best hope some guy named Onus doesn't shoot the president ...
I have been putting together a video to expose the police departments in the area I film. For the last few months they run me for warrants everytime I show up on scene and film.
The best part is on at least 2 occasions they ran me for warrants when I wasn't even there.
Today I am sitting at the beach all by myself and I hear on my scanner that I just showed up on scene and to run me for warrants, haha. I was probably 11 miles from where they were talking about.
Its interesting because I have never once identified myself to police. I have gotten one traffic infraction in my entire life...it was 19 years ago. My car isn't even registered to me.
How do they know my name ? (they obtained and shared it illegally)
Why do they run me for warrants ? (trample free press)
Do the police run all media and press for warrants when they show up on scene ?
Last edited by onus; 12-10-2013 at 04:36 PM.
best hope some guy named Onus doesn't shoot the president ...
I recently uncovered some evidence that the mayor of my city has given an order to the police department to crush me and my filming partner.
It isn't working.
Running you warrants isn't illegal... I'm assuming you know that just aren't happy they do
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
"The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1
And I would think that Onus might have a defamation, libel, or slander cause of action ... depending on the circumstances. I have a libel cause of action now because of what an idiot gov't lawyer told others ...
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-10-2013 at 05:08 PM.
"Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
"I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
"The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."
Onus should get a restraining order~~Ohhhh wait that would apply to him too.
Originally Posted by Primus
TRO and telephoto
If TRUMP 2016 loses then I will shrug off my WHITE MAN'S BURDEN and leave the world to the Dindus and Done Nuffins. Read and understand Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a prescription for the future. TRUMP 2016
Maybe they are waiting for a judge to make a ruling...
Originally Posted by Primus
That and I don't see him trying to solve the problem. Just like poverty-pimps and race-baiters, if the problem ever gets solved, he'd become useless, so his behavior is designed to keep the problem going.
Fwiw, there is a guy who nearly every year tries to drum up support for either law or court action to require police to at least have some indicia of suspicion before they run license plates... in the course of a couple of hours on patrol it's not unusual for me to run a dozen license plates or more, and of course there is no case law that demands I need any reason whatsoever to do so. , He's never been successful of course.
If there is ANY jurisdiction that either through case law or statute, requires ANY indicia of suspicion to run somebody's name for warrants etc. I'd love to know, but I am not aware of any.
Put briefly, there is NO expectation of privacy, in regards to law enforcement, in whether any jurisdiction has issued warrants for your arrest. In many states, the flowery language on the actual warrant reads something like "To any peace officer having jurisdiction to arrest...". Iow, it's an open call to LEO's to enforce them and no reason needed.
Contrast. In many cases, you absolutely have an expectation of privacy vis a vis your name/identity at least to the extent that certain factors must be present for peace officers or any authoritah to demand you present ID, or give your name or whatnot. THAT is a privacy interest. But GIVEN the knowledge OF your identity, there is NO EOP as to whether there are warrants.
This is a longstanding principle. Recall the well established practice of the posting of "wanted posters" whether in old time America, or at the post office. Look at shows like America's Most Wanted. They do not need any permission whatsoever to broadcast far and wide that Person X has a warrant for their arrest.
A warrant is essentially some authority (judge usually) deciding that there is ample cause to arrest somebody (talking arrest warrants obviously) and asking for the assistance of law enforcement in bringing that person before a court. In regards to the privacy thang, it's not personal info, heck you may not even know you have one, it's govt. process.
There are all sorts of frequent fliers, impact offenders, etc. that I will check warrants on either if I see them walking around driving around etc. or even if I don't see them, but might want to go look for them and hook them up if they have warrants. That's probably true of many leo's. It's considered good police work and an example of the executive branch acting at the judicial branch's request to bring somebody before a judge, for any # of reasons from they skipped a court appearance, to they got sentenced but never showed up at the lockup, to the cops got PC and delivered it to a prosecutor, etc etc.
Given the above...
Many love their (relative) anonymity. THis is not a society where cops can demand ID w/o cause and people are free to gambol about in RELATIVE anonymonity. But not really. But any resident of a small town where everybody knows everybody or any celebrity, notorious person., public figure etc. etc has to come to grips with the fact that as they walk about, they are far from anonymous.
Guess what? The reality is if one chooses to open carry, one is (in many communities moreso than others) inviting people (not LEo's but just people) to NOTICE you. If joe blow goes to the store to buy bubble gum, chances are if he becomes a criminal suspect and the cops go to the store clerk and ask "seen this guy", the clerk won't remember. But that's less true if one is open carrying. For some it's shocking, for others interesting, but it makes you stand out such that people are going to be more likely to do a double take, remember the person, etc. etc.
