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

Confessions of a Traffic Cop

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
“Confessions of a Traffic Cop” was written by Phil Berg and posted at Yahoo.com. After reading the article I thought it would make a good post here at CopBlock.org. I didn’t want to copy and paste the whole article so will only focus on a few of the questions. You can, and I encourage it, read the entire article by clicking here.
Phil, the author, interviewed Mike Brucks a now retired traffic cop of 22 years who claims to have wrote over 40,000 tickets (damn!) and now wants to share [brag about] his experiences. Phil’s questions are in bold, Mike’s answers are plain text and both (Phil’s and Mikes) are block quoted. I’ll add my two sense in outside of block quotes with italic font, so you know who said and wrote what.
Let’s get into the mind of a traffic cop, first question.
Besides speeding, which is the reason for most tickets, what’s most likely to get a traffic cop’s attention? 
Seatbelts, cell phones, red lights, and stop signs. I concentrate on all the things that can cause an accident. There are some cops who write tickets for expired plates, for having no insurance or registration, but you’re not going to crash because of any of that. I focused on safety issues—that’s what I like to do.
OK, good start. Officer Mike is actually concerned with safety, that’s good. I can get behind being safe. It’s nice to hear an Officer say he’s not as concerned the revenue generating, or the permission granting, aspects of the insurance, registration and plating business. 
How much leeway do you give someone before writing them a speeding ticket?
The speed limit in Texas used to be 60 mph, [and] well, out on the clear road where there’s a lot of visibility I give people leeway. I wouldn’t write tickets until they got to 80 mph.
There are two points to make here. First, how are motorist supposed to know what leeway the officer is giving? Maybe one day they drive by and Officer Mike is working so 75 in a 60 is ok but the next day, different cop, different results. Second, I’ve had Officers tell me time and time again, “the law is the law” and that they’re just enforcing those laws. Well in this case the law says 60 is the speed limit, not 80. 
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want people ticketed for speeding ever because it’s extortion, a racket. It’s a punishment with no actual proof of working, other than lining the pockets of government. I mean if laws restricting speeding worked, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 
And before you jump on me about speeding being unsafe, I’ll get there, just wait. Moving on. 
             Are speed limits too low? 
No, the traffic engineers, at least in Texas, are pretty good. It’s not that some parts of the highway are safer for speeding, it’s that drivers aren’t always paying attention. People die on lonely deserted stretches of road too. There are a lot of times drivers aren’t concentrating. They need to understand you’re going 100 feet per second on the highway. Above 75 mph things just happen so fast, [whether it's] a flat tire, a coyote, wind, dirt, or rocks. It’s not that much better now that cars are safer; reaction times are still the same.
Wait, what? In the question before this Officer Mike allows a cushion, or uses his discretion, for speeders especially if there’s alot of ‘visibility.’ Now he says that Texas engineers are pretty good and that the 60 MPH speed limits are not too low. Officer Mike goes on to say that people die on deserted roadways too, that concentration is also a factor and that people need to understand that 75 mph is fast.
Boy I’m confused. Are the speed limits too low or is Officer Mike simply allowing people to break the law? Is he implying that driving faster is more dangerous, yet advocating Officer’s use discretion by allowing faster driving? Maybe the last question will help clear things up.
When do you not chase a speeder? 
I clocked a guy on a crotch-rocket bike doing 189 mph. Just let him go. Since police departments began to get sued for chasing speeders, around 1995, there’s a fine line. You have to determine if you can catch him, if chasing him will cause an accident for him, for you, for the public. There’s no way to catch anyone like that.
This is why all driving laws that don’t address an accident/damage to another person, or their property, are bullsh*t. First, they don’t prevent any accidents, if anything, they create them. How many times has an accident been caused, or almost caused, by police lights on the side of the road. Or due to heavy braking when sneaky cops are spotted by speeding drivers?
Furthermore, Officer Mike talks about not chasing down the speeding biker because it’s unsafe. Well Officer Mike, if that’s your stance then how did you ever ticket anyone? You had to chase down all 40,000 people you wrote tickets for in your career and risked causing an accident for them, you and/or innocent public bystanders.
Congratulations Officer Mike. Your 22 years of being a traffic cop were completely worthless. All you did was prove you are a hypocrite. Your traffic stops were based off nothing more than your subjective feelings at that particular moment. Had you actually taken the time to think though your actions as a traffic cop, you very well would have concluded, that you are unable to preform the job with any sense of consistency. Just like you did this interview.
↧
Search

How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
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

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
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
↧

