Archive for the ‘5th Amendment’ Category

Just when you thought DUI roadblocks couldn’t be any more ridiculous…

April 1, 2013

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7988308&pid=7988306

The B.A.T. vans don’t work. Big surprise, huh.

And what happens when maybe 100’s of people are tested inaccurately and plead guilty or are convicted of DUI and the prosecutor knows that the BAT vans don’t work. They plead the 5th, in front of the grand jury.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8468695

It just keeps getting worse!!!

September 11, 2009

Cape Coral – A 72-year-old man says he passed a breathalyzer but was arrested for D.U.I. anyway.
Police say there were traces of some type of substance in his urine but Vincent Tallo says that’s impossible.
“I’ve served my country, my record is clean and this is how I’m treated,” said Vincent Tallo.
Tallo was arrested at a D.U.I. checkpoint on Friday.
He and friend Mary Debenedetta were on their way home after a night of dancing.
“I bought a bottle of beer and sipped that bottle for two hours,” said Tallo.
The couple pulled up to the checkpoint and was approached by an officer.
“He asked me–had I been drinking, I told him I had one beer,” said Tallo.
Tallo said he had to follow the officer’s finger with his eyes and do a few more field tests.
“He told me to stand on my right foot and put my hands at my side. He said, Sir, you are arrested for D.U.I.–I said what? I requested the breathalyzer,” said Tallo.
Tallo said a female officer gave him the breathalyzer test and he blew a .000.
The 72-year-old was taken to a portable bathroom and asked to urinate in a cup.
“They’re doing a urine test– I said this guys a health-nut he doesn’t even take an Advil ,” said passenger Debenedetta.
Cape Coral police tell us the test can show twelve different drug classifications.
They say something showed up in Tallo’s test but they have to wait until the results come back from the state before they know exactly what it is.
Tallo traffic citation says “D.U.I.–pending urine”. The couple is now fighting the charges.
“I want other people to not go through this ever,” said Debenedetta.

Tallo was issued a citation and notice to appeal for “DUI — Pending Urine — Checkpoint,” the documents state. Due to Tallo’s vehicle being towed, he and Debenedetta walked to Debenedetta’s house, more than two miles away. SA office declined to prosecute.

UPDATE: The city has paid out nearly $41,000 total in two separate lawsuits where the Cape Coral police were accused of false arrests at DUI checkpoints. The city settled earlier this month with Vincent Tallo and James Wilhelm. On July 13, the city agreed to a $22,000 settlement with Tallo, while on July 15, it entered into a $18,750 settlement agreement with Wilhelm, officials said.

When are enough people going to insist that these aberrations of the United States Constitution be abolished? These checkpoints are so despicable, I cannot even control my temper. We had one of these checkpoints in Sarasota county over the weekend and the Leos made 9 DUI arrests (all of their arrests in 2008 were thrown out of court because of police misconduct at the checkpoints) and wrote 207 citations. How is it possible to write 207 citations if you are just asking people if they are impaired? What is wrong with us?

Why do think I have a camera outside my front door?

September 10, 2009

I know Mark Flanagan. We used to call him Ken because he looked so much like Ken from “Ken and Barbie”. He was a very able legislator from a conservative district in Manatee County. He did a lot of good for many people in our State.

Here is another Gates stop. I’ve named these police encounters “Gates Stops” after the so called “Terry Stop” (and Professor Gates encounter) that police use so often to abuse civil rights of people just walking around on the street.

Mark made one huge mistake. He went outside his home to talk with the police. DON’T OPEN YOUR DOOR TO SOMEONE WHO CAN DO LEGAL VIOLENCE TO YOU!!!

Watch Barry Cooper’s DVD on police coming to your home. He is one of the first civil rights guys that I’ve heard who has said what I have said for years. He asks, “Why are the police knocking on your door?” Because if they had a warrant, they would have broken down the door to get at you. They need your permission to come into your home or to even talk to you. Mark did the right thing, he said he couldn’t speak to police without his lawyer. The cop tackled him and took him to jail. I don’t think Leo Harrington will be working there much longer as the former Sheriff Charlie Wells and Mark were really good friends. The Sheriff now is a guy who got the job because Charlie recommended him for the job. Leo Harrington probably hasn’t read that Sheriffs have to run for office and have to be elected in Florida.