This holds true for others, such as those that choose to wear skimpy clothing in public. It's entirely legal for a woman (or man) to walk down the street wearing pasties and a thong, but guess what? if you do, people are going to remember you, and for those that know your name, they are going to share it with inquisitive others, such that you will be known to far more people in your community.
Carrying a gun openly is somewhat similar. I absolutely have the right to do so, but i'd be naive not to recognize that I AM going to draw more attention to myself than if I carried concealed - more people are going to scrutinize me, do a double take, remember what kind of vehicle I got into or out of, what I am wearing etc.
In many communities, over time, open carriers are almost mini celebrities (whether they know it or not). It's a statitiscally rare occurrence in most communities (parts of arizona etc. excepted), and people tend to pay attention to, remember, and discuss the unusual. not the mundane
So, if you've been OCing in your community for some time, and especailly if it's a small town, etc. it's not at all unlikely that you are going to be a mini celebrity of sorts, amongs peace officers as well as people in general. OCing is a right, but it's also a spectacle in many communities and just like the person exercising their right to free speech, who carries a sign and makes a scene for one and all to notice (and generally speaking, a person engaged in such advocacy WANTs to be noticed obviously ), people are going to notice, discuss, SHARE your name with those who don't know it etc.
If one values one's anonymity, there is often going to be a price to be paid for open carrying, in that you are going to be less anonymous , known to more people, noticed by more people, etc. It's not unlike what I experience as a police officer, where I am going to be watched far more often than if I am walking around in plainclothes amongst those who don't know me. I'll go t a store on duty and then a week later, go there off duty and it's not at all uncommon for the clerk to say something like "hey, not working today? got the day off?" They remember me, whereas they likely would not have if I was just another guy in line to buy cheezy poofs
So, there could be any # of perfectly legal ways your name became known to the cops, and recognize that once it;'s known to one, very often that information is shared - at roll call, or just when cops are talking smack.
People who are offended or surprised by this remind me of Cartman in the recent south park episode about privacy/NSA etc. where he walks around loudly having conversations on his cell phone and then gets pissed off when people know his bidness. duh
As another example, similar to the cop and the OCer, years ago I lived in a town in New england and would often go surfing. Surfing was pretty rare back then, in that area. In california, etc. people don't look twice, but in that town, they DID. My best friend (also a surfer) and I thus gained a sort of mini celebrity - "oh, there goes surfer d00d" and when I later applied to be a firefighter and a cop, my background investigation was easier because people knew me (at least by face ... if not my name) and if I had done something illegal in public, i would more likely be noticed and REMEMBERED - the observed act associated with a name vs. unknown. People I had never met in the fire dept and PD "knew" me in the sense of "surfer dood". They knew what car I drove. since they saw me drive with it with a surfboard on a roof, and many had asked of others generally curious stuff etc. That's a price you pay when you CHOOSE to engage in certain activities no matter how legal and constitutionally protected, like OCing. It's a price of course only IF you value "walk around" anonymity. Guess what? Just like the smalltown cop, you are now a celebrity, a known entity, etc. much moreso than if you weren't OCing around town. No private investigator in their right mind, if authorize to carry, would ever carry OC for exactly that reason. The LAST thing a PI wants, when on stakeout etc. is to be noticed and the better known they are, the more likely that's going to happen and/or blow their stakeout and tip off the target.
We could speculate as to any # of myriad ways the cops could have found out your name, then, all perfectly legal and above board. And of course given your name, there's no prohibition whatsoever on them running computer warrant checks as often as they like. Unlike a terry stop or even surveillance in a public place (where even though there is no expect of privacy , the cops cannot just choose to surveil you over and over w/o due cause w/o getting slapped with a suit and./or internal discipine ) etc. , they are 100% free to make those warrant checks anytime they want.
I would assume that especially for those cops who are ideologically opposed to open carry, the neighborhood celebrity open carrier is going to be one of those people they check warrants on. It's not fair in the cosmic sense, but if you choose to bring scrutiny and minicelebrity upon oneself and any OCer who doesn't realize they may be doing that (again , depending on where they live) is a fool.
