Told by police that being outside at night is probable cause to pull me over and question/weapons ch

reply to post by Wolfenz


Out of curiosity you do understand that as a Citizen of the United States that you hold dual citizenship? You are a citizen of the State you reside in, as well as being a Citizen of the United States of America.

People who are complaining about a NAtional ID card, try to look at it this way. The Federal Government already has access to your state information (DL, address, etc) just as local law enforcement having access to some of your Federal information. All this is, to boil it down, is an Id card for being a US Citizen.

When I do a traffic stop and run someone, it goes through our local wants (warrants), then hits the State Database, then hits the Federal (NCIC), and depending on agency it can also check Interpol warrants, Mexican legal and Canadian legal for their warrants.

You have a drivers license, and get get a State ID if you do not want to drive and need ID. You are not required to get an ID at the state level. From what I have read, and it may have changed since its been some time, you also can decide not to get a Federal ID.

Is it possible to have collected information be used inappropriately? Yup, and again this is where participation in government comes in.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by Xcathdra


You also have to understand the typical ATS member's mindset as far as how they think that police work.

They think that a typical police encounter goes like this:

1. lights come on.

2. person pulls over.

3. cop walks up to car.

4. cop grabs person out of car and starts beating them.

5. more police show up.

6. more beating ensues.

7. person is handcuffed.

8. evidence is planted.

9. person is led to back of squad car.

10. person is beat some more.

11. person is put in back of squad car, then tazed.

12. person is taken to jail.

When the reality is more like this:

1. lights come on.

2. person pulls over.

3. cop walks up to side window, person hides pot. (yes in that order.)

4. cop asks for license registration and proof of insurance, then asks why person was doing 25 in a 50 mph zone.

5. person lies badly.

6. cop is amused.

7. cop smells the pot.

8. cop asks to search car.

9. cop finds pot.

10 pot is taken away and the person gets a ticket and let on their way.

11. person gets home and tells everyone on ATS about horrible experience with gestapo cops, and how they are lucky to be alive.

12. cop reading post on ATS knows it didn't go down like that.

reply to post by whatukno


Maybe not typical, but when things like THIS occur, I would say that JUSTICE Robert Jackson was RIGHT. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE.

Gross Police Corruption, TRY and defend this LEO's!

Do not talk to the police. Give your name and ask for assistance of council.

PERIOD.

Or, listen to whatukno, because he is smarter and more in tune with jursiprudence than A DAMN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!

reply to post by endisnighe


Let's see, what to do if you are innocent of a crime.

Shut up, lawyer up. Spend 48 hours in a jail cell till the cops figure out you haven't done anything wrong.

OR

Deal with the cops, and shut up and lawyer up if they actually are arresting you.

Your example is what you should do if you actually have broke the law.

reply to post by whatukno


Okay, you DID NOT watch the video did you?

Let me see, spend 48 hours in jail compared to living 25 years to life in prison.

That is a hard one, let me think about it for a little while!

reply to post by endisnighe


I am not posting from prison oh dear mistrusting endisnighe.

endisnighe/police encounter:

Officer: Hey buddy, did you see a guy with black pants and a plaid shirt run by here?

endisnighe: My name is endisnighe, I want my lawyer.

Officer: Dude, all I asked was if...

endisnighe: (cuts off cop in mid sentence) My name is endisnighe, I want my lawyer.

Officer: Whatever pal. (cop runs down road, several people are killed because endisnighe could have told the cops that they were going the wrong way but endisnighe's paranoia got the best of him.)

endisnighe: (Struts home happy that he did not give the cops more information than is legally required. And posts his victory on a thread ATS, and bashes the cops for not doing their jobs on another thread about the massacre that happened because he didn't give the cops any real information.)

reply to post by whatukno


That was a strawman argument and YOU KNOW IT.

I believe in arresting CRIMINALS. Period.

Now, if a LEO asks me if I saw a subject, I would comply.

Nice of you to bring a COMPLETE strawman argument, thank you, you have brought the prerequisite, standard debate tactic to the table, thanks for being consistent.

reply to post by endisnighe


The fact remains, I am not posting from prison.

So obviously your theory of cooperating with the police is a guaranteed 25 to life is flawed. And before you claim you never said that.