USA - Federal Court Rules: Your Cell Phone is a Gov Tracking Device

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
August 1, 2013
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that since customers give up private information to their cell phone companies, which are a 3rd party, this data is public knowledge and not protected under privacy laws.
This decision is based on the third-party doctrine that is a “legal concept established by a set of court decisions over decades that treats records held by a “third-party” as not subject to the same level of protection as say, the private journal you keep in a locked file cabinet in your home.”
In the decision, the judges wrote: “We understand the cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private … But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records … or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy.”
The ruling stated in part that the 4th Amendment is not applicable to information provided to cell phone companies in exchange for the “use of their phones . . . is entirely voluntary.”
Representative of the federal government asserted during the case proceedings that historical cell-site data created and kept by a cell phone corporation is part of the ordinary course of business and it would be reasonable that those records would be “specific and articulable facts”.
Seeking that information for relevance and materials necessary to an “on-going criminal investigation”, the search and seizure of phone records of Americans which turns their cell phones into surveillance devices, is reasonable and not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
According to the federal court, the distinction is that the customer gave up their private information to the cell phone corporation.
This allows records held by a “third-party” as not subject to the same level of protection as other aspects of American life that is protected by the US Constitution.
Just prior to this landmark decision, the Supreme Court in New Jersey third-party ruled that “cell phones are not meant to serve as tracking devices to locate their owners wherever they may be.”
Judges have the right to demand warrants, according to a recent ruling in the 3rd Dirstrict Court of Appeals. This would put a damper on persons convicted of crimes based on location data provided by cell phone corporations to law enforcement, pinging data and trunk identifiers.
To date, the US Supreme Court has not ruled on this matter.
In the 5th Circuit Court, GPS data provided is distinguished from a US Supreme Court ruling that found the act of installing GPS tracking devices on a target’s vehicle was the same as a search that required a warrant.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) remarked that “the government should not be able to access this personal, sensitive information without getting a warrant based on probable cause.”
Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU stated : “This ruling fails to recognize that Americans do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location information. Where you go can reveal a great deal about your life, and people don’t think that carrying a cell phone around means that someone can get a detailed record of their movement for days or even months on end. The government should not be able to access this personal, sensitive information without getting a warrant based on probable cause. Unfortunately, the 5th Circuit’s decision allows exactly that.”
On Capitol Hill, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (NI) declassified documents that have been brought to congressional committee hearings in the “interest of increased transparency.”
These docuemtns record events from 2009 – 2011 involving the National Security Agency (NSA) Bulk Collection Program (BCP) that is sanctioned under the US Patriot Act of 2001.
The BCP is another name for the PRISM program.
As far back as 2007, the federal government has been data mining from tech corporations such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, Youtube, Aol, Paltalk and Skype.
PRISM was created during the George W. Bush presidential administration and has expanded further by President Obama.
The Protect America Act of 2007 gave private corporations immunity.
PRISM collaborated with Microsoft first and conducted surveillance operations under the guise of searching for terrorist activity or cyber espionage.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have been acquiring “extracting audio, video, photographs, emails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.”
In June, James Clapper, director of National Intelligence recently stated : “Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”
Clapper divulged that he declassified documents to be released to the public to quell the outrage over being spied on by federal agencies.
In order to save face, Clapper admitted that because of the leak, sensitive operations were compromised and a misconception about the program was established.
It was stated that the federal government was severely limited in their data collecting capabilities and no intimate details of phone conversations were recorded or stored.
In an attempt to monitor potential terrorist activity, this telephony metadata was syphoned.
An anonymous senior official for the Obama administration confirmed that the executive branch had full oversight and knew about the surveillance on American citizens.
The anonymous source said: “It involves extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-US persons outside the US are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about US persons. The government may only use Section 702 to acquire foreign intelligence information, which is specifically, and narrowly, defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This requirement applies across the board, regardless of the nationality of the target.”
↧

Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
WASHINGTON -- A police officer can't pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.
In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."
John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection in St. Johnsville, N.Y. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York's disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York granted summary judgement to the officers in July 2011, but the Court of Appeals on Thursday erased that decision and ordered the lower court to take up the case again.
Richard Insogna, the officer who stopped Swartz and his wife when they arrived at their destination, claimed he pulled the couple over because he believed Swartz was "trying to get my attention for some reason." The appeals court didn't buy that explanation, ruling that the "nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness."
↧
↧

USA - Know Your Rights: A Primer

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
Live and let live – it’s an adage that, if put into practice, would help eliminate the need for these precautions. But right now some folks are putting faith into a badge idea – arbitrary authority. Fortunately, ideas have consequences.

Interacting with police employees

Always document exchanges you have with police or those that you witness, preferably via video, if possible. Even better, stream the interaction in real-time to the Internet using a free smartphone application (see: http://copblock.org/apps). This prevents it from being erased or tampered with should your equipment be stolen by police. In addition, it can increase the speed with which word can get out should you need outside support.
Filming your interactions has several advantages. Most importantly, it will help to safeguard you at that moment, as it very-likely will deter potential aggression, and it will act as an indisputable, objective, transparent record of the incident. The deck is usually stacked against you in cases which come down to just your word against theirs.
Ask “Am I being detained?”
This question is important for several reasons. One is that certain rules regarding evidence that can be collected are dependent on whether you have been officially detained and whether the person stopping you has sufficient cause to detain you in the first place. Getting them on record regarding these issues can aid you greatly in the future if contesting such evidence becomes necessary.
Another reason to ask this is that it will serve as an indicator to the police employee you are interacting with that you are aware of your rights. While this doesn’t always make a difference, letting them know that you understand those rights and are willing to assert them will sometimes make them less likely to disregard them.

If you’re told “No”, then you can leave the scene. Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.
If you’re told “Yes”, stay calm, cool, and collected. You can choose to remain silent or you can choose to engage.
Police employees default to being on the offensive. Strive to be calm, cool and collected, while confident – knowing that you’ve not acted in the wrong and in fact it is they who acting with hostile. Ask yourself: what is reasonable.
Always strive to deescalate situations, and thus increase the likelihood you’ll leave under your own volition rather than under the control of a stranger. It will also allow those who may later view video of the interaction to easily and clearly see just who is the aggressor. A video recording means that facts can be shared immediately with a large number of people; you can move more-quickly to the next stage, thus making it more-likely they’ll support you if needed and be more-likely to speak out against injustice themselves.
Police employees can and do lie – something that courts have ruled is perfectly acceptable – in an attempt to solicit information from you or to get you to admit to engaging in an action they believe gives them the right to kidnap and cage you (even though said action may not cause a victim). Be aware of this and act accordingly.
In fact, police employees are actually trained in methods of deception designed to trick people into giving up their rights and/or cooperating against themselves and or their friends. They are taught to act friendly as if they want to help you in order to gather information, which eventually could be used against you or others. In addition, they are instructed to phrase questions in a way that they sound like statements (I’m going to _____, okay?) in order to trick you into giving consent.
If you do engage, answer questions with questions. Ask, “Where is the victim?”, “Why do you believe you have the right to prevent my freedom of movement?” etc. Treat the police employee no differently than you would someone not wearing the same costume who approached and questioned you.

