "he said-she said" encounter whose facts are known only to the three who were present), Black did the unthinkable.
And in this case the unthinkable was verifiable. On February 21, 1996, Black wrote a letter to the Narcotics Division of the Seattle Police Department, accusing Hogshire of a multitude of drug crimes, and implying that Hogshire was armed and dangerous.
Paramilitary police descended on the Hogshires' apartment. They confiscated perfectly legal items (including dried poppies and a mug warmer they mistook for a drug-weighing scale). Both Jim and Heidi Hogshire spent three days in jail. Even though a judge eventually dismissed the charges, Black's accusation made a hellacious mess of Hogshire's life, cost him tens of thousands of dollars, and contributed to the breakup of his marriage.
In the long run, however, it was Black who paid the bigger price. His publisher (who was also Hogshire's publisher) destroyed all remaining inventory of Black's books and published an article exposing Black's perfidy. Another publisher Black had worked with wrote an open letter in defense of Hogshire. Years later, archives all over the Internet still tell the story; you can easily find a copy of Black's snitch letter. Although as of this writing, Black has managed to keep his Wikipedia page scrubbed of the gory details, the evidence will be out there on other sites as long as he lives and few people will ever again give serious credence to an "anarchist" who reports people to the cops the moment he gets irritated with them.


Repairing the damage snitches do

Unfortunately, it's quite possible you'll never be able to repair the damage done by a snitch. You or someone you care about may end up in prison, broke, or otherwise badly hurt. A group or movement you belong to may collapse or members may split off in anger and distrust.
As one former government agent pointed out after reviewing a draft of this book, ruining activist groups is "at least one of the auxiliary functions of snitches."
But finding a snitch in your midst can also be a valuable learning experience.
It can teach you the importance of good security practices.
It can reveal who's trustworthy and who's not.
It can teach group members not only to be less gullible, but teach them what signs to look for when a snitch is targeting them.
Uncovering a snitch can help the remaining trustworthy members of a group to pull together.
If you're lucky and the activities of your snitch are particularly egregious, you might even get sympathy, donations, or renewed positive attention once good people realize what evil that person and her handlers tried to do to you.
In part, the long-term results of being targeted by a snitch depend on how you and your associates handle the problem. After the initial shock and recovery, look upon it as a chance to learn and teach others.


Beware of accusing someone
who might not be a snitch

It can be very, very difficult to detect a snitch — until it's too late. We sometimes face the evil choice of making a false accusation against an innocent person or keeping quiet about our suspicions and ending up with somebody (maybe even us) getting busted.
The damage a false accusation of snitching can do is horrifying. First, an innocent person suffers a grave wrong. He loses his reputation unjustly. She may be attacked by others. Second, your group of associates may break down in chaos. Your real work may suffer.
Then — this also happens — a wrongly accused person who gets expelled, shunned, or attacked may actually become a snitch in revenge.
It's also important to remember that a person who makes a false accusation of snitching is acting like a snitch himself. And in fact, one tactic a snitch might use to divert suspicion from herself is to point the finger at someone else.
So if you suspect someone of snitching but you have no solid reason for your suspicions, it's usually just best to detach yourself from the person while remaining watchful. Do not do anything in that person's presence or within that person's knowledge that you wouldn't do in front of your mother. Quietly encourage others to be watchful (it's just good OpSec, after all), but do not make public accusations without real reason.
Is there a danger in such a wait-and-see approach? You betcha. Around snitches, and in a "snitch culture" like ours, there is always danger in many forms.


PART THREE

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET BUSTED?



You may be pressured to become a snitch

It happens all too often these days. You get busted and the next thing you know the cops are either threatening you or sweet-talking you into snitching on somebody else. They may promise to "help" you if you agree to become an informant. They may tell you that a friend arrested with you is already singing like a bird, and you should, too, if you want to save your ass (see "The Prisoner's Dilemma" later in this book). They may say they already "know everything," so you might as well tell "your side of the story" to make others look worse than you. If they think you're particularly dumb and harmless, they might even take you out and buy you donuts while talking you into being their pawn (yes, Philadelphia cops actually did that in their successful effort to turn anti-drug-war activist Stacy Litz into a drug-war informant).
You may imagine, sitting here reading this, that you'd never, ever, ever stoop to snitching on other people. But the fact is, until we've been tested, not one of us really knows what we might do under the right kind of pressure or persuasion.
The good news is that just a bit of advanced preparation can help any of us understand how police get us to work against our own interests and how they turn scared people into informants. Some pretty minimal knowledge can help us protect ourselves and our rights. Some of this knowledge can help us avoid being busted in the first place. Some of it can help us withstand the cynical manipulations of cops and prosecutors if we do get busted.
IMPORTANT
Please read the article on the Reid interrogation techniqueTM that appears toward the end of this booklet. The Reid technique is used by police to manipulate arrestees into cooperating — which may include everything from confessing to a crime you didn't (or did) commit to agreeing to rat out your friends.
The article was written by a man who, as a young outlaw, was twice subjected to Reid interrogations. He then grew up to study and employ the Reid Technique in his profession as an auditor/investigator.
Read and heed it. You're far less susceptible to manipulation once you understand how the manipulation works.


Do NOT talk to cops. Period.

And remember: Everything we say about not talking to cops also goes for every, single kind of government agent, local, state, national, or international.
If you are confronted by a law-enforcement officer under any circumstances — at your front door, during a traffic stop, because you've been fingered by a snitch, or for any reason whatsoever — DO NOT TALK. If you get arrested, DO NOT TALK.
TIP
Know a good lawyer, keep his or her card on you, and insist on talking to that lawyer if you ever get busted or even accosted by a cop who won't take no for an answer.
Avoid using public defenders if you can. Not all of them are bad, but many of them are overworked and/or just geared to processing cases as fast as they can. They often deal with petty criminals who expect nothing more than to be "processed." With rare and noble exceptions, they are probably not your best resource if you really hope to be represented as you wish.
The only things you should ever say to a police officer are things like these:
  • No, you may not search my vehicle.
  • No, you may not enter my home.
  • I do not consent to any search.
  • Am I free to go?
  • On the advice of my lawyer, I cannot talk to you.
  • I will not talk without my lawyer present.
You should never lie to a cop because that in itself may be a crime.
You should never imagine you can outsmart a cop with clever talk. They've heard it all.
You should resist the temptation to babble nervously (very difficult for some of us).
Do not try to explain yourself (also very difficult for some of us).
Do not try to talk your way out of a situation except where you can state a legal or constitutional principle that demonstrates your innocence. This is a technique that can be used by people who photograph or videotape cops at work, people who legally open-carry weapons, or people who are legally protesting. (Even then you may still get busted and/or beat up, but you'll be creating a case in your favor that might come in useful later.)
Attorney safety tip:
This video, mentioned again in the appendices, is possibly the best and most useful 49 minutes you will spend on this topic without paying an attorney first.
Oh yeah. And if you get tossed into jail, DON'T TALK TO YOUR CELLMATES OR THE JAILERS, EITHER. You can chitty-chat with your cellmates to pass the time and keep them from thinking you're a jerk; you can probably also learn quite a bit from them. But DO NOT TALK about anything to do with your case. Even if you don't think you're admitting anything incriminating, you're opening yourself up to every jailbird who might want to trade information, even false information about you, to the cops.
JUST SHUT UP!