BRADENTON – Prosecutors will not pursue a misdemeanor charge against former state Rep. Mark Flanagan, who was tackled and arrested by a Sheriff’s deputy outside his home in western Manatee County.
Meanwhile, the deputy who made the arrest, Lee Harrington, will be investigated by the Sheriff’s Office.
The State Attorney’s Office has quickly dropped a resisting arrest charge against Flanagan, jailed on Monday during a confrontation at his home in the 1300 block of 91st Court Northwest.
Harrington, a Manatee Sheriff’s deputy, went to Flanagan’s home to look for his son, Kevin. Lawmen were investigating a hit-and-run crash and found a cell phone at the scene with a text message from the younger Flanagan.
When deputies arrived, Mark Flanagan opened the door, said he knew where his son was but asked the deputy to leave a card. Flanagan refused to speak to the deputy without a lawyer.
Harrington, the deputy, said Flanagan was impeding the investigation and took the former legislator to the ground to put on handcuffs.
Flanagan, 46, was released on a $750 bond.
He served four terms in the state House, from 1994 to 2002, and represented west Manatee County.

Read this Great advice from Barry Cooper.

Top Four Reasons Why You Should Never Talk To The Kops

Tuesday, 01 September 2009 20:21
The Fifth Amendment gives you the right to never be a witness against yourself.  These are the top four reasons why you should never talk to the police.

 

Reason #1.  There is no way talking to the kops can help you. You can’t talk your way out of getting arrested.  You can’t give them any information that will help you at trial. Anything you say can only be used against you and not for you.  In fact, during your trial if your attorney asks an officer to repeat what you told him because it will help your case, the prosecutor can and will object because it’s hearsay.

Reason #2.  Whether you are guilty or not guilty, you may still be manipulated into admitting your guilt with no benefit in return. In more than 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants either made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or plead guilty.

Reason #3.  Even if you are innocent and deny your guilt and mostly tell the truth, you can easily get carried away and tell some little lie or make a little mistake that can hang you. The only time you should talk to the kops is in the presents of a jury.  Having citizen witnesses and a court of record ensures your words do not get twisted and minor mistakes do not jeopardize your freedom.

Reason #4.  Even if you are innocent and always tell the truth, you will always give the police some information that can be used to help convict you. Supreme Court Ohio vs. Reiner states, “One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.  Truthful responses of an innocent witness as well as those of a wrongdoer may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.”  Too many Americans view the Fifth Amendment privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers.

 

UPDATE:

MANATEE COUNTY — A deputy was suspended and demoted after an internal investigation found he was wrong to tackle and arrest a former state legislator from Manatee County.

Deputy Lee Harrington was suspended 120 hours and will lose 120 hours in vacation pay for tackling former state Rep. Mark Flanagan in September.

Harrington also was demoted to the dispatch center, losing $11,000 in salary, and will now make $32,000 a year.

On Sept. 7, Harrington went to Flanagan’s home to find Flanagan’s son, who was considered a witness to a hit-and-run crash. When Flanagan would not tell the deputy where to find his son, Harrington went into the hallway and took the former lawmaker to the ground.

Flanagan was arrested, but a misdemeanor obstruction charge against him was quickly dropped, and the sheriff ordered an internal investigation.

The inquiry found that Flanagan was wrongfully arrested because deputies are only supposed to enter homes with permission or in search of felony suspects.

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

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 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.

The Epidemic of Pot Arrests in New York City

August 14, 2009

This will tell you what we are up against.

http://www.alternet.org/story/141866/the_epidemic_of_pot_arrests_in_new_york_city/?page=1#comments

Leos arrested 430,000 people for pot possession and it’s legal there. How many would they have arrested if it was illegal?

An American Hero

August 5, 2009

10855814_BG1Terri Bresi has more gonads than 1000 Leos. He has waged a one man battle against the creeping abuse of the 4th and 5th amendments perpetrated by certain forces of Leos. And last week he won a major battle. Read below the excerpts from his federal lawsuit. (See Roadblock Revelations for more info)

“We conclude that a roadblock on a public right-of-way
within tribal territory, established on tribal authority, is permissible only to the extent that the suspicionless stop of non-Indians is limited to the amount of time, and the nature of inquiry, that can establish whether or not they are Indians. When obvious violations, such as alcohol impairment, are found, detention on tribal authority for delivery to state officers is authorized. But inquiry going beyond Indian or non-Indian status, or including searches for evidence of crime, are not authorized on purely tribal authority in the case of non-Indians.”

“Applying this analysis to the present record, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the Officers on the § 1983 claim. The record indicates that the Officers realized quickly that Bressi was not impaired. It is not clear from the record exactly when or how the Officers determined that Bressi was not an Indian. There is no dispute in the evidence, however, that the Officers, after stopping Bressi, did not confine themselves to inquiring whether he was or was not an Indian. Their general request for identification was permissible as part of that determination, but they specifically requested Bressi to
show his drivers’ license and immediately treated his refusal as a violation of state law. Once they departed from, or went beyond, the inquiry to establish that Bressi was not an Indian, they were acting under color of state law. These actions established, beyond any dispute of fact, that the roadblock functioned not merely as a tribal exercise, but also as an instrument for the enforcement of state law.”
– Bressi v Ford