Let me see, spend 48 hours in jail compared to living 25 years to life in prison.

You said that as a statement of fact that it was an either or scenario.

reply to post by whatukno


Okay, I may have STRETCHED the argument, but YOU still have not said if you have watched the video.

Watch the video and tell me that MY position is NOT backed by BOTH the law professor, Justice Robert Jackson and the LEO they have on the video.

C'mon, it is only like 45 minutes. Heck, just watch the first 10 minutes.

If not, read this thread-Gross Police Corruption, TRY and defend this LEO's!

reply to post by endisnighe


No I have not watched the video. The reason is, I am not a criminal and I really don't need criminal defense advice. If the situation arises where for some god knows reason I do need criminal defense advice, I will seek the advice of a lawyer not a youtube video.

You may have it in your mind that cops go around arresting only innocent people, beating them, shooting them, and god knows what else. And I am not saying there aren't bad cops out there.

But for all the paranoia on this board, the cop paranoia strikes me as the most silly. I deal with the police a lot. (comes with working at a crappy hotel near Detroit) and for the most part the cops are pretty nice. Detroit police are completely useless and should all be fired, no one would really notice if they were. But the cops around here are ok. They are respectful and don't go nuts like the people on this board think that cops do.

reply to post by whatukno


Well like I said earlier, I will take the ADVICE of a LAW PROFESSOR, A LEO, and A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE over the advice of SOME AVATAR NAMED whatukno anytime, anywhere, anywho!

reply to post by endisnighe


Still endisnighe, I am not posting from prison, which doesn't lend credibility to the whole "All cops want to beat absolutely everyone down and throw everyone in prison for 25 to life" theory.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Ignorance of how the system works is a problem. I dont have to have probable cause to stop someone. Check the following:

How ironic is that? You're the guy who said this:

You guys can cite all the court cases you want. In the end, pointing this out to an Officer will most likely do absolutely no good.

Now you turn around and expect to be able to rely on case law, such as Terry v Ohio, albeit via a Wikipedia article, and clearly ignore the language of both the Terry ruling, and the Wikipedia articles you linked.

Here is what was held in Terry v. Ohio:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere.

Do you understand? The Fourth Amendment applied to the O.P. in the circumstances he relayed in this thread. His right to:

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.

~Fourth Amendment~

Is fully protected as he is riding his bicycle home from the grocery store, regardless of what time of day it is. The Terry ruling further held:

2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure.

Most case law is very narrow in its ruling, as is the case here. There is no relation between the defendant Terry in this ruling and the O.P. and his story. There is no incriminating evidence that the O.P. committed any crime, therefore what was held with this does not apply. Had the O.P. been guilty of committing a crime, and because the police officer pulled him over, and due to this evidence was found of that crime being committed, then this ruling would have given that officer lee way in term of admissibility. That is as far as that holding applies. Since this is not the case, it is inapplicable.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction.

Do you need this holding explained to you? It was fairly well established in the Terry ruling that there was "reasonable suspicion" and that reasonable suspicion turned out more than reasonable and produced evidence to a crime. Thus, the exclusionary rule in that case did not apply, but the Court makes perfectly clear that just because they held this that doesn't mean that there are not other remedies the people can seek when dealing with police abuse of power.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here.

Pretty straight forward, isn't it? Even though the Court held that the evidence that was found gave prima facie evidence that there was reasonable suspicion, they are not over turning the Fourth Amendment, and those rights still apply, as they did in this case.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment.

Explanations as to how the Fourth Amendment did apply.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

Here is some of that leeway being granted to police officers by the Court. However, it is not by any stretch of the imagination, reasonable to assume every person a police officers pulls over is a threat to them or others. Unless of course they are actually abiding by the rules of "reasonable suspicion" of which I will address a little later.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.

Explanations and caveats given by the Court regarding search and seizure, both of which presumably did not happen with the case the O.P. relayed.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon.

Since it was held that the officer in this case was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct, it is best to describe what that conduct was:

A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.

There is a Grand Canyon of difference between the suspicious behavior of the three men described in the Terry Case, and that of the story the O.P. told. Common sense will dictate that detective McFadden was relying on reasonable suspicion indeed, and this has nothing to do with pulling someone over riding their bicycle simply because it is late at night. There is just no comparison, and common sense dictates this.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest.