The police officer is NOT your friend

Contrary to what you might have learned in kindergarten ... contrary to what you might hope ... and contrary to the image the officer might be trying to fake ... THE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. Let us say that again, just in case you didn't get it the first time: THE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.
Again remember: Everything we say about not talking to cops also goes for every, single kind of government agent, local, state, national, or international.
Unless you've been living in a cave most of your life, you've probably heard of the "bad cop/good cop" technique. When you've been arrested and are being interrogated, one cop will bully and intimidate you until you're just a little puddle of terror. Then another cop (who may be present at the same time or who may come in later) will pretend to sympathize with you and want to "help" you.
Don't ever believe it.
If you've done your proper work and just said no to interrogation or said you'd only speak with your lawyer present, you may avoid this particular form of manipulation. But wherever and whenever you meet a cop — or any federal agent or investigator, a jailer or a prosecutor — who acts like he's "on your side" or wants to "help" you or promises to get the system to "go lighter on you" — DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
Attorney safety tip:
[In the bad cop/good cop technique] Officer A will threaten you, your family, your friends, your pets, with severe harm going back nigh unto the 10th generation. Officer B will then call him off and suggest that "just a little cooperation" on your part will help avert all that.
Also be aware that sometimes they don't HAVE to lie to get what they want from you. Seriously, I've lost count of the number of defendants I've dealt with who were skaaaaaREWED by talking to the PD and who told me, "But the officer was so NIIIICE." Not every officer is going to be Officer McGruff - the "Officer Friendly" model can achieve amazing results.


The Prisoner's Dilemma

When "the authorities" have arrested you and want to turn you into a snitch, they have a powerful phenomenon on their side. It's particularly useful if you've been busted along with friends or associates, or even if the cops persuade you that they have busted or will soon be busting others in your circle. (And remember again, cops are among the biggest liars on the planet.)
In game theory, the phenomenon is called The Prisoner's Dilemma. It works something like this:
Two (or more) people are arrested but the police don't have enough information to convict either of you.
They separate the arrestees and offer each a similar deal; if you cooperate (testify against your friend, agree to become a snitch) and your friend remains silent, you'll go free. Your friend will be hit with the full legal penalty.
On the other hand, if you rat each other out, you may both get a lesser sentence.
On yet another hand, you realize that if you both remain silent, you both may go free — but you have absolutely no idea what your companion is doing — and the cops have given you both quite a lot of incentive to rat each other out.
In game theory, according to Wikipedia, "... the logical decision leads each to betray the other, even though their individual 'prize' would be greater if they cooperated." In reality, if you and your fellow arrestee were allowed to discuss your decisions, you'd probably both opt to clam up; it's part of the goodness of human beings that we'd rather cooperate than betray. However, the police are going to keep you apart through this process as best they can, which makes the temptation to betray seem the only logical, self-protective course of action.
Sitting here, safely reading this booklet, you might very well say to yourself, "I'm a good person. I would never rat out my friend." You imagine yourself thrusting out your chin and saying, "NO!" no matter what the personal cost to you.
And there are really some people who would do that. But they're in the minority.
In reality, you don't know how scared you'd be. You might be sitting there worrying about what your mother would think if you went to jail. You might be terrified of losing your job and being unable to pay your bills. You may have a pet or child at home you're desperate to get back to. The police will remind you that if you go to jail you'd be leaving your newborn baby or disabled spouse without protection. The police might badger you until you'll agree to anything just to have some peace.
Relationships between friends and associates complicate matters, too. Seeking self-justification, you might tell yourself you're just an innocent who got dragged into the whole situation by the other person. You might think, "Hm, well Bill's probably ratting me out right now," or "Well, there was that time when Mary didn't treat me fairly, so why should I sacrifice myself for her?" One snitch justified her betrayal of principle by telling herself that she'd be "more effective" as a political activist if she didn't go to jail; she told herself she would only snitch on certain people, ones she didn't know well or like very much.
So you never know.
If you're arrested and more than one person in your circle might join you, the only way to avoid The Prisoner's Dilemma is to decide in advance that you WILL NOT TALK and make sure all your associates are well schooled in their legal right to keep silent. Have them read this booklet!
But as always, there are no guarantees. We keep saying that. It's sadly true.


Mindset: The common territory
between snitches and victims

Another reason that it's often easy for cops to turn victims into snitches is that there's sometimes a common mindset between people who snitch and people who fall into the traps set by snitches.
Obviously, this isn't true of everybody who gets busted or otherwise becomes the target of a snitch. But both snitches and their easiest "marks" are frequently:
  • Overly naive and trusting
  • Unprepared for bad things happening to them
  • Cocky and overly confident
  • Loudmouthed or prone to blat information without thinking
  • Prone to believe that "nice" cops really do want to "help" them (yes, it's another form of being overly naive and trusting, but it bears repeating because if you get caught because you trusted a rat you're more likely to turn around and trust that rat's handlers)
  • Very good at rationalizing their own less-than-stellar behavior
  • (Or conversely) So idealistic and starry-eyed that reality, when it hits, knocks them for a loop.


What happens if you refuse to snitch?

If you refuse to snitch or otherwise cooperate with government, the prosecutor may pin more charges on you and may pursue them with more determination. Worse, prosecutors may threaten to bring charges against those you love.
Or that may not happen. Sometimes pressure to snitch is just a gambit and nothing terrible will happen to you for refusing.
If you do refuse to snitch and "the man" becomes more threatening, consider going public with your courageous refusal. This might offer you some protection and will very likely gain you friends and supporters. As soon as you're out on bail, tell your associates what happened to you. Blog about it. Put it out on social media. Explain the kind of pressures that were put on you. Describe what you felt and endured. Describe why and how you refused to become a tool of the police.
You'll be wise if you have a good lawyer on your side from the get-go. Our helpful attorney notes: "This is a good reason for 'lawyering up' in the first place. People make fun of lawyers, but there's a reason we exist. Of course, keep in mind that the prosecutor is a lawyer, too, so it's not necessarily all to the good."
What if your lawyer advises you to snitch?
Some lawyers in some circumstances will advise a client to go ahead and accept an offer to snitch in exchange for more lenient treatment. Sometimes there are practical reasons: you're guilty as hell, the cops have the evidence to prove it, and your lawyer thinks that cooperating would be the best way for you to avoid a long prison sentence. Sometimes, on the other hand, your lawyer's just a lazy SOB who doesn't give much of a damn and thinks turning snitch is the easiest resolution — for him.
If you are strongly opposed to snitches and snitching, tell your lawyer up front that, whatever else happens, you're not going to do that. Then if your lawyer pressures you to accept any agreement that involves snitching, get a new lawyer.
And remember, it'll probably help your case a lot if you AVOID TALKING TO THE POLICE. AT ALL.


What happens if you become
a snitch — and regret it?