If you get arrested

Police employees often make arrests they know to be without merit, simply as a way to harass those who question their authority. Several vague “go-to” charges are often used for such purposes including, but not limited to, disturbing the peace, trespassing, obstruction, interfering with an officer/investigation, failure to follow lawful orders, etc. In cases involving police brutality, charges of resisting arrest and/or assaulting an officer can often be used to justify the police employees own use of force (having the unbiased and unimpeachable witness that video represents is especially crucial in this instance).
They know there is usually very little chance they will be held accountable for such tactics. In most cases, the charges are later dismissed, but that doesn’t eliminate the time and indignities suffered by their victims during even a brief period within one of their cages. Pushing back against this culture of abuse is important both to protect your own rights and deter its future use against others.
Don’t panic. The world won’t end. Now is the time to engage in damage control and move-forward to mitigate any further harassment and to seek accountability for the real aggressors.
Write down a detailed summary of what unfolded. Create an objective overview that will bring someone totally unfamiliar with the incident up-to-speed.
You may have an inclination to put this off until later, but it’s actually very important to do so while the incident is fresh. Details that are now clear will become forgotten with the passage of time. Plus, you’ll see just how useful making time to tackle this really is when you realize that it’s actually a time-saver. Instead of repeating the same story multiple times to different people, you can just point them to your write-up.
Where did the interaction happen? What was going on immediately prior to the interaction? What was the date and time? Who were the parties involved? What were their badge numbers, employers, contact information? What was given as rationale for stopping you? What was said during the exchange?
Share your overview at http://copblock.org/submit

Document, Document, Document

Obtain as much related information as possible. The more comprehensive you are, the less-likely it is that frivolous charges will be levied against you and the more-likely it is that charges will be dropped.
Submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (note that this is known by different names depending on the area). Inquire of the police department if they have a form for this – they usually do not. Don’t fret. Just write and submit your own. Include a sentence or two overview of who you are, the information sought, and your contact information.
You can use the text below as a template:
“To Whom It May Concern:
“This document is to serve as a Freedom of Information Act request. Please provide to me any and all content, including but not limited to dashcam video and related audio, dispatcher logs, police reports, internal memos, related departmental policies, from the incident that occurred on DATE at LOCATION involving YOUR NAME & CASE NUMBER/CHARGES IF KNOWN. Also, please include any and all information related to the number, date, and outcome of complaints made against POLICE EMPLOYEE NAME/BADGE NUMBER.
“YOUR NAME PRINTED
YOUR PHONE NUMBER
YOUR MAILING ADDRESS”
Or utilize this much-more thorough FOIA request template shared by Virginia Cop Block
When submitting the FOIA request film the exchange. Or better yet, have a friend accompany you who can film. The more transparency the better.

Ask for a receipt, or a signed/stamped copy of your FOIA request.
Inquire to learn the legislated time-limit the police department has to respond to your request (often five-ten days). Due to the inefficiency of the bureaucratic, centralized police department, you may be contacted during that time-frame to inform you that an extension is needed.
Note that you can be charged for copying fees of documents, video and other content. Be sure to state when you submit the FOIA request that you want to have the ability to review everything before it’s taken/paid for. That way, if dozens of pages of unrelated material are included, you won’t be on the hook.
Add the information gotten from the FOIA request to your post about the incident as an update. If you have access to a scanner, scan the documentation and save it to http://scribd.com. You can create a free account there if you don’t already have one.
Win in the Court of Public Opinion
If you’ve done nothing wrong don’t be afraid. Instead, voice as loudly and clearly as you can, the rights-violations you suffered and continue to face due to the actions of the police employee and prosecutor.
Demand a jury trial, even for something as trivial as a speeding ticket. Currently about 95% of cases are plead out before that stage. That does nothing to disincentivize the same or a greater level of police statism. If we each stood-up for what we knew was right, it’d frankly be impossible for this level to continue, and in fact it would lessen until it reached the point where no one claimed extra rights based on their attire.

Related resources:

Work to get your situation on the radar of others. Create an event for a Call Flood.
Share pertinent information so others can easily get on the same page. Cultivate media contacts and share them as well. Encourage others, who have a grasp on your situation thanks to your write-up, and inclusion of relevant pictures and/or video, to call on your behalf and demand justice.
It’s not uncommon for court dates to be pushed back or for the “prosecutor” to stack threats against you. While court employees might hope such tactics will wear you down, point to such tactics as examples of their inability to make right by dismissing the charges levied at you and calling-out the real aggressors.
Court is called “legal land” for a reason. It’s an environment void of logic and common sense. Where public officials who purport to be acting to obtain justice in reality act to safeguard themselves and their colleagues. Don’t be surprised at or let yourself get worn down by their actions. Stand on your conscience and know that, at the end of the day, you did no harm. Not only will this resonate with you but it will embolden others to speak out and do what they know is right, until one day, the harassment meted out by those with badges, and the double-standards others afford them, are no more.
———–
Connect with others who know that badges don’t grant extra rights http://copblock.org/groupsHaving support on the ground in these situations can be critical.

Check out all documents in the “Know Your Rights” Collection housed at http://scribd.com/copblock
Educate yourself: http://copblock.org/knowledge

At the end of the day, if you did nothing wrong then you should not be afraid to speak the truth. As we each stand-up we’ll empower others to do the same, and together, we’ll get there.


↧

Fight Your Traffic Tickets

September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
$
0
0
OFF THE WIRE
Got a traffic ticket? Learn how to fight a speeding ticket or other violation in traffic court, as well as information about fines, suspended driver licenses, traffic school, and driving while talking or texting.
Should You Fight Your Traffic Ticket?Learn More










  • Should You Fight Your Traffic Ticket?
  • Five Strategies for Fighting a Traffic Ticket
  • The Consequences of Getting a Traffic Ticket
  • Traffic Ticket? Decide Whether to Fight in Traffic Court or Pay Up
    • Taking Your Case to Traffic CourtLearn More










  • Can You Make A Deal for Your Traffic Ticket?
  • What Happens in Traffic Court: Trial By Judge
  • Should You Have a Jury Trial in Traffic Court?
  • Appealing A Traffic Court Ruling
  • What Happens in a Traffic Ticket Jury Trial?
    • Fighting a Moving Violation TicketLearn More










  • Fight Your Speeding Ticket: What Is the Law?
  • Fight Your Speeding Ticket: Determining Your Speed
  • Fighting a Ticket for Running a Red Light
  • Fighting a Red Light Camera Traffic Ticket
  • Speeding Tickets: How to Defend Yourself
    • Articles on Traffic Tickets










  • Your Driver's License FAQ
  • Driver License Suspensions
  • Traffic Fines, License Suspensions, and Traffic School
  • Police Stops: What to Do If You Are Pulled Over
  • Cell Phones, Texting, and Driving: State Laws
  • Cell Phones and Driving in California: The New Law
    • Questions on Traffic Tickets










  • How long can a judge take to decide a traffic ticket?
  • My friend borrowed my truck -- must I pay the ticket?
  • Can one cop ticket me based on another cop's radaring?
  • Must I pay a ticket for not answering the officer's racially motivated questions?
  • Can I appeal a traffic court decision?
  • How do I prove that I really stopped at the sign?
  • How do points against my license affect me?
  • Why can't I turn right on red?
  • Should I request the radar calibration records to contest my speeding ticket?
    • ↧

    Bumper sticker now probable cause?