Unless you want to portray police officers as a bunch of scared little girls, these holdings should make it pretty clear that it is unreasonable to search every single individual pulled over riding their bicycle. Of course, it doesn't seem as if the O.P. was searched for weapons so the point is moot.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted.

Under the circumstances of the Terry case, the SCOTUS is correct, and common sense certainly backs that ruling up. It has nothing at all to do with the O.P. and his case.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons.

Explanations of the common sense search and seizure the officer did, and again not at all related to pulling a person over who is riding his bicycle simply because it is late at night. Common sense would tell you this.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Again, this holding has nothing to do with the circumstances of the O.P.'s case. It would be nice if we the people could trust that police officers have enough common sense to know the difference between three suspicious looking strangers casing out a store, and an individual riding his bicycle, but if you truly are a police officer, and you think this ruling gives you the right to pull over someone for riding their bicycle a little after 10pm at night, then it should be clear why we the people are getting more and more fed up with the police state of which we live and the poor judgment and lack of common sense of police officers.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada is also cited as authority which presumably police officers feel they can rely on in order to harass we the people. I am running out of space and will have to continue...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Continuing...

Rather than break down the ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada point by point as I did with the Terry ruling, let's just keep this brief and suffice it to say that The SCOTUS held that when an individual is pulled over they are required to identify themselves. Further, the man who was asked to identify himself, (Hiibel), was asked to do so because the Humbolt County deputy Sheriff was answering a call where it was reported that a man had assaulted a woman in a red GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. The deputy found a truck, a man near the truck smoking a cigarette, and a woman sitting inside of the truck, and also saw skid marks on the road.

The deputy did his due diligence and explained the circumstances of why he was asking this man questions, and asked for some identification. Hiibel protested, but the deputy continued to tell him that he was conducting an investigation. Hiibel refused to cooperate and demanded to be handcuffed and taken to jail. Even after this, the deputy still asked for identification and warned that he would arrest him if Hiibel would not cooperate. Hiibel refused, and the deputy arrested him. Common sense dictates that Hiibel was clearly obstructing justice in this case, and not the other way around. This is a far cry different from the circumstances relayed by the O.P.

The Wikipedia article continues with further authority with New Jersey v. T. L. O. which is a case where a juvenile was caught smoking on school grounds and subsequently was searched where marijuana and other contraband was found. Since she was underage, she had all ready been caught violating the law by smoking, thus, common sense would dictate that the search and seizure was reasonable. Again, not at all related to an individual riding his bicycle home at night, and common sense dictates this.

Common sense also dictates that is simply outrageous that any police officer thinks he, or she, has the authority to pull over a person riding their bicycle simply because it is late at night, based upon these court citations. It is hard to believe you actually ever bothered to read the Wikepedia articles you cited, let alone the rulings they cited. In fact, the probable cause article you cited by Wikipedia has this to say about probable cause:

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

en.wikipedia.org...

Riding a bicycle home at night hardly fits this definition, and common sense would tell you this.

If I am patrolling a neighborhood in my city where we have had a lot of break ins at night, and I come cross a suspicious vehicle I have grounds in my state to stop the vehicle and check on it. The articulation is a suspicous vehilce in a high crime area that is not pulling into any house to park. Did they break the law for me to stop them - Nope.

The O.P. has all ready relayed that he was not in a high crime area, and he was riding a bicycle, which may constitute a suspicious vehicle if a report had been made that a crime had been committed by a person riding a bicycle. This is not the case, and the police woman who pulled him over explained that it was simply because of the time of day that she chose as an excuse to pull him over. This is not reasonable suspicion.

If you can clarify Jurisidictional boundries also - That can be taken several different ways so I am not sure how you are interpreting that. In most states, Officers can take action outside of their jurisdiction if a Crime is comitted in their presence. In my state, with my certification, I have arrest authority state wide. I jsut have to submit my P.C. statement to the P.A. in whatever jurisdiction I am in.

I am talking about when a police officer acts under color of law.

Color of law refers to an act done under the appearane of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.