If you are reasonably cautious in your real-world dealings and if you have prepared yourself NOT TO TALK TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS, the chances are good that nobody will successfully arm-twist or sweet-talk you into becoming a snitch. Even if you get busted, you'll handle yourself in a way that will make you less vulnerable to manipulation. (NOT TALKING may also help you in other ways, but here we're just talking about avoiding being pressured into snitching.)
But the simple fact is that anybody can break under the right kind of pressure — and government agents are trained in sophisticated terror and manipulation tactics. Once you fall into their clutches, you may simply be in over your head. So what if, under pressure, you agree to become a snitch — and regret it later? What if you agree to do it, then before you actually snitch on anybody, you realize you don't want to, can't, and won't betray other people?
If you become a snitch and don't regret it enough to stop, then to hell with you.
But having agreed to snitch, then changed your mind, you've got a tough dilemma and you could use some assistance getting out of it. You are going to have to be careful, brave, and more than a little bit lucky to handle the situation well.
First, you need a GOOD lawyer. You should have had one before you agreed to snitch, but definitely get one to advise you now.
Consider going public with your situation. Tell your associates what happened to you. Blog about it. Put your story out on social media. Explain the kind of pressures that were put on you. Describe what you felt and endured while being pushed into agreeing to snitch. Then state in the strongest terms why you realized you would not and could not do it.
Be prepared to lose some friends. You may gain friends and supporters by openly revealing how the cops treated you and how you ultimately resisted. But some people will distrust you; that's just reality.


What happens to you if you
snitch and your friends find out?

Chances are, if you're a non-violent political activist or small-time dealer of "college type" drugs who got busted and turned, your friends will hate you but won't beat you up or kill you if they learn you snitched on them.
However, your reputation will be ruined and good luck earning it back.
If you snitch and get caught, at the very least be ready to humbly accept whatever those you betrayed dish out to you; you only make things worse by making excuses.
If your snitching has gotten others into legal trouble, you should accept that, at the very least, you owe them restitution. This may be difficult to do, especially since you may be facing serious criminal charges and huge expenses yourself. But it's your responsibility and you'll have to do it if you ever expect to be taken seriously again.
If you are part of a violent group or you deal hard drugs, don't be surprised if you get killed. Or as our helpful attorney says (with a nod to Captain Mal Reynolds of Firefly), "Prepare to be surprised very briefly. Or perhaps not so briefly; torture may be involved first."


The rest of your life if you do snitch

If you agree to snitch on your friends or associates, know in advance that you're going to have a big price to pay.
At best, snitches have to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders.
Your "friends" in the police department or any federal agency that you snitch for will turn out not to be your real friends. They will toss you aside like a piece of maggoty meat when you no longer serve their purposes. Those promises they made to protect your anonymity? Maybe they'll keep them, but they're just as likely to leak your name or "accidentally" put your name into a public document. They may even force you into life-threatening situations and not give one bit of a damn what happens to you. After all, you're just a snitch. Snitches are a dime a dozen — and even the cops know they're scum.
Want to see how much "love" cops give their snitches? Read this New Yorker article about young, naive — and now DEAD — snitches. ("The Throwaways").
Your snitching will probably not be important enough to earn you a spot in the Witness Protection Program, not even if you put your life in danger for your cop-handlers' sake.
You will be on your own and in peril.
You will have to live with yourself and if you have any self-awareness at all, every time you look in a mirror, a person you don't want to be will stare back at you.
If you snitch on friends or otherwise-harmless people, you should and (if you have any decency) you will feel an obligation to make things right by paying restitution or campaigning to get them out of prison. This obligation, which you might never be able to fulfill, could haunt you the rest of your life.
On the other hand, things could be resolved very easily. Your betrayed associates may kill you and you won't have to worry about any of this.


Appendix 1

The Reid Interrogation TechniqueTM

By "Just Waiting"