    September 4, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    Not one fucking word about a lack of probable cause. If these cops had pulled me over for a bumper sticker, shit would have gotten real ugly.
    "Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni, 65, and her husband were driving home to Plano, Texas from Columbus after attending her mother-in-law’s funeral when a pair of black police SUV’s stopped the couple a few miles outside of Memphis.
    “Knowing I wasn’t speeding, I couldn’t imagine why,” Jonas-Boggioni told the Columbus Dispatch. “They were very serious. They had the body armor and the guns.”
    On the back of Jonas-Boggioni’s car was a Buckeye leaf decal, similar to the one players’ have on their helmets, and cops mistakenly thought it was marijuana leaf.
    Yes, really.
    “What are you doing with a marijuana sticker on your bumper?” one of the cops asked Jonas-Boggioni."

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-domestic-drones-20130216,0,3374671.story
    "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

    Thomas Paine
    ↧
    Search

    Illusion Motorsports - " Premiere motorcycle customizing shop of Orange County California "

    September 5, 2013, 12:57 am
    $
    0
    0
    ATTN, IF YOU CALL RUSTY , MENTION YOU READ IT HERE ON THE BLOG
    THANK YOU,
    Philip aka Screwdriver

    PictureIllusion 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
    Picture
    ↧
    ↧

    LIFE IN THE FAST LANE..

    September 5, 2013, 12:58 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    THANK YOU, JOHN
    LIFE IN THE FAST LANE
    A collection of lane-related information
     
                                                 by John Del Santo
     
    GENERAL
    If our bike is equipped with working electric directional signals the law requires that we use them when changing lanes. (CVC 22110).  The State handbook also suggests that during times of heavy traffic, or poor visibility, that we also  use hand signals so that cars are better able to see what our intentions are.
     
    SIGNAL LANE CHANGES             Before each lane change….Check your mirrors……Signal your intentions……Check your blind spot…..Make your move.
     
    The CA Drivers Handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds  before a lane change.
     
    Traffic lanes are often referred to by number. The left, or “fast” lane is called the “Number 1 Lane”.  The lane to the right of the “number 1 lane” is called “The Number 2 Lane”  ,then the “Number 3 Lane” etc.  
     
    If you are pulling a little camping trailer behind your motorcycle or car you now come under the same 3-axle category as a tractor trailer.  You are restricted to the two right lanes of the freeway,  restricted to 55 MPH,  and not allowed to use the HOV lane.  (P-35 CA Drivers Handbook)
     
    FOLLOWING DISTANCE   California Vehicle Code 21704 (a)   States that ) “ The driver of any motor vehicle that is operated outside of a business or residence district, shall keep the vehicle he is driving at a distance of not less than 300 feet to the rear of any other motor vehicle”.  That’s a space that would fit about five tractor-trailers, or is almost a football field long.
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------
    ON THE FREEWAY
    Miles per Hour...Times 1 1/2 …Equals  Feet-Per-Second traveled. At 65 MPH  a vehicle is traveling  about 100 feet  Every Second.
     Many motorcyclists prefer traveling on the freeway in the Number 1 lane (far left).  This leaves the rider able to only worry about bad moves from the vehicle to the right,  and the vehicle behind.  Riding in the number 1 lane also leaves the shoulder on the left as an escape route to avoid dangerous moves from other drivers.
      Unlike many other states,  If you are traveling in the left lane….the number 1 lane…and you are maintaining the the posted speed limit….There is no legal reason for you to move out of that lane unless an emergency vehicle comes up behind you showing lights and/or siren.
    The California Motorcycle Handbook (p-13)  tells us “There is no “best lane position” for riders in which to be seen and to maintain a space cushion around the motorcycle.  Position yourself in the lane that allows the most visibility and space around you”.
    Generally speaking, I have been told by highway police that their attention is most drawn to vehicles that are jumping around from lane to lane, not to those that stay mostly in one lane.
     
    the drivers handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds  before a lane change.
     
    GROUP RIDING
    “If you ride with others, do it in a way that promotes safety and doesn’t interfere with the flow of traffic” If the group is more than four or five riders, divide it into two or more smaller groups.  Use a staggered formation and keep a  2-second following distance from the rider directly in front of you. (P-32  CA DMV motorcycle handbook).
    When we are riding in a group on the freeway with five or ten other vehicles, WE ARE NOT AN EXCLUSIVE GROUP……..to the law and to the rest of the world, we are just ……five or ten individual vehicles.  If other vehicles want to, or need to, make a lane change into our lane,  they have every right to do so,  and we have no right to try to stop them from doing so. Even convoys of army trucks or funeral processions lose their right to exclusivity when they are on a freeway.
     
    HOV  LANES  (HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE )(Carpool lane)
     
    No vehicle may cross double yellow lines into or out of an HOV LANE .
      In some areas, such as near Los Angeles ,   the double-yellow lines are about 18 inches apart.   These are still  double-yellow lines which no one may cross into or out of an HOV lane……..Contrary to some popular belief,  these are NOT teeny little HOV lanes for motorcycles.
     
     ONE OR TWO PERSONS ON A MOTORCYCLE OR TRIKE (3-wheeled motorcycle)   ARE ALLOWED TO USE AN HOV LANE, unless otherwise posted. (P-34  CA Drivers Handbook).
     
