Archive for August, 2009

We need cameras and audio on every police encounter

August 28, 2009

Bethlehem, PA.   Bethlehem police, one of the first departments in the region to use video cameras and wireless microphones while on patrol, may be the first to face a union grievance over them.

The Bethlehem police union filed an unfair practice complaint Thursday with the state Labor Relations Board, claiming the electronics will make citizens clam up rather than offer information and will endanger officers by giving them another tool to worry about using during intense situations. The complaint also notes about half of the cameras and microphones aren’t working properly.

Why aren’t citizens complaining about the cameras and the audio recordings? Why is the Leo union the only complainer here? My view is that every agency in the United States should have cameras and audio recording going 24/7. And in my State, FL, it’s public record. What did Shakespeare say, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks…”

Here is only one reason every jurisdiction should require recording.

Here’s another reason.

and another reason

and this.

And also this

The most famous DUI incident in History

August 26, 2009
chapp

"Cowards die many times before their deaths, The valiant never taste of death but once."

It probably isn’t kosher to talk bad of the dead, but it’s not often that the mainstream media eulogizes and praises dead murderers.

Ted Kennedy didn’t just murder Mary Jo Kopechne. He left her in a car that was submerged and overturned in less than 5 feet of water. The coroners said that she probably lived for about 3 hours by breathing the air that was left in the car, but she couldn’t extricate herself from the back seat. Kennedy didn’t call emergency. He didn’t call the police. He never tried to save her life. There was a house less than 150 ft away from the “accident” with it’s porch lights on. He left her to die an excruciating death by suffocation.

This may be speculation but pretty much everyone knows that Kennedy was drunk driving and was taking Mary Jo down to the beach for a tryst. He didn’t report the accident because he didn’t want to get charged with DUI.He then tried to set up an fake alibi and he begged his lawyers to go along with a story that she was driving and he wasn’t there.  I can’t think of any more cowardly of acts in American History. Hopefully, Ted met Mary Jo, first, when he got to wherever he was going when he croaked. Good riddance.

I’m going to throw up

August 25, 2009

Female arrested for a victimless crime that a man can do legally

August 24, 2009

I’ve always wondered about this. Since I was very little and now I am very old, I’ve wondered about this. Men can walk around, pretty much anywhere, without a shirt. But women can be arrested for doing the same thing. What’s up with that? I think this stems from the Puritanical notion that Men get erections watching women without shirts, but women do not get erections from watching Men without shirts. To tell you the truth, not now, but in days past, I did get erections from looking at certain women with their shirts off.  But I’m not sure that having an erection is a crime. If you are a female, showing your breasts is a crime, and if a man shows his erection it is a crime, but having an erection while inside the pants looking at certain women without shirts is not a crime, but the woman without the shirt is a crime. This victimless crime stuff is fun, isn’t it?

Retire the dogs

August 24, 2009

The case of Nicholas Magnusson (18). We are going to follow this case here on this blog.

On August 13, 2009 at approximately 9:25pm, Mr. Magnusson was a subject of a traffic stop on Toledo Blade and Woodhaven (city of North Port) for a burned out tag light by arresting Officer Bush.  He was eventually arrested for having about half a pound of weed in the trunk of the car. According to the police dispatch report, which anyone can view online, the arresting officer called the K9, but the dog unit didn’t get there for two hours at 11:35.06 pm. There are some conflicting times in the reports. The K9 officer reports the time of 23:34. The Sheriff’s office reports the arrest at 10:02pm(which is the time written on the probable cause affidavit). Could there possibly be some fudging of the times on the police report? The booking time is 1:00am on August 14.

The arresting officer said that Mr. Magnusson was arrested as the result of a dog sniff by K9 Gino and said in his report that the dog was there when he finished his paperwork.

in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005), the Scotus found that a seizure (traffic stop) that is justified at its inception may become unreasonable if it is unreasonably prolonged in duration. Thus, if the sole reason for the stop is to issue a warning to the motorist, the stop becomes unreasonable if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably necessary to issue the warning. And if a drug-sniffing dog is used during this unreasonable extension, the use of the dog violates the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Magnusson is currently out on bail, but there is no attorney of record, yet. His arraignment date is 9/11/2009.

Redistribution of wealth

August 21, 2009

// ]]>The city of Denver is poised to settle for $90,000 complaints of wrongful arrests by a Sterling woman who spent five days in jail and a Denver man who contends officers mistook him for a man who actually was dead.

The City Council will consider on Monday settling for $65,000 a lawsuit filed on behalf of Christina FourHorn by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.

The lawsuit states that Denver Police Officer Mark Dalvit wrongly submitted a warrant for FourHorn’s arrest in 2006 for an aggravated robbery in a Denver apartment complex. The officer confused her with someone having a similar name.

He located FourHorn — who at the age of 33 was seven years older than the alleged assailant and weighed 90 pounds more — by searching motor-vehicle records.

The officer made no effort to determine whether the person located from those records was the same person described by the victim and witnesses, the suit states.