Okay, so you find yourself under arrest because of a snitch. Hopefully you've listened to the advice earlier in this booklet. You've cleaned up your act and your surroundings once you knew there was a snitch in your midst, and the only thing you were arrested for is information given by the snitch.
First thing to understand: Once you are arrested, ALL of the rights you had as a US citizen are gone except for two: the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. USE THEM!!!
No one in law enforcement (LE) is your friend, and NO ONE wants to "help" you. They only want you to confess and do their will.
The police can and will lie to you. DO NOT LIE TO THEM!!! More on that later. They will tell you they have evidence/witnesses/tapes that don't exist. They'll poke, prod, and push every button they can to try to get you to respond. They'll tell you your friends are snitching on you in the other room. They'll tell you the only way to save yourself is to tell your side of the story. They'll threaten to call your boss. They'll tell you your kids are going to be taken away and raised by the state. They'll tell you how it will ruin your parents' reputation. They'll even tell you your dog is ugly. They'll make wild, baseless accusations — anything to get a response. Because once they get you to start talking, they're trained in how to keep you talking.
If you don't trust yourself to exercise your right to remain silent, exercise the second and ask for a lawyer. Remember, you can decide to remain silent or ask for a lawyer at any time during your questioning or interrogation.
You know the kinds of things you've been doing. If you are a high-value target, if you know or associate with high value targets, or if your activities rise to the level of interest that police want to question you, LE agencies employ an interrogation method known as the Reid Technique. It is a method of interview and interrogation (read: psychological manipulation) specifically designed to produce confessions.
That is one big reason you should heed the earlier advice and NOT TALK TO POLICE AT ALL. But I've interviewed/interrogated maybe 100 or more people and I've found, almost as a rule, that people have the hardest time keeping quiet. They want to defend themselves, to tell their story. I've yet to meet the person who can sit quiet for 10 minutes while someone else talks about them, even less when lies and untrue accusations start to fill the air. Even for someone who has regular, unfavorable contact with LE, even people like me who have been Reided, the hardest thing to do is to shut up. When someone makes a statement or allegation, its human nature to want to refute it.
So, if you find yourself being interrogated and you feel you must defend yourself, at least try to minimize the damage.
First: As I've said before, DO NOT LIE TO LE! You will get caught. Lies change with every telling, but the truth remains a constant. LE are trained in detecting the smallest, subtlest change in your story and ripping it wide open. Dante himself did not imagine a torture in hell like what you will experience from LE if you get caught lying to them. Plus, you are now subject to arrest for new charges, usually, Lying to LE or Obstruction, indictable crimes, and you've done so on tape. This is how some of LE's best snitches are made!
Second: If you can truthfully do so, DENY EVERYTHING. Do it simply and categorically. Don't ramble and make excuses. Just say, "I didn't do it," "I'm innocent," "That's false." As you'll see below, they'll do everything within their power to try to stop you from doing this. If you cannot honestly declare your innocence, then just say, "I want a lawyer."
Third: If you feel you have to answer an incriminating question, qualify your answer. "I don't think I was at...," "I don't recall seeing...," and "I may have met..." are all appropriate qualifiers to prevent telling an outright lie.
LE has studied the meaning of every move, every movement, every facial expression, every question, every answer. They identify and exploit weaknesses you didn't know you had. They watch and hear everything you do and say for meaning.
Repeat the question before answering? That answer is a lie.
Little or no direct eye contact? You're evasive.
Too much direct eye contact? You're cocky and/or confrontational.
Change from "is" to "was" or "a" to "the"? You're changing your story to hide something.
Sit up straight, slouch, fold your arms in your lap, fold them across your chest? You're scared, you're cocky, you're defensive. Every movement, posture and expression has a meaning to LE.
The surest way to know the Reid Technique is about to be used is the room they put you in after you're arrested. You'll know it when they open the door. And once they open that door, the ONLY WAY TO SAVE YOURSELF IS TO ASK FOR A LAWYER! Once the interrogation begins, LE won't stop until you ask for a lawyer or they've gotten what they want. Remember, you can ask for a lawyer at any time during the interrogation, do not be afraid to do so!
Interrogation rooms are specially designed to make you as uncomfortable and out of your element as possible. Your chair is the hard one, in the corner, furthest from the door, and behind some type of barrier, like a desk. Your interrogators will take positions clearly letting you know that they are in total control, that you are in their world, and the only way out of the room is through them. You can't get to the lights or thermostat. They'll turn the heat up (I once knew an interrogator who wore a sweater and complained of a chill in a 90+ degree room, talk about psychological manipulation), brighten or darken the room, etc. They'll create a physically intimidating presence without ever touching you. For maybe the first time in your life, your freedom is completely stripped away and you are confined. Control of every aspect of your physical condition has been stolen from you. When you are at your most vulnerable, the interrogators are ready to begin.
Reid is broken down into three parts, Factual Analysis, the Initial Behavioral Analysis Interview, and the Interrogation.
Factual Analysis is just what it says, an analysis of the facts in a case. Prior to talking to you, the LE tries to learn everything there is to know about the event leading to your arrest. They've gotten a story from a snitch. They know the date, time, how many people were there, some names, some physical descriptions, the drugs dealt or the damages caused.
Today, LE is on your Facebook page learning everything they can about you while developing their interrogation strategy. They'll try to know as much about you as your best friend, and use it to try to be your friend. Your favorite band? The LEO saw them last tour. Have a cat, dog, fish? The cop is so sad, he just had to put down his 16-year-old catdogfish yesterday. His wife went to the same school as you, different years. Wow, so much in common, you two could be pals. Have a pic of you and your mom? Jackpot, he'll use her later, in his interrogation.
The Initial Behavioral Analysis is supposed to weed out innocent suspects, but in reality this is where LE determines your susceptibility to further questioning and picks the strategy they will use against you. IBA starts the moment of your first contact with LE. The law-enforcement officer (LEO) asks simple, conversational, non-accusatory questions and listens to the way you frame your answers, watches your facial expressions, the way you stand. LEO has been trained in what every action and movement mean. Within the first 30 seconds, LEO knows whether you will be susceptible to questioning and if he'll be able to get you to talk. If LEO asks if you know the time, remember that that's a yes or no question. If you answer, "Yes, its 3:30," you've shown a willingness to please and to give more information than is asked. You're a perfect candidate for successful interrogation!
The official Reid Interrogation has nine steps, beginning with an accusation of guilt and ending with a confession. To LE, there are no other acceptable outcomes. If you were arrested as a result of a snitch, and took the advice of being arrested clean, LE has nothing more than the accusations the snitch has made. Remember, don't lie, but if you can't resist talking, at least DENY EVERYTHING! A good lawyer will rip a snitch apart and develop reasonable doubt in the eyes of a judge or jury. Snitching and witness credibility don't exactly go hand-in-hand.
LE will invariably offer you a chance to "tell your side." This is cop talk for "make a full confession." Cops brag at parties about how fast they have gotten suspects to do it.
If you don't start wailing and confess to everything, the next thing they'll try is shifting blame. They'll try to blame someone else and suggest that maybe you weren't involved but just got caught up in things. They'll give you scenarios in which to minimize your participation and guilt. They'll try to make it somehow socially acceptable, suggesting it was a crime of passion rather than a premeditated event. LE calls it "developing a theme," what they're really doing is presenting options for you to pick from to confess to. React to any one of their scenarios or agree to anything they suggest here, and you're not getting away until you sign a confession and give them the names and information they want.
All throughout, LE will do everything they can to keep you from denying your "guilt." They will disrupt you mid-word, tell you to shut up, tell you it's not your turn to talk, anything just to keep you from denying your guilt. They will try to talk over any claim of innocence so that denials are never clear on the recordings.
Why? Because opposing what LEO is saying builds self-confidence, something they're working hard to strip from you.
And secondly (and maybe more importantly), if you continue to deny, dispute, deny for the first 1, 2, 3, or 4 hours of the interrogation, then confess to something in hour 5, a good lawyer will demonstrate coercive interrogation tactics were used and hopefully have your confession thrown out.
So qualify if you have to lie. Remember those "iffy" statements ("I don't recall ..."), but deny being there, deny any knowledge of events, deny knowing people, deny everything you honestly can.
If you haven't asked for a lawyer and haven't been denying, the interrogation moves on to the next steps. This is where a new LEO might come in. He understands your situation, he's sympathetic, he's your buddy, he doesn't agree with the other LEO's interrogation tactics, either. He'll tell you he's been watching and that to him, you don't seem to be the kind of person who could do something like what you're accused of. He'll tell you he wants to help you. You've seen good cop/bad cop on TV, well, this is it in real life.
Good cop will appear to be sincerely caring about your predicament. He'll talk quietly. He'll lay out a bunch of different scenarios that minimize your guilt, all the while looking for the clue you give him that he's hit on a winning theme to follow. And that clue is so subtle you don't even know you've given it. But he does.
Good cop will give you acceptable justifications. He'll give you two options, you planned what happened or it was just a one-time thing. With either option, you're still making a confession. Good cop always leaves out option #3, you can DENY that you're guilty at all!
Good cop wants to see your tears; he knows he has you when you cry.
Once you have been broken down and are ready to admit to anything (search on "Central Park Jogger case" for false confessions) LEO will attempt to get you to tell your story to his associates or write down and sign your story. All of your protest and denial has been for nothing once you confess.
So remember these three key points: 1) The police are not your friends and do not want to help you; 2) If you don't trust yourself to remain silent, demand a lawyer (you can do so at any time); and 3) if you feel you just have to talk — don't lie, qualify and especially if you're innocent, deny, deny, deny.


Appendix 2

Some Commonsense OpSec

These commonsense OpSec (operational security) tips are for any group or any individual whose activities might draw the attention of the state. Some will protect you against snitches. Some will just protect you, period. The author is MJR, who works in security.

If you wish to have a private conversation, leave your home and your office and go outside and take a walk or go somewhere public and notice who is near you. Don't say anything you don't want to hear repeated when there is any possibility of being recorded.
Never leave a copy of a document or list behind (unless you want it found) and take a minute to duplicate an irreplaceable document and keep the duplicate in a safe place. Back up and store important computer disks off site. Sensitive data and membership list should be kept under lock and key.
Keep your mailing lists, donor lists and personal phone books away from light-fingered people. Always maintain a duplicate off site in a safe place.
Know your printer if you are about to publish, your mailing house and anyone you are trusting to work on any part of a project that is sensitive.
Don't hire a stranger as a messenger.
Checks for electronic surveillance are only effective for the time they are being done, and are only effective as they are being done if you are sure of the person(s) doing the sweep.
Don't use code on the phone. If you are being tapped and the transcript is used against you in court, the coded conversation can be alleged to be anything. Don't say anything on the phone you don't want to hear in open court.
Don't gossip on the phone. Smut is valuable to anyone listening; it makes everyone vulnerable.
If you are being followed, get the license number and description of the car and people in the car. Photograph the person(s) following you or have a friend do so.
If you are followed or feel vulnerable, call a friend; don't "tough it out" alone. They are trying to frighten you.
Start a 'Facts, Acts and Circumstantial file.' After each incident write details down: facts are the time, date, occasion, incident, characteristics of the person(s). Acts are what they did; Circumstantial is the impressions and anything odd about the situation. Use the FAC file and keep notes from unsettling situations and see if a pattern emerges.
Do freedom of information requests for your file under the FOIA and pursue the agencies until they give you all the documents filed under your name.
Brief your group on known or suspected surveillance.
Report thefts of materials from your office or home to the police as criminal acts.
Assess your undertaking from a security point of view; understand your vulnerabilities; assess your allies and your adversaries as objectively as you can; don't underestimate the opposition and don't take chances.
Recognize your organizational and personal strengths and weaknesses.
Discuss incidents with cohorts, family and your group.
Call the press if you have hard information about surveillance or harassment. Discussion makes the dirty work of the snitches overt.