    No vehicle pulling a trailer may use an HOV Lane .
     
    EMERGENCY VEHICLE STOPPED ON FREEWAY
    CVC-21809.  (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, or a stationary marked Department of Transportation vehicle that is displaying flashing amber warning lights,
     
    shall approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, absent other direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:
    (1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.
     (2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.
     
    OFF  THE FREEWAY
     
    CENTER LEFT-TURN LANES  A set of yellow solid lines with dotted yellow lines just inside them.  These are to be use to start or complete left turns or to start u-turns.  We may not stay in them for more than 200 feet (three tractor trailer lengths). 
     
    DOUBLE-DOUBLE YELLOWS    SETS OF double-double yellow lines are considered a barrier or island.  We may never cross those even to get into or out of our own driveway Or to make a u-turn.
     
    NARROW STREETS   When riding in parts of town with small, narrow streets…..where there is not a centerline painted in the street,   A CA Driver Handbook suggests that we ride out near the middle  of the street, when no traffic is approaching us from the opposite direction.  This reduces the chances of someone in a parked car making a move that would surprise or endanger you.  Naturally, near an intersection we would be back towards the right side of the roadway.
     
    TURNOUT AREAS AND LANES  Special “turnout” areas are sometimes marked on two-lane roads.  Drive into these areas to allow traffic behind you to pass.  If you are driving slowly, you are required to pull in if there are five or more vehicles behind you that want to go faster.  (p-35  CA Drivers Manual).
      SOMETIMES THESE TURNOUT AREAS ARE UNLIT AND UNPAVED, AND ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT, MOTORCYCLISTS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SERIOUS CHOICES TO USE THEM OR NOT.  
     
    PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ZONE   A "safety zone" is the area or space lawfully set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected, or which is marked or indicated by vertical signs, raised markers or raised buttons, in order to make such area or space plainly visible at all times while the same is set apart as a safety zone. CA Vehicle Code 540.
      
       CROSSING BICYCLE LANES    As long as there are no bicycles using the bicycle lane anywhere near enough  to you to be a hazard,  you may cross a bicycle lane to turn into or out of a driveway.  If there is a bicycle lane, and no bicycles are using it, and you plan on turning right at the next corner, you should check your mirror, signal,  check your blind spot,  and move into the bicycle lane  NO MORE THAN 200 feet from the corner (three tractor-trailer lengths)  to approach your right turn.    You may park in a bicycle lane, as long as there is no sign that proclaims “ Bike Lane  No Parking”.
    Motorists Passing Bicyclists  Be patient when passing a bicyclist. Slow down and pass only when it is safe. Do not squeeze the bicyclist off the road. If road conditions and space permit, allow clearance of at least three feet when passing a bicyclist.
     
    Would you like to check out any vehicle laws or rules ?  go to  http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm  Ca Vehicle Code    OR    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm  CA Driver Handbook.
     
     
    THESE RULES AND LAWS MAY BE DIFFERENT WHEN LEAVING CALIFORNIA AND ENTERING OTHER STATES.
                        --------------------------------------
    DISCLAIMER AND WARNING :This guide is to provide accurate and authoritative information on this subject. If expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought
       John Del Santo
    At Intersections,  and
      In Your Blind Spots,
     "Check Twice for Motorcycles". 

    P.S.
    I was just reading my article "Life in the fast lane"  which is a collection of info regarding lane laws and rules....and I realized that I had not mentioned "Lane Sharing"  so I entered these  lines into the article    FYI     thanks  John

    The California Vehicle Code does not allow “lane sharing, lane splitting, etc.
       
    ↧

    California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).

    September 5, 2013, 12:58 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).California Vehicle Code
         Division 17    Notice to Correct Violation for Specified Infractions40303.5.    Whenever any person is arrested for any of the following offenses, the arresting officer shall permit the arrested person to execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation in
    accordance with the provisions of Section     40610 unless the arresting officer finds that any of the
    disqualifying conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section     40610 exist:

    (a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000).
    (b) Any driver's license infraction set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500), and
    subdivision (a) of Section 12951, relating to possession of driver's license.
    (c) Section 21201, relating to bicycle equipment.    (d) Any infraction involving equipment set forth in Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000                  (Where the helmet law is found.)),Division 13 (commencing with Section 29000), Division 14.8 (commencing with Section 34500),
    Division 16 (commencing with Section 36000), Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), and
    Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000).

    Amended Ch. 258, Stats. 1992. Effective January 1, 1993.
    Notice to Correct Violation40610.   (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other
    law enforcement action, it appears that     a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-
    terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code,     and none of the disqualifying
    conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist     and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement
    action,     the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the
    violator’s     promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to
    the issuing agency.

    (2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions
    set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall
    sign, a written notice containing the violator's promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver
    proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation
    pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522.

    (b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section
    or a notice to appear     shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the
    following:

    (1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.

    (2    ) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.

    (3    ) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.

    (c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or
    Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.

    (d) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), the notice to correct violation shall be on a form
    approved by the Judicial Council and, in addition to the owner’s or operator’s address and identifying
    information, shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction and proof of
    correction of the particular defect, not to exceed 30 days, or 90 days for the all-terrain vehicle safety
    certificate.    Amended Sec. 27, Ch. 908, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
    ↧

    DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLOTHING OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP IS ILLEGAL

    September 5, 2013, 12:58 am
    $
    0
    0


    OFF THE WIRE
    Comment,
    1. Law enforcement love this shit and are probably also posing as bikers, posting comments and feeding into the hype… divide and conquer. The attention from the real threat to the MC world and society as a whole keeps getting diverted.
    2. At this very moment in the United States, this has become the norm …. Law enforcement officers are involved in criminal activity. In addition, these individuals are involved in violating citizen’s civil and constitutional rights and they have more latitude to cause death, physical, financial and emotional harm to U.S. citizens than any other organization. Their actions are overlooked and encouraged by their department leadership, making those individuals complicit in the crimes. 
    3. America’s #1 Terrorist Threat is Law Enforcement
    5.  ACLU, Civil Rights

      The Unruh Civil Rights Act (C-C Section 51 et seq) provides that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or blindness or other physical disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

      Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, including the award of compensatory monetary damages. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen V. California 403 US 15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writing or designs.