When an LEO acts under color of law, regardless of the territory they are doing so, they are outside of the scope of their jurisdiction, and when they are acting under color of law, and a person knows this and asserts their right, and that LEO arrests that person simply for asserting their rights, it is that LEO who is guilty of obstruction of justice:

Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.

Are there officers out there who abuse their authority? There sure is, as with any profession you are bound to have people who should not be in that job. As far as your statment about getting a lawyer for stopping someone without probable cause, I would suggest you learn the differences between Probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion defined:

an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time see also reasonable cause at cause compare probable cause at cause terry stop A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch.

Based on the facts presented by the O.P., there was no reasonable suspicion. Pulling someone over who is riding their bicycle home at night is nothing more than a hunch, and will not stand in a court of law.

With this being said, and as I have posted in other topics, I have no issue with people holding Law Enforcement accountable. Just excersize common sense, actually take some time to learn how the law works, and how its is applied by the Executive and how it is resolved by the Judicial branch.

I have no issue with LEO's holding criminals accountable. Just as long as they exercise common sense, actually take some time to learn how the law works, and how it is applied by we the people who hold the inherent political power in this great nation, and how that is resolved by the Judicial branch.

Please excersize common sense.

Yes indeed, we the people would appreciate it very much if LEO's would please exercise common sense.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whatukno

 

Well like I said earlier, I will take the ADVICE of a LAW PROFESSOR, A LEO, and A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE over the advice of SOME AVATAR NAMED whatukno anytime, anywhere, anywho!

A law professor does not create laws, nor does he enforce them.
A supreme court justice does not enforce the law, nor does he create them.
A Leo does not make the law, he enforces them.

I still think (I could be wrong) you are failing to understand the seperations and responsibilities of each group you named. When lawyers take on a client, its because charges are being filed. They look at how the law was applied towards their client, and begins the process of finding faults to best serve their client (hence the adversarial judicial system we have in place).

As for those who think we can search a vehicle anytime we stop it, we cant. In order for LEO's to search a vehicle they must have one of the following: (Check Arizona Vs.Gant for latest refinement of searchs by LEO's)

Consent to search - You can refuse and we cannot continue. However we can, within reason, wait for a K9 to show up. USSC has ruled walking a K9 unit around a vehicle does not constiute a search in and of itself.

Warrant - Issued based on the LEO writing up a search warrant stating exactly what he is looking for. He has to (in most states) meet with the Prosecuting Attornys office to review the search warrant. Once the P.A. signs off on it, it is presented to a judge, who reviews the warrant and asks questions to determine validity / execution under law.

Contraband in Plain view - If I stop a vehicle and approach and see an open container or controlled substance, then generally speaking I can search the vehicle.

Search incident to arrest - If I am arresting the driver for DWI/DUI/Plainview exception, I can then also search the vehicle.

There have been other refinements to this, namely if I stop you for speeding, I run you, and you have a warrant for your arrest, I cannot search the vehicle unless one of the above criteria is met. My state, thanks to Arkansas and established case law in my Federal District (8th circuit) passengers in a car that has been stopped can refuse to provide identification to Law Enforcement without any action taken. A few states prohibit their officers from creating an investigation beyond the reason for the stop (stopped for speeding, then delving into a different crime).

If you are stopped for speeding, and you refuse to cooperate, you will get in trouble. When stopping a vehicle, we have to have reasonable suspicion the crime took place (IE Seeding, running a stop sigh etc). I am not asking guilt seeking questions, because I directly observed the violation.

Voluntary contact by LEO's are about the only exception where you can refuse to cooperate and walk away. If the officer has a case, chances are he will immidiately explain you are being detained.

My point is, there are checks and balances in place. Is the system perfect? nope. The system strives to balance enforcement of the law while trying to protect a citizens rights.

The paranoia I see in here is just that. It reminds me of the people who claim law enforcement makes up charges against them, complaining how the Officer was, yet never explain why they were stopped in the first place or what caused the officer to react the way they did..

A private citizen technically has more abilities to act than most law enforcement officers. If you detain someone, the worst you can be charged with is kidnapping or felonious restraint. If I do it without a reason, The State and Feds come after me.

If you check the Constitution - There are mechanisms in place for the people to change the government when the government fails to act for the welfare of the people.

Get involved with Government and actively participate. Especially if you think the system has failed and needs to be changed. Continually making blanket statements will not change anything until you mkae the change.

As for those who think we can search a vehicle anytime we stop it, we cant. In order for LEO's to search a vehicle they must have one of the following: (Check Arizona Vs.Gant for latest refinement of searchs by LEO's)

First off, for WHAT reason did you pull over the vehicle? Did you observe the VEHICLE commit a crime? Or did you see a statute infraction? Now, of course you can assume that the "human being" you attempted to incarcerate for some superfluous charge that is in the 600k+statutes that are on the books, is going to be found guilty, but YOU are going to have to remember that by a SUPREME COURT decision I do not have to find them guilty! Oh, and by the way, I have found TWO people so far NG when they decided to actually take it to court. NOW, if this same persons (human beings) would have taken the case to CIVIL court, I would have found the DA and the LEO's GUILTY of infringing on their rights and gave them EVERYTHING YOU OWN! How BOUT them apples. Maybe you should start understanding the ANGER the American public FEELS!

Consent to search - You can refuse and we cannot continue. However we can, within reason, wait for a K9 to show up. USSC has ruled walking a K9 unit around a vehicle does not constiute a search in and of itself.

Yes, I have SEEN the evidence of K9's being used to LIE that they have a hit. I am very well knowledgeable about THAT situation. Tell me, why is it that the statistics for FALSE positives are NOT EVER talked about? Maybe if YOU and your brethren actually went after TRUE criminals instead of my fellow VICTIMLESS citizens, I would give a crap what you think!

Warrant - Issued based on the LEO writing up a search warrant stating exactly what he is looking for. He has to (in most states) meet with the Prosecuting Attornys office to review the search warrant. Once the P.A. signs off on it, it is presented to a judge, who reviews the warrant and asks questions to determine validity / execution under law.

See patriot act, you people no longer need ANYTHING and quit your lying. It is quite refreshing to actually see Sheriffs that actually CARE about Privacy and the FREEDOM we were meant to have. Maybe you should LOOK that up. Warrants were INITIALLY set up that YOU had to swear before a court to further a WARRANT. See the US Constitution, would you like me to quote the EXACT bill of rights amendment?

Contraband in Plain view - If I stop a vehicle and approach and see an open container or controlled substance, then generally speaking I can search the vehicle.

Search incident to arrest - If I am arresting the driver for DWI/DUI/Plainview exception, I can then also search the vehicle.

Please oh Please do not bring up contractual law. Do you even know that Driver's Licensing has NOTHING to do with criminal law. Supposedly people driving have NO criminal rights. They have "supposedly" given up all rights because they have LICENSED with the state to be contractually obligated to follow the "rules of the road". Please do not go there unless you are a priest of the order of BAR. Driver licensing has NOTHING to do with criminal law and QUIT attempting to say it does!

There have been other refinements to this, namely if I stop you for speeding, I run you, and you have a warrant for your arrest, I cannot search the vehicle unless one of the above criteria is met. My state, thanks to Arkansas and established case law in my Federal District (8th circuit) passengers in a car that has been stopped can refuse to provide identification to Law Enforcement without any action taken. A few states prohibit their officers from creating an investigation beyond the reason for the stop (stopped for speeding, then delving into a different crime).

If you are stopped for speeding, and you refuse to cooperate, you will get in trouble. When stopping a vehicle, we have to have reasonable suspicion the crime took place (IE Seeding, running a stop sigh etc). I am not asking guilt seeking questions, because I directly observed the violation.

Voluntary contact by LEO's are about the only exception where you can refuse to cooperate and walk away. If the officer has a case, chances are he will immidiately explain you are being detained.

To finish, you go on to say a few things where the courts have not COMPLETELY stripped our rights. Have you noticed that they are the ones that are NOT licensed?

I am NOT a person. I am not a corporation. I am not an operator of a motor vehicle.

I am a flesh and blood human being that has been endowed by my creator with certain inalienable right that CANNOT be removed by your system.

No animosity, but to this day and to the end of my days, I will fight for my rights!

There is NO crime unless there is a victim! Period! Otherwise it is a CREATED statute by the corporation masquerading as my rightful government! Period.