Addendum on note-taking (Facts, Acts, and Circumstantial)

Although some might consider the following to be overkill, MJR also has experience facing opponents in court and offers this brief primer on taking the kind of notes that can guide you through a very tough grilling by police or prosecutors. He writes:

When preparing a "Facts, Acts, and, Circumstantial" list you are going to have to take notes about what is going on. The notes should be written in a clear and concise way. Use professional language and be prepared to substantiate what you record. One never knows, you could be wrong and get sued or if you do get arrested this could be the basis for a defense from entrapment.
The notebook that you use should be lined with a margin on the left. Each page should be numbered.
What to put in the notebook to make it legal
First you should start with the date. Then on the next line write the weather conditions. The reason for the record of what the weather was like is that the usual first question from a prosecutor or the other side's lawyer usually is about the weather. This is an attempt to discredit your memory.
When you make your first entry, write the time an event happened in the left margin. Next write down what happened or what you found and write down the location (address or approximate location). Then write down the actions taken by those involved and the names and addresses of any witnesses. If you make a mistake draw one line through the word and write your initials next to it. Oh and don't leave any lines blank. If more things happen during the day they all go under the same date. If the date changes you should start a new date with the weather. When you finish the last entry of the day sign your name. This makes it a legal document. Write the notes as soon as possible after an incident. Last, but never least... If you are going to use this book in court under no circumstances should you rip out any of the pages, this will only give the other side ammo to use against you. The questions you will face will revolve around you hiding something.
Here is an example of what the notebook should look like


Appendix 3

Line up a lawyer

I've adapted this from advice handed out by the helpful, anonymous lawyer whose tips have appeared throughout this booklet.

How to hire the right lawyer

1. Every person engaging in or planning to engage in illegal or controversial activities needs to have an attorney already on line. After you've been busted and are standing around at the police station is NOT a good time to be leafing through the yellow pages. At least not if you're serious about avoiding a long stay in custody.
2. You should also expect to drop some money up front on a consultation with a potential defense attorney. Again, calling from a police station is NOT a good moment to find out that the attorney whose number you've been carrying in your pocket hates your cause, doesn't take cases like yours, or has a conflict of interest. (In theory, even an attorney who hates you and everything you do should be able to give you a good defense; but that varies and is definitely not worth the risk. Make sure you and the attorney are comfortable with and have some reasonable basis for trusting each other, because if you get in trouble you are going to have to be seriously ready to open up to your attorney if you want a chance of winning.)
3. Former DAs and former public defenders are a good first choice. But bear in mind that DAs often are of the "lock-em-all-up" frame of mind, while public defenders are frequently used to just pleading their clients out to get the best deal possible, without concern for actual guilt or innocence. This is another reason you want to have consulted with the attorney BEFORE you need one. And yes, this may well mean you go through a couple interviews and pay a couple of fees before you find the "right one."
4. By interview I mean "find out how much the lawyer charges for a half-hour of time on a consult then go in expecting to pay that." When you first interview an attorney, you don't have to lay out in detail what you're up to — perhaps just say that you're a free-speech advocate or a drug legalization advocate (or whatever the general truth is) and that you have been advised to have a good criminal defense attorney on tap because these days even innocent people are at peril from snitches and sloppy justice. Ask the attorney's thoughts on your general activities. His or her length of time working in criminal defense (generally longer is better, but not always). His or her experience with people who've been accused by snitches. His or her willingness to show up at 2:00 a.m. if that's when you get busted (not per se a deal killer, but be prepared to spend the night in jail otherwise).
5. If you already have an attorney you like and trust, but who doesn't do criminal law, you can ask who he or she would recommend. Again, you'd still want to do an advance consult/interview with your proposed attorney. Spending a few dollars on a consultation can save you a LOT of money and headaches down the road.
6. Never forget your right to remain silent, except for, "I'd like my attorney, please." Repeat as necessary.


Appendix 4

Other helpful resources

Dealing with snitches

Snitch— Transcript of a PBS/Frontline documentary on the whole dirty business of snitching.
Got the Hollow Tips for Snitches— How radical groups of the past have dealt with snitches and how contemporary groups can learn from the past.
How to Handle the Snitch at Trial— This guide, by lawyer Jeffrey W. Jensen, is written for defense attorneys. If you get in trouble because of a snitch, it might help your defense.

How cops deal with snitches

The Throwaways— A New Yorker article on young, naive snitches who were murdered because the cops they were pressured into working for didn't give a rat's butt about them.

Online advice on dealing with police

Flex Your Rights— This organization has online videos, DVDs, and tons of advice on how to handle yourself during police encounters. Topics include "Don't get tricked," "When do I have to show ID?," "How to refuse searches," "10 Rules for dealing with the police," and much more.
Don't Talk to the Police— A law-school professor (former defense attorney) and a cop explain why you should never, ever talk to police even (and perhaps especially) if you're innocent, even if you're telling the 100% truth. This explains, in graphic detail, with examples, about how police will twist your words and/or lie about you if you say anything at all to them.

An online guide to interrogation techniques

U Boat Archive— This site contains an extract from TM 30-210 Dept. Army Technical Manual "Interrogation Procedures." Although designed to teach interrogation, it can also help victims of interrogation recognize and thwart typical intimidation and questioning techniques.

Books

You & the Police! by Boston T. Party
Snitch Culture: How Citizens are Turned into the Eyes and Ears of the State by Jim Redden
Snitch: Informants, Cooperators, and the Corruption of Justice by Ethan Brown

Why cops lie...

$
0
0

Surveillance video from the Henry Hotel reveals that SFPD narcotics officers falsified police reports in order to justify searching residences without warrants or consent. at the public defender's office in San Francisco, Calif., on Tuesday, March 1, 2011. Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle

OFF THE WIRE
Surveillance video from the Henry Hotel reveals that SFPD narcotics officers falsified police reports in order to justify searching residences without warrants or consent. at the public defender's office in San Francisco, Calif., on Tuesday, March 1, 2011. Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle

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.Count this as one more casualty of the "war on drugs." It is simply additional collateral damage from using the American criminal justice system as the battlefield of that war. It stands alongside the wasteful wreckage of hundreds of thousands of imprisoned Americans locked up for drug use, and the destruction of Mexico as a functioning state because of criminal cartels enriched through outlawed American drug use. The corruption of America's police officers as the most identifiable group of perjurers in the courts is one more item on that list.
Why do police, whom we trust as role models of legal conduct, show contempt for the law by systematically perjuring themselves?The first reason is because they get away with it. They know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer. Often in search hearings, it is embarrassingly clear to everyone - judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, even spectators - that the officer is lying under oath. Yet nothing is done about it. There are rare cases in which the nature of the testimony and the physical evidence make it absolutely impossible to credit an officer's version and the judge must rule the search illegal. When this happens, the judge rules hesitatingly and grudgingly for


the defense. Indeed, judges sometimes apologize to the officer for tossing out illegally seized evidence where the cop has just committed felony perjury in the judge's presence.
Another reason is the nature of most drug cases and the likely type of person involved. Usually police illegally enter a home, search it and find drugs. Like the recent scandal in San Francisco concerning the Henry Hotel residents, the defendant is poor, uneducated, frequently a minority, with a criminal record, and he does have drugs. Police know that no one cares about these people.
But the main reason is that the job of these cops is chasing drugs. Their professional advancement depends on nabbing dopers. The dominant culture they grew up with is popular mythology glorifying rogue cops like Popeye Doyle from the 1975 film "The French Connection." It's reinforced by San Francisco's own sorry history of infamous undercover narcotics officers promoted to top levels in the department despite contempt for the law shown by bullying, brutality and perjury in carrying out illegal searches and arrests. So the modern narcotics officer is just following a well-worn path.
Maybe the video tape scandal from the Henry Hotel will help change this culture. I hope so