      In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court Thus, a person’s right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club membership are subject to lawsuit.
       
    ↧

    CALIFORNIA: SB-435 - Clearing Up The Misconceptions

    September 5, 2013, 12:58 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    This is the future – WE WILL BE HUNTED AND HARESSED. All the BEACH CITIES in California do this already – so when funds are low – and they’re looking for ways to raise them – and the general public don’t care – we’re a TARGET. I see it as 2 sided – there’s dipshits that crank their pipes at 3am – get up to go to work and let the bike idle for 10 minutes with straight pipes. You know what? I don’t like that shit either – I barely sleep as it is. I coast my Thunderheader to the main street before 8am – I coast in late at night – some people are Fucking Stupid – and we’re all going to pay the PRICE........

    ML&R
    Screwdriver

    After they originally put out somewhat incorrect information, I provided this to the MRF last month, and they are supposed to be running it in the current MRF Reports. Feel free to distribute as you see fit.
    ~Tony~

    ABATE, of California
    SB-435 - Clearing Up The Misconceptions
    January 7, 2011
    Due to the many false reports and misconceptions about SB-435, it looks like it is time to clear the misunderstandings and false impressions people have concerning SB-435 and ABATE of California’s role in shaping this bill. Contrary to all of the rumors, ABATE of California did not roll over on SB-435 and in fact, was the only major SMRO to oppose SB-435 until June 28, 2010 when it was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. At the hearing, last minute resistance was offered by other groups who showed up to testify in opposition, and a few other groups and individuals continued to oppose the bill as it made its way back to the Senate and Governor’s desk, where it was eventually signed.

    So let’s look at what happened with SB-435, and how things really transpired. SB-435 was first introduced on February 26, 2009, by State Senator Fran Pavley, (D), Agoura Hills as a bill to institute biennial smog checks for motorcycles. After vigorous opposition to SB-435 by Jim Lombardo, ABATE of California’s lobbyist, SB-435 was turned into a two-year bill and allowed to pass out of the Senate with the provision that Senator Pavley amend the bill and remove the smog check language. In Senator Pavley’s own words, “ABATE’s lobbyist killed my smog bill on the Senate floor.” Accordingly, the record reflects several amendments, which were offered by the bill author before she amended it from a smog check bill into an EPA noise label match-up bill.

    The bottom line here is that California’s motorcyclists will not be burdened with a unwarranted and restrictive smog check bill, thanks to the determined efforts of ABATE of California. Once again – NO SMOG CHECKS for motorcycles in California thanks to ABATE of California and Jim Lombardo. Moreover, in the final version of the bill, which was signed into law, all motorcycles currently on the road up to model year 2013 are grand-fathered in. That is a huge concession that ABATE of California was able to achieve on behalf of the over 800,000-registered motorcycle owners in the state. Just guessing, I would estimate that this will save the average owner with after market pipes at least $600 to $1,000.
    On June 28, 2010, the version of SB-435 that passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee is the one which basically was signed into law by the Governor. With just a few weeks prior notice, ABATE of California was able to mobilize to meet the threat posed by the amended bill. The amended SB-435 called for imposition of the 1983 EPA noise label match-up language that has been in effect at the Federal level for 27 years. In addition, it called for a $300 fine, a moving violation, a point on a driving record, and it would have allowed any law enforcement officer, including meter maids to cite motorcyclists, even if the motorcycle was parked. One of the amendments ABATE of California was apprehensive would be offered was the imposition of SAE J2825, developed by the AMA & MIC.

    Incidentally, both the AMA and MIC were lobbying to get SAE J2825 introduced into SB-435, and that is a bullet that California’s motorcyclists were able to dodge. In a test performed by ABATE personnel certified in the J2825 testing procedure, virtually every after market set of pipes failed the test, which leads those of us in ABATE of California to have little faith in J2825’s objective standards. Moreover, J2825 would have led to roadside testing and every county and city with officers equipped with db meters would be pulling over and citing motorcyclists given the sorry state of the budget in California. ABATE of California urges all SMRO’s to take a hard look at J2825 before signing onto that program. ONE MORE TIME -- SAE J 2825 will lead to increased roadside checks! Is that really what we need or want?

    While we dodged a bullet with J2825, SB-435 as amended contained plenty of anti-motorcycling language and as written, the bill would have affected all motorcycles from model year 2000 forward. Through the efforts of ABATE of California through our lobbyist, Jim Lombardo, several concessions were achieved that removed the most unfriendly and anti-motorcycle language from the bill. Through the joint efforts of ABATE’s Jim Lombardo and John Paliwoda of the California Motorcycle Dealer’s Association, the effective date of imposition of SB-435 was rolled back to 2013, and all motorcycles currently on the road are grand-fathered in. Additionally, due to ABATE’s efforts, violations were changed from a moving violation to a fix-it-ticket, it was dropped to a $50 fine from $300, and it is a secondary violation, meaning that it can’t be the primary reason for an enforcement stop.

    As can be plainly seen, the final version of SB-435 was substantially altered by ABATE of California and while we would like to have seen the bill die in committee, we did not enjoy the same support against an anti-noise bill that we did against a smog check bill. Furthermore, the co-author of SB-435 was the Chairwoman of Assembly Transportation Committee, and we knew going into the bill hearing that we simply did not have the votes to kill this bill. While there were some in the ranks of the organization that wished to pursue a hard line stance, the vote from our Political Action Committee determined that we would pursue the course of seeking to modify the bill and in this we were successful given the concessions that were achieved. Had we followed a hard line approach and simply hoped we would defeat SB-435 in committee, we would today be facing a far different reality today than we are.

    While there is much Monday morning quarterbacking going on regarding SB-435, ABATE of California is confident that we achieved the best possible outcome for the California motorcycling community that was possible given the difficult circumstances we faced. Two last items on the topic of SB-435 are that this bill is likely to have the unintended consequence of driving up the fair market price for pre-2013 used motorcycles due to the fact that they are grand-fathered in. Another consequence that other states facing similar legislation should be aware of is the 2013 date, which was extended to allow the manufacturers to comply. While we still have two years before SB-435 goes into effect, other states facing similar legislation will not have the same grace period if this legislation should come up in their respective states after January 2013.

    Anthony Jaime
    Executive Director
    ABATE of California
    ↧
    ↧

    7 Rules for Recording Police

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    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.
    ↧

    FYI - Some police departments keep names of those arrested secret

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    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.”
    ↧
    Search

    Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    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!
    ↧

    What Constitutes Probable Cause?

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
     eHow Contributor

    LindaSexton
    Linda Sexton began her writing career in 2001 when she created her company's first newsletter. She also writes two blogs, classic movie reviews, short stories and poetry. Sexton has a Bachelor of Arts in Medieval studies from Southern Methodist University, and is finishing her Master of Arts in Icelandic studies.



    What Constitutes Probable Cause?thumbnail










     Our Founding Fathers ensured the people's right against illegal search and seizure.


    Probable cause originates from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, with the intent to prohibit inappropriate search and seizure by the government. Our Founding Fathers' experience with British authorities randomly stopping, seizing and searching individuals without cause gave them motive to guard against it in the new government. Further, no warrants shall be issued without probable cause or support by the courts. General warrants were replaced with documents that stated specific parameters of what is to be searched and where.
    Related Searches:
    • Definition
      • Where there are grounds for suspecting an individual has committed a crime, there should be probable cause for making a charge against the accused. As defined by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      Civil and Criminal

      • Necessary in both criminal and civil law to prosecute or support a claim, probable cause becomes essential in the application of criminal law. When levying a claim in civil court, the consequences involve only the loss of property; the defendant may also counter-sue if the plaintiff cannot prove the case. In criminal law, however, the defendant not only faces the loss of property, but the action may lead to the loss of individual liberty.

      Reasonable Suspicion

      • Probable cause must be present for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute an individual. This does not mean, however, that an officer must have absolute certainty that a crime has taken place to detain someone. While absolute guilt is rarely present, officers can restrain an individual to conduct further investigations. This exception to the probable cause standard allows law enforcement to stop, investigate or frisk an individual based on the officer's experience, training and reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but is enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe a crime has occurred.

      Justification

      • How much evidence must be present to constitute probable cause depends on circumstances. If an officer stops an individual because his car has an expired inspection sticker, the officer would not have justification for searching the vehicle or its occupants. If, however, while addressing the driver the officer sees in plain view a bag that appears to contain an illegal substance, probable cause is present to search the inside of the vehicle as well as the individuals in the car.

      Plain View

      • Most state laws allow an officer or any other person to arrest an individual when a felony or offense against the public peace is committed in their view. A warrant is not necessary, as the probable cause would be part of witnessing the act itself. Defense to any repercussions for arresting without a warrant is that the officer or individual acted in good faith under prudent and reasonable standards.
      • References
      • Top 5 To Try











    ↧
    ↧

    USA - How to Deal with Police (cheat sheet)

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
     HOW TO DEAL WITH POLICE


    I recently made this chart “How to deal with Police”.  This information is to be used at your discretion. The tone and attitude you demonstrate towards an officer is your own choice in relationship to the circumstance. I believe it is better to know the options and your rights so you can make the best decision in the moment.  I hope this information helps in any future encounters with police and remember Always film police misconduct!                                                                       
    - Jason Bassler
    Sources:
    http://www.facebook.com/policethepoliceACP
    https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
    http://sweetvociferation.blogspot.com/2012/07/when-dealing-with-police-helpful-cheat.html
    http://jayrameylaw.com/know-your-rights/
    http://rense.com/general72/howto.htm
    https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/LawFactsPamphlet-21.aspx
    Dont talk to police video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6wXkI4t7nuc



    ↧

    What Are My Rights When I'm Pulled Over By a Cop?

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    By Micah McDunnigan,
     eHow Contributor
    No one likes seeing flashing blue and red lights in his rear view mirror. While the police officer behind you may simply be rushing to the site of some other crime, it could also mean you might have committed a driving infraction, and you may end up paying a ticket. When you are pulled over by a cop, be mindful of your legal rights to avoid incriminating yourself.

    Officer Identification

    • You have the right to ask for the officer to identify himself and show his badge and identification. This information is important for two reasons: first, you want to ensure that you aren't about to become the victim of a criminal impersonating a police officer. Second, you will need this information if you feel that you were ill treated by the officer and want to file a complaint.

    Do Not Answer Questions

    • When you are pulled over, be very careful of what you say. Besides providing your name, drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance, you do not have to answer questions the officer directs at you. You are allowed to answer questions questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over" or "Do you know how fast you were going" with a simple "yes" or "no." You can also choose not to give an answer. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but the officer can use anything you say to write a ticket.

    Vehicle Search

    • If you are pulled over by the police, they do not automatically have the right to search your car. However, if the officers have probable cause then they can. Probable cause can be established by the officers seeing something in your car through the windows, or by your actions. For example, if they see you throwing something out of your car as you are pulling over or if your actions create suspicion after they pull you over.

    Admission of Guilt

    • When a police officer gives you a ticket for a driving infraction, it is not a summary judgment. Rather, the citation is a charge from the officer to which you can either plead "no-contest" and pay or challenge in court. As this is the case, you do not have to admit anything to the officer when you are pulled over. If he informs you that you were speeding, you can say "I see" or some other non-committal comment. You only have to acknowledge that you are being given a ticket, not that you deserve it.
    ↧

    RULES OF ENGAGEMENT........One thing I hope every one realizes is that the cops can and do lie.

    September 5, 2013, 12:59 am
    $
    0
    0
    OFF THE WIRE
    agingrebel.com

    Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the cops get involved. Maybe someone else called the cops, maybe you felt the situation warranted their involvement, or maybe they showed up at the scene. However they got involved, they’re not going to go away just because you don’t want to deal with them so it’s time to use your head.
    A few years ago, I would have said that the first rule in dealing with the cops is to remain calm, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. Now that’s rule number 2. With the ubiquity of recording devices that we all carry around in our pockets (cell phones), the first rule when dealing with the police is to RECORD EVERYTHING! If you’re in a public place, the police have no expectation of privacy so you can record them (except in Illinois). Check your state and local laws, but in general, you’re allowed to record. The police will tell you that you can’t record but we all know the police will lie to you. If you can, have your recording streamed to one of the several on line services available; that’s even better. And obviously video and audio are better than just audio; but take what you can get.