Still going to use my rights as a citizen of the Republic of Wisconsin in the unincorporated united States of America, no MATTER how much you want me to give YOU jurisdiction over me.

The JURISTS that are my actual judges will back me, not you. They will also begin to take your property and livelihood when the complete truth becomes known.

Understand this, I hold NO animosity, but the longer you and your brethren continue down this road, you will find that we the people will strip you of YOUR rights, just as you have done to us.

My point is, there are checks and balances in place. Is the system perfect? nope. The system strives to balance enforcement of the law while trying to protect a citizens rights.

The paranoia I see in here is just that. It reminds me of the people who claim law enforcement makes up charges against them, complaining how the Officer was, yet never explain why they were stopped in the first place or what caused the officer to react the way they did..

A private citizen technically has more abilities to act than most law enforcement officers. If you detain someone, the worst you can be charged with is kidnapping or felonious restraint. If I do it without a reason, The State and Feds come after me.

If you check the Constitution - There are mechanisms in place for the people to change the government when the government fails to act for the welfare of the people.

Get involved with Government and actively participate. Especially if you think the system has failed and needs to be changed. Continually making blanket statements will not change anything until you mkae the change.

Originally posted by Jenna
Here's the best advice I can give you:

Don't ask for advice about the police on a conspiracy site. That's like asking for a medical diagnosis here. You're just asking for trouble. After a quick read through of this thread, about half of the suggestions will do nothing but cause you more grief and you need to ask yourself if it's really worth it.

Of course its worth it. People need to draw the line in the sand to show the police what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Unless you want to live in a society where their opinion is the law. I probably dont have to explain to you why that would be really, really bad.

If there is anything history has taught us, it is that freedom must be defended or it gets taken away.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


ooook... You are missing some key points, and I am not sure how to explain this anymore than I have. If something looks suspicious, law enforcement can check into it, wheter its someone walking down the street at 3 am, or riding a bicycle late at night.

Based on your arguments above, if I observe someone riding their bicycle with a rifle slung over there shoulders, wearing a ski mask, riding back and forth in front of a bank, I cannot stop and see what they are doing?

The terminology used is totality of circumstances. I am very well aquainted with the 4th amendment, and what I can and cannot do as a Police Officer.

An officer is empowered to investigate anything that looks suspicious, and Terry Vs. Ohio established part of that with stop and frisk was allowed by the courts ruling.

How many people ride their bikes at 10pm at night in the OP's town? Was the area the op was riding his bike in heavily patrolled because of crime? Also you will need to see what the ordinaces are concerning riding bikes at night. Some require reflectors, some require headlights, and if you are riding on a public street some places require yu have the pedal restraints for your feet to fit in.

Its alsp possible the officers were conducting Field Interview REports. Basic information is collected on the off chance crime has occured in the area.

For an entire week in my city I observed 3 young guys (18-19) walking around the neighborhoods. The first few days I noted it in my log, but made no contact. Towards the end of the week, I made contact with them and asked what they were doing. I explained I have seen them a few times that week, at night (usually around 1:30 - 3:30AM) riding around neighborhoods. I requested their names and DOB's and did a Field interview report. A few days later we had a 1st degree burglary occur (house breakin with people present in the house other than the suspects).
A subsequent investigation found the people who did the break in were the people I checked on.

Excert from the ruling (Terry Vs. Ohio)

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions

Terry Vs. Ohio

reply to post by sremmos


Tell the police to get on with their so-called arrests of the bad people.

This is harrassment.

Call your MP, or your member of parliament, or whoever that is in America.

reply to post by endisnighe


Uhm... ok. Everything you stated made absolutely no sense in terms of what my job is, and how I do it. I fail to understand your anger towards law enforcement, when its very apparent your grief is with the Government itself. Everything we do is based on laws that are passed, not by us, but by the government.

Take it up with them and get it changed. Also, Law Enforcement does not "judge" in the manner you are suggesting. We do not work for that side of the government.

As a side note, The Patriot Act has nothing to do with my job at the state local level.

Please do more research before posting please. While I have no issues with people challenging authority / Government, most of what you replied with is incorrect. Also, some of the terms you have used, corporation etc I have seen before in certain groups. Are you a member of one of these groups, or reading their literature? Mind you I have no issues with it, but am curious.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]