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Why-cops-lie-2388737.php#ixzz2KBL0bayL

FYI - Some police departments keep names of those arrested secret

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
This is the shit that keeps my blood pressure high.
Subject: FYI - Some police departments keep names of those arrested secret




 
Some police departments keep names of those arrested secret
 
|  Written by  Shereen Skola 
 
WAUSAU— Some police agencies in the state are withholding the names and other information about people they arrest, looking to a little-known Illinois court case with potentially far-reachingimplications for Wisconsin residents.
The change in policy stems from a privacy case in which a federal court ruled that police violated a man’s privacy when they wrote information obtained through the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles on a parking ticket left on the man’s vehicle. The case, Senne v. Village of Palatine (Ill.), is the root of what Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, calls an “emerging crisis” in Wisconsin.
“This overzealous interpretation of a federal court ruling creates a huge problem with the ideal of an open society,” Lueders said. “We now find ourselves with the potential for secret arrests. The police could now deprive you of your liberty, and not even say who it is they’ve arrested. The court couldn’t possibly have intended this.”
So far, the Marathon County Sheriff’s Department and Wausau Police Department are among 16 municipalities statewide that are redacting personal information on police reports; the Rothschild Police Department and Everest Metro Police Department have not yet followed suit.
The new rules, which went into effect earlier thismonth in Wausau and Marathon County, prohibit the release of any personal information obtained from a driver’s license, but not from a state-issued identification card. “Personal information” includes names, addresses, phone numbers, photographs, and medical or disability information.
“So, if two people are arrested and one has a driver’s license and one has a state ID card, police can give you the arrest information for one person but not the other,” Lueders said. “That’s crazy.”
So far, Wisconsin appears to be the only state using the Illinois ruling as a reason to keep arrest information secret. Under the new rules, if you’re involved in a crash, you can’t even find out who hit you. And the lawsuits are just beginning.
 
Erring on the side of secrecy
Marathon County Corporation Counsel Scott Corbett said municipalities are acting on the recommendation of insurance companies thathave advised them to “err on the side of caution” and comply with the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, or DPPA. The 1994 legislation, passed largely to prevent stalkers and would-be murderers from accessing public driving records, prohibits the disclosure of personal information without the express written permission of the driver.
Corbett said the new redaction policy is derived from the idea that the DPPA supersedes Wisconsin’s open records law, which requires all governmental agencies in the state to conduct their business with transparency.
“I am very much aware of the policy and tradition in this state with regard to open records, but insurers are indicating that this is the nature of the law,” Corbett said. “Of course, it doesn’t help that the case this is based on came out of Illinois, where they don’t have the same privacy laws we do in Wisconsin.”
Where does that leave the public? In the dark, Lueders said.
For example, the city of Wausau on April 13 arrested a man accused of playing bumper-cars down North Third Street in a pickup truck, bouncing off at least three vehicles parked on the side of the road. The driver, who was suspected of being drunk, was detained by witnesses until police arrived and took him away.
His name still has not been released to the public, prompting speculation that police are covering up the name of a prominent local official caught driving drunk — though police say that is not the case.
Lueders, who is sharply critical of the new rules,called such policies a “dangerous position to take” in light of the state’s open records law.
“Insurers advising departments to err on the side of secrecy? In a judgment call, you err on the side of openness,” Corbett said.
A not-so-simple parking ticket
The court case that spawned the policy changes wasfiled in August 2010 after a police officer in Palatine, a suburb of Chicago, wrote a simple parking ticket and left it on Jason Senne’s windshield. Senne sued the village for about $80 million. The lawsuit alleged that by leaving the ticket, which included Senne’s name and other personal information, the village violated Senne’s rights under the DPPA.
 
Originally, Senne’s case was dismissed in federal court; that decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District in a 7-4 decision. Jurisdiction for the appeals court extends to Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The village has petitioned the case to theU.S. Supreme Court, but it’s unclear whether the justices will review the case.
Despite Wisconsin’s strong history of transparency in government, it appears to be the only state using the case to restrict information, Lueders said.
“It appears Wisconsin is alone in this,” Lueders said. “Even in Illinois, where the case originated, they aren’t redacting.”
The legal debate
A 2008 opinion by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B Van Hollen is the basis for at least one lawsuit that challenges the redacting;that case is making its way through the Wisconsin court system. Van Hollen’s nine-page opinion cites dozens of cases to support its opinion that the DPPA was not intended to restrict public access to information under the state’s open records law.
“From at least the time of the Magna Carta and the formalization of the writ of habeas corpus, the concealment of the reason for arrest has been as odious as the concealment of the arrest itself. It is fundamental to a free society that the fact of arrest and the reason for arrest be available to the public,” Van Hollen wrote.
Robert Dreps, an attorney with Madison-based law firm Godfrey and Kahn, represents a newspaper at the center of the legal battle. In a lawsuit filed March 13 in St. Croix County, the New Richmond News allegesthat the city of New Richmond violated open records laws when the city’s police department began redacting personal information earlier this year.
“Under the Open Records Law ... it is the declared policy of this state that every citizen is entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government,” the complaint reads.
Van Hollen has declined to weigh in further on theissue, Corbett said, until additional court cases are decided.
 
Next steps
One thing is clear — the fight isn’t over yet. Corbett said he and other attendees at a May 2 statewide corporation counsel meeting will discuss the matter with insurance representatives.
“This issue is not settled,” Corbett said. “For now, we’re balancing the best we can.”
A call Friday to Wausau City Attorney Anne Jacobson seeking comment was not returned.
The changes affect more than media requests for information. Drivers involved in crashes, for example, will no longer be able to obtain information on other drivers involved when they request police reports after a crash, Wausau Police Capt. Bryan Hilts said.
“It’s a major administrative problem for us, too,” Hilts said. “Every time someone comes in and asks for a police report or an accident report, someone has to spend the time blacking out all that information. The time adds up pretty quickly.”
Lueders said members of his organization are hopeful the courts will rule soon and “put an end to this nonsense.”
“We’re hoping the New Richmond case will bring sanity back to Wisconsin,” Lueders said. “We hope the courts act promptly.”

Liberty Slipping: 10 Things You Could Do in 1975 That You Can't Do Now

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
 

Liberty Slipping: 10 Things You Could Do in 1975 That You Can't Do Now 

In 1975:

1.You could buy an airline ticket and fly without ever showing an ID.

2.You could buy cough syrup without showing an ID.

3.You could buy and sell gold coins without showing an ID

4.You could buy a gun without showing an ID

5.You could pull as much cash out of your bank account without the bank filing a report with the government.

6.You could get a job without having to prove you were an American.

7.You could buy cigarettes without showing an ID

8.You could have a phone conversation without the government knowing who you called and who called you.

9. You could open a stock brokerage account without having to explain where the money came from.

10. You could open a Swiss bank account with ease. All Swiss banks were willing and happy to open accounts for Americans.

There are thousands of other examples.The monitoring is in place all that is required from here is the clampdown.

The differences, between now and 1975 in the business sector are even more prevalent. In recent years, in industry after industry regulations and prohibitions have been poured on top of free markets. It doesn't look like things will get any better in years to come. Eventually, the economy will suffocate and collapse, if this continues.
__._,_.___

7 Rules for Recording Police

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE

Courts are expanding rights but cops are cracking down. Find out how to keep your footage, and yourself, out of trouble.


Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.
Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.
If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)
Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.
The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.
Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.
However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police
In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)
Fortunately, judges and juries are soundly rejecting these laws. Illinois, the state with the most notorious anti-recording laws in the land, expressly forbids you from recording on-duty police. Early last month an Illinois judge declared that law unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Chris Drew, a Chicago artist charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly recording his own arrest. Last August a jury acquitted Tiawanda Moore of secretly recording two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators who encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against another officer. (A juror described the case to a reporter as “a waste of time.”) In September, an Illinois state judge dropped felony charges against Michael Allison. After running afoul of local zoning ordinances, he faced up to 75 years in prison for secretly recording police and attempting to tape his own trial.
The lesson for you is this: If you want to limit your legal exposure and present a strong legal case, record police openly if possible. But if you videotape on-duty police from a distance, such an announcement might not be possible or appropriate unless police approach you.

 Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say”
When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.
In most circumstances, officers will not immediately bull rush you for filming them. But if they aren’t properly trained, they might feel like their authority is being challenged. And all too often police are simply ignorant of the law. Part of your task will be to convince them that you’re not a threat while also standing your ground.
“What are you doing?”
Police aren’t celebrities, so they’re not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you’re recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like “I’m recording you to make sure you’re doing your job right” or “I don’t trust you.”
Instead, say something like “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite.”
Saying this while remaining calm and cool will likely put police on their best behavior. They might follow up by asking, “Who do you work for?” You may, for example, tell them you’re an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a popular website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don’t lie—but don’t let police trick you into thinking that the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn’t.
“Let me see your ID.”
In the United States there’s no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.
But how can you tell if an officer asking for ID has reasonable suspicion? Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you, so one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You can do this by saying “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
If the officer says you’re free to go or you’re not being detained, it’s your choice whether to stay or go. But if you're detained, you might say something like, “I’m not required to show you ID, but my name is [your full name].” It’s up to you if you want to provide your address and date of birth if asked for it, but I’d stop short of giving them your Social Security number.
“Please stop recording me. It’s against the law.”
Rarely is it advisable to educate officers about the law. But in a tense recording situation where the law is clearly on your side, it might help your case to politely present your knowledge of state law.
For example, if an insecure cop tries to tell you that you’re violating his civil liberties, you might respond by saying “Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don’t need your permission to record so long as I’m not interfering with your work.”
If you live in one of the 12 all party record states, you might say something like “Officer, I’m familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled that it doesn’t apply to recording on-duty police.”
If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there’s no prohibition against public photography at federal buildings.
“Stand back.”
If you’re approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will likely order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the “appropriate” distance you need to stand back to avoid “interfering” with their work.
If you feel you’re already standing at a reasonable distance, you may say something like, “Officer, I have a right to be here. I’m filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work.” It’s then up to you to decide how far back you’re willing to stand to avoid arrest.

 Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police
If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)
 On the other hand, an anonymous videographer uploaded footage of an NYPD officer body-slamming a man on a bicycle to YouTube. Although the videographer was never revealed, the video went viral. Consequently, the manufactured assault charges against the bicyclist were dropped, the officer was fired, and the bicyclist eventually sued the city and won a $65,000 settlement.

 Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested
Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.
Ridley’s calm demeanor and knowledge of the law paid off last August after he was arrested for trespassing at an event featuring Vice President Joe Biden. The arresting officers at his trial claimed he refused to leave when ordered to do so. But the judge acquitted him when his confiscated video proved otherwise.
With respect to the law Ridley declares, “If you’re rolling the camera, be very open and upfront about it. And look at it as a potential act of civil disobedience for which you could go to jail.” It’s indeed disturbing that citizens who are not breaking the law should prepare to be arrested, but in the current legal fog this is sage advice.
“Shut it off, or I’ll arrest you.”
At this point you are risking arrest in order to test the boundaries of free speech. So if police say they’ll arrest you, believe them. You may comply by saying something like “Okay, Officer. But I’m turning the camera off under protest.”
If you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. Try your best not to drop your camera, but do not physically resist. As with any arrest, you have the right to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer. Use it.
Remember that the camera might still be recording. So keep calm and act like you’re being judged by a jury of millions of your YouTube peers, because one day you might be.

Rule #6: Master Your Technology
Smartphone owners now outnumber users of more basic phones. At any moment there are more than 100 million Americans in reach of a device that can capture police misconduct and share it with the world in seconds.
If you’re one of them, you should consider installing a streaming video recording and sharing app such as Qik or Bambuser. Both apps are free and easy to use.
Always Passcode Protect Your Smartphone
The magic of both apps is that they can instantly store your video offsite. This is essential for preserving video in case police illegally destroy or confiscate your camera. But even with these apps installed, you’ll want to make sure that your device is always passcode protected. If a cop snatches your camera, this will make it extremely difficult for her to simply delete your videos. (If a cop tries to trick you into revealing your passcode, never, never, never give it up!)
Keep in mind that Qik and Bambuser’s offsite upload feature might be slow or nonexistent in places without Wi-Fi or a strong 3G/4G signal. Regardless, your captured video will be saved locally on your device until you’ve got a good enough signal to upload offsite.
Set Videos to “Private”
Both apps allow you to set your account to automatically upload videos as “private” (only you can see them) or “public” (everyone can see them). But until police are no longer free to raid the homes of citizens who capture and upload YouTube videos of them going berserk, it’s probably wise to keep your default setting to “private.”
With a little bit of practice you should be able to pull your smartphone from your pocket or purse, turn it on, enter your passcode, open the app, and hit record within 10 seconds. Keep your preferred app easily accessible on your home screen to save precious seconds. But don’t try to shave milliseconds off your time by disabling your passcode.
Both apps share an important feature that allows your video to be saved if your phone is turned off—even if you’re still recording. So if you anticipate that a cop is about to grab your phone, quickly turn it off. Without your passcode, police won’t be able to delete your videos or personal information even if they confiscate or destroy your phone.
With the iPhone 4 and Samsung Galaxy Android devices I tested, when the phone is turned off the Qik app immediately stops recording and uploads the video offsite. But if the phone is turned off while Bambuser records, the recording continues after the screen goes black.
This Bambuser “black out” feature is a double-edged sword. While it could easily trick cops into thinking you’re not recording them, using it could push you into more dangerous legal territory. As previously mentioned, courts have shown a willingness to convict citizens for secretly recording police. So if you’re somehow caught using this feature it might be easier for a prosecutor to convince a judge or jury that you’ve broken the law. It’s up to you to decide if the increased legal risk is worth the potential to capture incriminating police footage.
Other Recording Options
Cameras lacking offsite recording capability are a less desirable option. As mentioned earlier, if cops delete or destroy your footage—which happens waytoooften—you might lose your only hope of challenging their version of events in court. But if you can hold on to your camera, there are some good options.
Carlos Miller is a Miami-based photojournalism activist and writer of the popular Photography is Not a Crime blog. While he carries a professional-end Canon XA10 in the field, he says “I never leave home without a Flip camera on a belt pouch. It’s a very decent camera that’s easier to carry around.”
The top-of-the-line Flip UltraHD starts at $178, but earlier models are available for $60 on Amazon. All flip models have one-button recording, which allows you to pull it out of your pocket and shoot within seconds. The built-in USB then lets you upload video to YouTube or other sharing sites through your PC.
Small businessman and “radical technology” educator Justin Holmes recommends the Canon S-series line of cameras. In 2008, his camera captured a police encounter he had while rollerblading in Port Dickenson, New York. His footage provides an outstanding real-life example of how a calm camera-toting citizen can intelligently flex their rights.
“I typically carry a Canon S5-IS,” Holmes says. “But if I was going to buy one new, I'd go for the SX40-HS. If I were on a budget and buying one used, I'd go for S2-IS or S3-IS.” The features he regards as essential include one-touch video, high-quality stereo condenser microphones, fast zoom during video, and 180x270 variable angle LCD. But the last feature he regards as “absolutely essential.” With it the user can glance at the viewfinder while the camera is below or above eye level.

 Rule #7: Don’t Point Your Camera Like a Gun

“When filming police you always want to avoid an aggressive posture,” insists Holmes. To do this he keeps his strap-supported camera close to his body at waist level. This way he can hold a conversation while maintaining eye contact with police, quickly glancing at the viewfinder to make sure he’s getting a good shot.
Obviously, those recording with a smartphone lack this angled viewfinder. But you can get a satisfactory shot while holding your device at waist level, tilting it upward a few degrees. This posture might feel awkward at first, but it’s noticeably less confrontational than holding the camera between you and the officer’s face.
Also try to be in control of your camera before an officer approaches. You want to avoid suddenly grasping for it. If a cop thinks you’re reaching for a gun, you could get shot.
Becoming a Hero
If you’ve recently been arrested or charged with a crime after recording police, contact a lawyer with your state’s ACLU chapter for advice as soon as possible. (Do not publicly upload your video before then.) You may also contact http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmillerWe’re not a law firm, but we’ll do our best to help you.
If your case is strong, the ACLU might offer to take you on as a litigant. If you accept, your brave stand could forever change the way police treat citizens asserting their First Amendment right to record police. This path is not for fools, and it might disrupt your life. But next time you see police in action, don’t forget that a powerful tool for truth and justice might literally be in your hands.
Steve Silverman is the founder & executive director of FlexYourRights.org and co-creator of the film 10 Rules for Dealing with Police.

License plate scanners allow police to track a driver's location with few legal restrictions

$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE



  • Driving Somewhere? There's A Government Record Of That
    Chances are, your local or state police departments have photographs of your car in their files, noting where you were driving on a particular day, even if you never did anything wrong.

    Using automated scanners, law enforcement agencies across the country have amassed millions of digital records on the location and movement of every vehicle with a license plate, according to a study published Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. Affixed to police cars, bridges or buildings, the scanners capture images of passing or parked vehicles and note their location, uploading that information into police databases. Departments keep the records for weeks or years, sometimes indefinitely.

    As the technology becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous, and federal grants focus on aiding local terrorist detection, even small police agencies are able to deploy more sophisticated surveillance systems. While the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that a judge's approval is needed to track a car with GPS, networks of plate scanners allow police effectively to track a driver's location, sometimes several times every day, with few legal restrictions. The ACLU says the scanners assemble what it calls a "single, high-resolution image of our lives."

    "There's just a fundamental question of whether we're going to live in a society where these dragnet surveillance systems become routine," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. The civil rights group is proposing that police departments immediately delete any records of cars not linked to a crime.

    Law enforcement officials said the scanners can be crucial to tracking suspicious cars, aiding drug busts and finding abducted children. License plate scanners also can be efficient. The state of Maryland told the ACLU that troopers could "maintain a normal patrol stance" while capturing up to 7,000 license plate images in a single eight hour shift.

    "At a time of fiscal and budget constraints, we need better assistance for law enforcement," said Harvey Eisenberg, chief of the national security section and assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland.

    Law enforcement officials also point out that the technology is legal in most cases, automating a practice that's been done for years. The ACLU found that only five states have laws governing license plate readers. New Hampshire, for example, bans the technology except in narrow circumstances, while Maine and Arkansas limit how long plate information can be stored.

    "There's no expectation of privacy" for a vehicle driving on a public road or parked in a public place, said Lt. Bill Hedgpeth, a spokesman for the Mesquite Police Department in Texas, which has records stretching back to 2008, although the city plans next month to begin deleting files older than two years. "It's just a vehicle. It's just a license plate."

    In Yonkers, N.Y., just north of the Bronx, police said retaining the information indefinitely helps detectives solve future crimes. In a statement, the department said it uses license plate readers as a "reactive investigative tool" that is only accessed if detectives are looking for a particular vehicle in connection to a crime.

    "These plate readers are not intended nor used to follow the movements of members of the public," the department's statement said.

    But even if law enforcement officials say they don't want a public location tracking system, the records add up quickly. In Jersey City, N.J., for example, the population is only 250,000 but the city collected more than 2 million plate images on file. Because the city keeps records for five years, the ACLU estimates that it has some 10 million on file, making it possible for police to plot the movements of most residents depending upon the number and location of the scanners, according to the ACLU.

    The ACLU study, based on 26,000 pages of responses from 293 police departments and state agencies across the country, also found that license plate scanners produced a small fraction of "hits," or alerts to police that a suspicious vehicle has been found. In Maryland, for example, the state reported reading about 29 million plates between January and May of last year. Of that amount, about 60,000 - or roughly 1 in every 500 license plates - were suspicious. The No. 1 crime? A suspended or revoked registration, or a violation of the state's emissions inspection program accounted for 97 percent of all alerts.

    Eisenberg, the assistant U.S. attorney, said the numbers "fail to show the real qualitative assistance to public safety and law enforcement." He points to the 132 wanted suspects the program helped track. They were a small fraction of the 29 million plates read, but he said tracking those suspects can be critical to keeping an area safe.

    Also, he said, Maryland has rules in place restricting access for criminal investigations only. Most records are retained for one year in Maryland, and the state's privacy policies are reviewed by an independent board, Eisenberg noted.

    At least in Maryland, "there are checks, and there are balances," he said.
  • USA - POLICE PROFILING PATCHES

    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE

    If you ride a motorcycle and you are a member of a club, wear club support clothing or have club support stickers on your helmet or bike you probably have been pulled over by some dirty cop who has it in for anyone wearing club stuff. And during that traffic stop your rights were violated, you were treated as a criminal, had the officer make-up charges against you, lie about what happened or what you said, handcuffed for no reason, abused, degraded and spoken to with profanity, threaten, and treated with disrespect.
    What the site is all about; the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    What we are fighting:
    Profiling, according to the Washington State Legislature’s current policies, occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.) From Motorcycle Profiling in Washington State, we are fighting the fight here. It’s time to stand up and be heard.
    This is the place for you to vent, share your story or ask a question.
    Viewing all 6498 articles
    Browse latest View live