Stopped while OC ing last night

imported post

Police officers have no expectation of privacy in the discharge of their duties, record away

imported post

LOL see previous post.

edit out echo.

imported post

avdrummerboy wrote:

Yes, ID's (wallets) were taken from us no questions asked.

Click to expand...

I think DK has the proper remedy for that. Sterile carry is something you have to make a conscious decision about, and we have been conditioned to have it with us at all times. I leavemy DLin my vehicle, because that is the only place I am required by statute toproduceit...

imported post

You were molested and raped; from a rights perspective.

Verbally and continuously object. If the LEO really were up on UOC and respected your rights, they would not have done the things they did. Bullies are quick to exploit a submissive/passive posture. Be prepared and stand up for your rights. If you don't, there is no one going to care what happens to you.

Welcome to the wonderful world of bearing arms!

imported post

thedeadcat wrote:

The first casual request for information at the Apple Valley station of San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department was not granted. I would like to know if anyone here has information or advice on how best to go about requisitioning the information, call logs, radio logs, etc relating to our detention.

Click to expand...

Good luck in getting ANY significant information through a California PRAR. Of course there is the avenue of filing with the court and seeking and in-camera (legal term)review of the recordsby a judge who would determine whether the agency is justified in its denial of release of records.........$ $ $ $ $

Unless SBSD SOP differs significantly from LAPD-San Pedro, don't expect to obtain anything beyond a bare-bones, single page response to a PRAR, noting:

For anything else, certainly in my and Chewy352's San Pedro experience, the agency willlikely claim"investigation!," and thus deny inspectionand/or release of all records.

Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...Audio, video, friendly witness...

imported post

avdrummerboy wrote:

Yes, ID's (wallets) were taken from us no questions asked.

Click to expand...

No, you gave consent... for everything that happened.

As a cop friend of mine told me: "Didn't you know, everybody consents to everything... unless there's a recording to the contrary."

imported post

When the thug put his hands on you and went through your pockets you should have said:

Stop! Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape! Serve the search warrant before making the search. What, you don't have a warrant? Well I never consented to a search so call your training officer over here so you can explain to him why you stopped and detained me without reasonable suspicion and why you searched me without probable cause. What, you're a veteran and don't have a T.O.? Well get your supervisor over here then. Jeez, you suck at your job! I hope your replacement will be better at it.

imported post

Yard Sale wrote:

When the thug put his hands on you and went through your pockets you should have said:

Stop! Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape! Serve the search warrant before making the search. What, you don't have a warrant? Well I never consented to a search so call your training officer over here so you can explain to him why you stopped and detained me without reasonable suspicion and why you searched me without probable cause. What, you're a veteran and don't have a T.O.? Well get your supervisor over here then. Jeez, you suck at your job! I hope your replacement will be better at it.

Click to expand...

Rodney King?

I think just saying 'I do not consent to this search or to any seizure'.

imported post

Yard Sale wrote:

When the thug put his hands on you and went through your pockets you should have said:

Stop! Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape! Serve the search warrant before making the search. What, you don't have a warrant? Well I never consented to a search so call your training officer over here so you can explain to him why you stopped and detained me without reasonable suspicion and why you searched me without probable cause. What, you're a veteran and don't have a T.O.? Well get your supervisor over here then. Jeez, you suck at your job! I hope your replacement will be better at it.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny

imported post

RAS only allows for a detention for investigation, not for any search or demand for ID. Now if one is detained for a lawful investigation and an officer has cause to believe that you are not only armed but also dangerous then an open hand pat down only (not pinching or grabbing) for weapons is allowed.

imported post

cato wrote:

RAS only allows for a detention for investigation, not for any search or demand for ID.

Click to expand...

Really? In WI RAS can get a demand for ID but all we have to do is verbally ID ourselves with name and address. They cannot demand ID paperwork.

imported post

Hello TheDeadCat,

Here is an article regarding a case in New Mexico regarding the same issues. Judge Black's ruling is on the web from reliable .org sources.

Your rights were violated, and the police officer's qualified immunity was overstepped. Our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I feel, would rule against the cops if your case came before them, as they are not cop friendly.

What happened to you may be a $21,000 offense committed by the police.

Too bad you don't have a recording.

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4581

I hope this shortcut works forJudge Black's ruling:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fopencarry.mywowbb.com%2Fattachment.php%3Fid%3D7856&ei=n0kSTPyEGMiHnQfYg_mQAw&usg=AFQjCNHayJKZcQcXocYW20PUHLN7I0eqKA

Practice self-mirandizing yourself for the next time. With the new Supreme Court ruling regarding Miranda, you must Mirandize yourself! Don't stand there and let the cops "skirt" your rights with pig-tricks (I am not a cop hater--we need police).

"I will allow a 12031 (e) check in strict accordance with California law, but I will not submit to illegal searches and seizures, or answer questionswithout my lawyer present."

I am an avid supporter of the police; however, "we the people" need to keep LEO honest. It is our job as citizens to keep police-power under control.

Oh yea, I OCed and LOCed this last weekendin prohibited shooting areas and open shooting areas. No LEO encounters. I was hunting for a short time and carried my hunting license and tag. For a while I carried UCC in accordance with 12027(g).

markm

Edit: Added underline and increased font size to self mirandizing language.

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

cato wrote:

RAS only allows for a detention for investigation, not for any search or demand for ID.

Click to expand...

Really? In WI RAS can get a demand for ID but all we have to do is verbally ID ourselves with name and address. They cannot demand ID paperwork.

Click to expand...

CA has no "stop and ID" statute compliant with Hiibel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

imported post

cato wrote:

...then an open hand pat down only (not pinching or grabbing) for weapons is allowed.

Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for this? In Minnesota v. Dickerson a police officer patted a subject down, thought he felt drug contraband, then felt it with his fingers through the clothing, and then pulled the object out (which ended up being crack cocaine). Was this wrong or is there defined steps that must take place in a specific order (such as, open hand pat down, then if you feel something which you suspect is illegal, then you can use your fingers)?

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

cato wrote:

RAS only allows for a detention for investigation, not for any search or demand for ID.

Click to expand...

Really? In WI RAS can get a demand for ID but all we have to do is verbally ID ourselves with name and address. They cannot demand ID paperwork.

Click to expand...

What's the difference? (rhetorical)

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

cato wrote:

...then an open hand pat down only (not pinching or grabbing) for weapons is allowed.

Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for this? In Minnesota v. Dickerson a police officer patted a subject down, thought he felt drug contraband, then felt it with his fingers through the clothing, and then pulled the object out (which ended up being crack cocaine). