Here’s some law for you, if this isn’t enough I’ve got another 100 cases

April 5, 2012

To conduct an investigatory stop, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person “`has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.'” M.M. v. State, 72 So.3d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Fuentes v. State, 24 So.3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion for a stop depends on the totality of the circumstances, interpreted in consideration of the officer’s knowledge and experience. See Ippolito v. State, 789 So.2d 423, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

M.M. v. State, 72 So.3d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Fuentes v. State, 24 So.3d 1231To determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, we look at the totality of circumstances. Id. Law enforcement must be able to articulate a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity in light of the officer’s training and experience. Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993). “Mere suspicion is not enough.” Id.
When an anonymous tip prompts a police investigation, it will justify a stop as
[ 72 So.3d 331 ]

long as it can be corroborated. Fuentes, 24 So.3d at 1235. This requires the officers to observe “`unlawful acts, unusual conduct, or suspicious behavior'” when they arrive on scene. See id. (quoting Baptiste v. State, 995 So.2d 285, 296 (Fla. 2008)). Here, that did not occur.


Taxpayers must love to pay out money for arresting videographers

April 1, 2012

This cost the City of Eugene, OR,  $210,000. Stupid, stupid, stupid. (Quote from one of my favorite lawyer movies, The Rainmaker)

Here is the latest news about my case from Andrea Mogensen

March 31, 2012

Horrigan Press Release-4

Here are the Probable Cause Affidavits police filled out:



allan and thomas roberts

Also great timeline from Atty. Mickey Osterreicher from the NPPA

Here is a brief/motion on prior restraint: will work to get your camera/phone back prior restraint

Never Give up on The Constitution

March 30, 2012

“I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”, said Marc Anthony. This is the classic example of praeteritio. The practice of praeteritio is heard much in politics and the courtroom. Basically, this figure of speech is an allusion to something by denying that it will be mentioned. So, I’m not here to say that the North Port Sun Editors know nothing about the First Amendment, no I wouldn’t say that. However, what the police did to me on Jan 25, was the most serious transgression against the First Amendment and it’s called Prior Restraint.
In 1668, the King of England made a law that all printers and publishers of any book, newspaper, pamphlet or notice had to buy licenses from the King. If the publishers wrote anything derogatory of the English government, they lost their license and had their printing press burnt down. These English licensing laws lasted nearly 200 years. During the discussions about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were all in agreement on this one issue, that no citizen should ever be stopped from publishing speech, having the right to assemble on public property, or that the press should ever be restrained prior to the publication of information that might put the government in a bad light. This is a Constitutional principle known as Prior Restraint. The Government doesn’t want the publisher to publish a story. The government takes the story, hides the story and jails the writer. The government is restraining this story prior to it’s publication. The Supreme Court of the United States has never upheld a Prior Restraint in the history of our country and even when it was alleged that the material was a clear and present danger to national security or even when the material was obtained illegally.
This is exactly what happened in my case. Actually, the NPPD wouldn’t give me back my smartphone for nearly 7 weeks and I had to write a brief on Prior Restraint, I filed it in the form of a motion to the court and in two days, a NPPD detective came to my door at 7:30am and said that I could have my phone back. Surprise, surprise. And after I published the story, immediately to Youtube, six days later, The State Attorney’s office in a scathing memo to the NPPD, refused to file formal charges of eavesdropping and obstruction against me. Why, because I was lawfully present on a public forum exercising my right to assemble. Two, I was exercising my right of free speech because many courts have said that recording police activities is a form of free speech. Three, I was exercising the right of the free press because courts have said that the “Press” extends to all people and not just to the salaried and credentialed folks who have newspapers and television stations.
There is a reason why the First Amendment is First.

Never stop Recording

March 29, 2012

Two of the most famous amateur videographers, Abraham Zapruder and George Holliday, didn’t know that they were about to record history Such it is when citizen journalists pull out a cellphone camera and shoot a scene, sometimes you never know what’s going to happen.
Mr. Zapruder was standing on a pedestal in Dealey Plaza with a Bell and Howell, Super 8 pointing it toward the corner of Houston Street and Elm Street the day Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. The chilling photo still of Jackie Kennedy climbing out of the back seat of the limousine to retrieve her husband’s brains is forever etched in my mind and the minds of all those who have watched the 25 seconds or so of the clip that Abraham Zapruder filmed.
George Holliday just happened to be on his porch with his new video rig, when a traffic stop occurred across from his house. He taped a savage beating of a black man by the name of Rodney King by several Los Angeles police officers in 1991. He even offered to give the tape, first, to the LAPD who turned him down. Later, this clip caused 43 million dollars or so damage to property during the Rodney King riots.
Police can’t stop us from recording and they shouldn’t. You never know what’s going to happen, so a scene that at first appears to be enough to make you fall asleep, suddenly becomes history.

Here’s how a camera/phone would have saved two lives

March 28, 2012

George Zimmerman would have been better served carrying a camera, rather than a gun.

Here’s the scenario:
GZ: (While recording encounter): Hi, how you doing. My name’s George, I live here and work on the neighborhood watch committee. No, offense meant, but I haven’t seen you before, do you live here?
TM: I’m visiting my aunt.
GZ: Oh, ok, I’m not trying to get in your face or anything, but we’ve had lots of breakins and stuff and we’re trying to cut down on that. I’m not accusing you of anything, we’re just trying to stay safe around here.
TM: Ok, bye.

Now if this is the way the conversation went, then GZ would have that recorded and if a fight broke out after that he would be completely exonerated. But if the recording showed lots of in your face, cop crap, GZ doesn’t have much to stand on. Always record.

GZ stands on the sidewalk while TM goes on his way and GZ backs up to his car, rather than turning his back on a guy he has never seen before, recording his departure. TM sees the camera, so he knows he can’t get away with jumping the guy, so he goes back to his apartment. GM has a picture now of the “intruder”, so he can give it to the cops (which I wouldn’t do anyway). GZ has no right to ask TM for his ID or where he is staying unless TM volunteers the information, but if there are any incidents or if there had been any incidents, now the authorities have a face and a voice to go with it.

Plus GZ can record from his car, not getting out and here he has a natural barrier to fists and knives, not necessarily a gunshot, but it’s more likely he’ll be attacked with a fist or a knife, so don’t get out of the car. TM is 6’3″ and pretty thin, but I know that when I was 17, I was pretty bad ass and a champion high school wrestler, so taking on a guy that is only 5’9″ (and when they say 5’9″, subtract 2 inches) isn’t much of a fight for somebody that tall. But if GZ is getting in his face, with the cop BS, give me your ID, where do live, where are you going, this is going to get GZ into a situation that he doesn’t want to be in.

Let the cops use the guns, You use a camera. It’s a much more effective weapon.

This is what they do to real criminals in Sarasota

March 12, 2012

Here’s a guy who made it here from some mid-west state by stealing someone else s car. People who have lived in Florida for a while like me, say that God picks up the US every once in a while and shakes it, then all the garbage falls into Florida.

This guy got arrested for stealing the car in the other state. Served a little while in county. Got out and promptly stole a car from a dealership, and got caught again and got six months, but only served 2. Got out in the morning and stole a Range Rover from a dealership and got caught 8 hours later on Siesta Key.

See here, we are too concerned with crimes like video recording police, chalk writing on the sidewalks, trespassing in public parks and public sidewalks, getting a little head once in a while from consenting adults and hitting on a blunt once in a while to worry about real criminals.

I’ve been gone for a while, but still going at it

February 27, 2012

I was arrested for recording police activity in a public place. The story is developing. There are some main stream outlets taking this up. The Sarasota Herald Tribune is running a 4 part series in March. I’m putting up my widget for my defense fund, I’m not sure that I know how to do it, but any donations will help. Turns out (Update: 4/1/2012) I don’t need a defense fund, local atty Andrea Mogensen took on my criminal case on 3/26/12 and on 3/29/2012, the State abandoned the case. Pretty good, three day case. Now she’s suing for more than 200K.

Get a lunch box.

November 11, 2009

Prosecutors and Leos in the land of administration of justice have a saying for why older people don’t have many run ins with the law. “He must have bought a lunch box.” Meaning the criminal decided to get a job.

Lately, we have been experiencing a rash of police encounters in which elderly suspects are accused of fighting with Leos. The first incident involved a 70 yr old plus couple trying to keep a Leo out of their home. The Leo had a warrant, so the couples’ actions were pretty stupid. Next, a 66 year old 5 ft tall female allegedly punched a Leo in the mouth after the leo came to question her about her neighborhood behavior. And third, a 77 year old snowbird from Longboat Key was arrested for battery and obstruction to a Leo.

Normally, I talk to younger people about sticking up for their constitutional rights because I figure that by the time you get to 40 or so, you know about these things. How many times do I have to say that you shouldn’t oppose Leos? Leos have the legal right to injure you and in the above cases, these elderly people could have been killed by Tasers or even a Leo pistol. Opposing does not mean flexing your individual rights. Opposing means that you refuse arrest in some way. Most times, in most police encounters, the only order that you have to obey is “You are under arrest.” It doesn’t mean that you have to talk to Leos. You don’t. Leos believe that opposing means that you won’t talk to them, but legally, you don’t have to talk to them. But you do have to submit to arrest. What are the four things that we say to police? Am I free to go? Am I under arrest? I don’t consent to searches. And the most important, “I need a lawyer.”

Painter arrested for not having a sign?

October 12, 2009

Maybe that’s why they were arresting him because it is kind of ignorant to be a painter without a sign. So, what have I been preaching? The judges are finally speaking out. 52,560 victimless “crime” arrests, aka, “quality of life” misdemeanors over the last four years in Miami are dismissed by the court. Here is the story:

Miami house painter Alexis Marichal was driving his work truck when police pulled him over, placed him under arrest and sent him to jail for a night.
His crime: not having a business sign on the side of the vehicle.
In court later, the judge dismissed the charge after Marichal proved he had purchased the sign and was a legitimate painter.

“I told [the police officer] that I’m not a delinquent, that I’m a hard-working man,” said Marichal, 34. “I told him, `How many people and kids are being raped and how many women are beaten, and I’m being arrested?’ ”

Some high-ranking judges and county commissioners are asking the same thing.

With criminal-justice resources being squeezed more every day, the county is studying whether to decriminalize 18 minor infractions like the one that netted Marichal. They include selling flowers by the side of the road, drinking beer near a liquor store and being in a park after hours — all seemingly minor misdeeds, yet all on the books as crimes punishable by jail time.

Judges say the county ordinances clog court dockets and jail cells with little benefit, but police argue they are important for preventing more serious crime. A report is due to the County Commission this month.

“We’re being forced to operate almost like a factory,” Miami-Dade Chief County Judge Samuel Slom told a County Commission committee. “We are handling cases that have no business being in a criminal courthouse.”

Since 2005, police in Miami-Dade County have charged 52,560 people with such “quality of life” misdemeanors. All were processed through the county’s overtaxed court system — where the vast majority saw their charges dismissed.

Records from 2005 to early August 2009 show that more than 40,000 cases of commercial vehicle sign violations, drinking within 100 feet of a liquor store and roadside vending were filed. Yet about 93 percent of the charges were dismissed by a judge or dropped by prosecutors, and only about 7 percent resulted in convictions or withholds of adjudication. Amazing.