    The second rule in dealing with the police is to STAY CALM, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. No matter how right you are, losing your temper is likely to result in getting cuffed, pepper sprayed, beat, shot, arrested or some combination of all of those. Don’t yell at them, swear at them, give them the finger, or provoke them. Treat them as you would a business client you don’t like. That’s not to say that in order to avoid their wrath you need to compromise anything but if you do end up being caged, there’s a better likelihood that your arrest for “contempt of cop” will not result in any charges sticking if you can substantiate a claim of not guilty of disorderly conduct (which is usually just contempt of cop). Remaining calm and being peaceful is no guarantee that you’re not going to be the victim of abuse; however, you’re more likely to prevail if you don’t act out of anger.

    The third rule is, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. You should never say anything to them that is not absolutely required by law. It is NEVER in your best interest to give them information. Rather than explain further, I would like to insist that you watch Part I and Part II of this video. Watch the whole thing, it’s worth your time. This rule would have been number one, but if you don’t follow the first two rules, this one could be moot. If you lose your temper with the cops, you’re going to say things that could be used against you later. Furthermore, without a recording, they can falsify your statements.

    The fourth rule is, NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH. It doesn’t matter if you have nothing to hide. Refusing to consent to a search is your right and court after court has ruled that refusing a search is not probable cause for a search. If the cops tell you to empty your pockets, ask if you’re being detained. If not, you are free to go; just walk away. Unless I’m mistaken, you are never required to empty your pockets, although if they place you under arrest, they might empty them for you. The point is, consenting to a search only opens you up to more trouble. The cops reading this of course will tell you that if you have nothing to hide, consenting to search only helps the process, removes suspicion and moves them on their way faster. Remember, cops lie. Sometimes, if you don’t consent to a search, they’ll bring in the drug sniffing dogs and then signal them to “alert” which means they’ve found something. Then they will search your car claiming probable cause. They will do this to harass you and waste your time. If they’re going to waste your time though, you can waste theirs by demanding that a supervisor comes to the scene. When you do this, a supervisor must come and they cannot leave until that time. Complain to the supervisor about being harassed without probable cause.

    The fifth rule is to LEAVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Ask if you’re being detained; if you’re not, leave. Also, familiarize yourself with the Terry Stop rules. The longer you stick around, the higher the probability is that you will be the victim of some police misconduct, even if you were the one that called the cops.

    The sixth rule is, NEVER LET THEM IN YOUR HOUSE without a warrant. In fact, without a warrant, you’re not even required to open the door or say anything at all to them. Just tell them you have nothing to say to them and you would prefer that they leave. Once you invite them in, you have opened your home to a search.

    The seventh and last rule is KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. The more your know your rights and assert them (calmly) to the police, the more likely they are to leave you alone. They are bullies and bullies pick on weak, frightened, easily intimidated people. Don’t be one of them. Stay in tune with CopBlock.org and other sources that report on police misconduct and your civil liberties.

    These rules not only apply to the police, they apply to any government agent that decides to interfere in your life. If Child Protective Services comes to your door and demands to speak to your children or inspect your home, tell them to leave unless they have a warrant. In fact, feel free to be a little more rude to them than the cops since they don’t have arrest powers.

    Also, these are general rules that apply to almost every situation. There are probably dozens of rules related to much more specific situations. If you can think of a few more general rules, please leave them in the comments

    Categories: Your Rights under the US Constitution
    The Blog can be reached at  bikersofamerica.blogspot.com

    Don’t Talk To Cops Ever

    There are, to paraphrase a common biker saying, two kinds of people: Those who have been arrested and those who will be.
    The video below, published here at the urging of a reader, presents a brief primer on the pitfalls of talking to the police. It runs almost 50 minutes but if you have not yet been arrested it is worth that investment of your time.
    The recording is of a presentation made to law students at the Regent University chapter of the Federalist Society in Virginia Beach, Virginia. March 14, 2008. The lecture was titled “In Praise of the Fifth Amendment: Why No Criminal Suspect Should Ever Talk to the Police.” If you have not already memorized the advice it contains you should probably watch the video and take notes.
    The first speaker is Regent Law Professor James Duane. The second speaker is Suffolk County Virginia Commonwealth Attorney George W. Bruch. At the time of the recording Bruch was a detective for the Virginia Beach Police Department.

    COMMENT`S
     A very good video, Rebel. You’ve provided a public service by sharing this. One thing I hope every one realizes is that the cops can and do lie. The cop can tell you he’s investigating a (fictitious) murder in Slingshit, North Carolina when they really want you to admit to being in Bumfucked, Tennesee on a particular night. Sometimes they just want you to add a piece to a puzzle you don’t even know exists.
    1. There was a guy in prison when I was in, probably still is. The cops found a dead woman in a public bathroom downtown, rounded up everybody in the area not wearing a suit and tie. One of them was a retarded man. They promised him he could go home if he would confess to killing her and the retarded guy, having been told by his parents that the police were his friends, did so. Who knows whether or not the guy really did it. Then, after his parents hired appeals lawyers who won the appeals in Federal court, and while the US marshals were at the front gate of Perry Correctional Institution to enforce a court order that he be released, a department of corrections official told the guy that if he was retried and convicted, he’s have to go back through R&E as a new prisoner, might be assigned to a different prison, and would lose his “A” custody status. This guy allowed the SCDC to slip him to the Greenville County Courthouse, where he pled guilty. Even though the time had elapsed for the state to retry him and the marshals were there to enforce an order that he be released!
    2. It didn’t surprise me that the retarded guy was that stupid, after all, that’s why they called him retarded instead of a genius. The rest of us should be smarter. So many people are not.
    ↧
    Viewing all 6498 articles
    Browse latest View live
    Search