So, hey. Welcome to the club . I've dealt with it as a cop for decades. People are going to notice you, talk behind your back, etc. where they would not have in the past and your "freedom" to go about your daily chores without being noticed is diminished. Some of us like being minicelebrities, other's don't and for most it's good at times and annoying at times. It's also one of the reasons I have to be doubly circumspect about how I act in public, because it is MUCH more likely I will be noticed and remembered and wont be anonymous to the viewer AND it will negatively reflect on my PD as well as myself. FOr the Ocer, the same is true in that acting like a ******* will negatively reflect on all OCers whether we like it or not, people tend to think that way. People here do it all the time with cops, for instance, and well... welcome to the club
Hey wall of text~~Onus posts his name online, it is all over google, and on his videos. Plus they have arrested him at least once, and at least one traffic ticket on a bicycle. Which he would not have gotten except he was harassing a police officer who was not even doing anything related to him.
Originally Posted by Primus
The thing that should worry residents of my city (besides the constitutional rights violations) is that on at least two occasions they have said I was on scene filming and run me for warrants.......and I wasn't even there.
Today was the best one though. I was at the beach laying on the sand listening to my scanner and playing with my Go Pro. I heard the police telling dispatchers that I just arrived on their scene with usual filming partner and to run us both for warrants. Only problem was I wasn't there.
Cops are stupid.
fwiw, in brief (lol), running your name for warrants is in no way a practice that interferes with your rights (1st, 2nd and whatever) which is well established. I have seen occasions where cops have run complainants, rp's, witnesses, etc. for warrants. When and if to run is a tactical decision. For example, if it's a soccer mom with 3 kids in the car and you run for warrants, you better be prepared to deal with the 3 kids if she has some cheezy, yet mandatory warrant.
You (op) may FEEL like they are punishing you, interfering w/your rights, etc. and you may also feel that the REASON they are running your name is that they are filming you, but the truth is they run people's names in all sorts of situations. if they only ran people who filmed them or otherwise engaged in activity critical or monitoring of the police, you might get a little traction.
But given the fact pattern that you presented and in reference ot my longwinded, but lovely :l reply above...
You gotta suck it up. As a cop myself, I enjoy being filmed. Many don't. I am sure some that are filmed and are running your name hope you have a warrant, so they can get "satisfaction" but even if they did and you did, the warrant is still a legitimate arrest and unless you could show they only arrest political protesters, filmer, etc. with warrants but not others, again... no case against them
I'd love to see what evidence you or others have that they are running you for warrant IN AN ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Sorry,. but since it is COMMON practice for police to check names for warrants WHETHER OR NOT engaged in criminal activity, or ANY activity at all, your FEELING that this is the case is just that. A feeling. If you could show some kind of pattern where the cops drove around and ONLY ran names of people filming or protesting or whatnot, you might have a case, but it's not going to happen.
Like it or not, cops can run a person for warrants without ANY reason whatsoever except simply to check ./ Your logic seems to be
1) i am filming the police
2) when I do so, they check me for warrants
3) their intent is to suppress my right to do (1)
no amount of (2) is going to prove (3).
a simple check of the MDT, Cad etc. is going to show them running names for all sorts of purposes and most importantly for NO purpose at all.
If you could find messages etc. where the person explicitly said "let's check this guy for warrants since he is filming us and maybe we can get him and stop him from filming etc." then you might get somewhere, but that;'s not going to happen, likely.
What is paramount is that
** Engaging in a constitutionally protected activity does NOT immunize you from a police query for warrants given that they know your name. They need no reason to do so, HOWEVER they often do so at most because a person they know is in proximity... whether filming or not.
There are specific constitutional provisions against arrest, etc. in situations where it's amember of congress en route to a session and also protection for diplomats. Other than that.. you just gotta suck it up
I know it sucks, and I get why you FEEL the way you do, but feelings don't trump provable facts.
RS or PC should be required to run names and car plates, is that guy that tries to drum up the support here in Washington. If so can you link.
Also did you read Hibbel, where SCOTUS actually seemingly countered some of your claims.
Again the comparison of government agents to private individuals, the constitutional restraint to remain secure from infringement of my person and my effects applies to cops and their masters.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
If the only questions being asked are: Do we already have an arrest warrant for this person whose name we already have? Or, is this car in front of me reported stolen? Or, does the registrant of this car have any outstanding tickets or warrants that we already know about? then, meh.
The invasion of privacy occurs when they get your name, not when they check for warrants.
What this boils down to is "expectation of privacy". The police do not have that exception because they have a public job. The press is ALSO a public job, unless Onus wants to admit he is not a member of the press.
Both parties are in public view, a public place, with no expectation of privacy.
Originally Posted by Primus
iv never been cited. ive never provided any personal info to police.
ive never been arrested by them.
I have busted their surveillance teams many times.
This is a war. Its the government against the citizen.
Its just that simple.
Who's selling popcorn for this show?
Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by P.J. O'Rourke; The Liberty Manifesto