FourHorn had been at home on the day of the robbery, the lawsuit states.

After her arrest, FourHorn located through a public database the true assailant, who was living in Oklahoma, according to court documents.

The council Monday also will consider settling for $25,000 a wrongful-arrest claim by Samuel Powell Moore. The lawsuit states Moore was arrested four times under an outstanding Aurora warrant for a different person.

By the time of the fourth mistaken-identity arrest by Denver police in 2007, the true suspect, William Douglas Pipkin, had been dead for three years, the lawsuit states. Even so, Moore ended up spending eight days in jail, the lawsuit states.

Court documents allege that Pipkin presented Moore’s stolen ID in 2002 when he was accused of attempting to steal $450. Police also refused to look at a court docket Moore carried with him to show he was not the suspect, the suit contends. Even after Moore protested that he did not have tattoos like the actual suspect, deputies at the jail and other law-enforcement officers failed to investigate further, the lawsuit adds.

When Moore was brought before Aurora Municipal Court to appear on the warrant, a judge realized the error and ordered Moore released.

The lawsuit filed against the city of Denver by the ACLU has five other plaintiffs alleging wrongful arrests.

Luis Corchado, Denver’s assistant director of litigation in the city attorney’s office, did not return telephone messages seeking comment.

Seems as though the City of Denver is following through on President Obama’s pledge to redistribute wealth. What the heck do the Leos and the elected representatives of Denver care about police misconduct, the taxpayers pay for the mistakes, the Leos don’t.

And shame on you defense attorneys who defend people against the State.

These arrests don’t even fall under the title of victimless crimes. These are crimes by the State with a victim.

AND HERE IS HOW YOU CAN GET A PIECE OF THE PIE IN FEDERAL COURT.

How to sue FOR FREE.

What is the difference between this and the Gestapo or Writs of Assistance?

August 20, 2009

This is a Border Patrol checkpoint case. First thing, you have to realize is that these checkpoints are NOT on the border. They are operating these checkpoints up to 100 miles inland. (By the way, 100 miles includes the entire State of Florida).

I think I’m going to have to put my number one pet peeve as drug sniffing dogs. If you haven’t been following this case, you should. This case is a great example of the inch and mile rule. Give the Leos an inch…… State of Arizona v. Steven Anderson.

This dog handler testified that his dog was trained to detect the odor of humans and or certain narcotics. He couldn’t, however, say exactly what the dog was alerting to either humans or narcotics. He admitted that there was really no difference in the smell of  concealed humans and unconcealed humans. So, if a human is driving the vehicle or inside the car, the dog might be alerting to the smell of the driver. The drug sniff took place before the vehicle even made it to the stop sign or checkpoint. The Border Patrol spends upwards of $10,000 to train their drug sniffing dogs.

First, could someone please tell me why they just don’t use drug sniffing parrots. At least a parrot could testify in court.

Lawyer: Did you smell drugs in the car?

Parrot: Drugs in the car!!

Lawyer: When did you smell drugs in the car?

Parrot: Drugs in the car!!

Lawyer: Are you able to smell anything else, like for instance beef jerky?

Parrot: Drugs in the car!!

Analyzing a traffic stop

August 18, 2009

By analyzing traffic stops, you will get good at figuring out what the driver did wrong. Don’t worry so much about what happens later like the violence that is perpetrated on the driver. Think about what you would have done, differently. With this particular traffic stop, the driver has got a problem believing that the 5th amendment applies to him. Shut the F up.

Obviously, prior to this traffic stop, this Leo is going to arrest the driver, whatever happens, based on the way the driver pulled over, so what I would have done is quite simple. Hand my documents out the window of the car and have them waiting for the Leo when he walks up to the car. When the Leo starts with the questions, say, “Am I under arrest?” he’s going to arrest the guy, anyway, but, the reason he hasn’t done it yet is because he wants to get more evidence (provided by the driver) that the driver is impaired. More questions from the Leo, answer, “Am I under arrest?” More questions from the Leo, answer, “Am I under arrest?”  “Step out of the car, driver.” Am I under, arrest?, I told you, driver, step out of the car. Answer, “Am I under arrest?” Yes, you are under arrest, now step out of the car. You step out of the car, the Leo puts the handcuffs on and you calmly and

gracefully, go to his car with him. When he continues to question you, you say, I don’t want to answer any of your questions until I have a lawyer present. And I don’t consent to any searches.  Make sure you say that in front of the camera or in the car while it is being recorded.

He has to take you to jail for something, but now, he doesn’t even know what to take you to jail for. Plus, there is no chance for the Leos to perpetrate violence on you or the passengers. 4th and 5th amendment, Learn them.

The Fourth Amendment

August 18, 2009

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.

This one is a little more complicated, but for us what it means is that you don’t have to consent to a search and you should never consent to a search under any circumstances.

The Fifth Amendment

August 18, 2009

The Fifth Amendment

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

What this means is YOU DON”T HAVE TO TALK TO POLICE. Geez, can it be anymore clear.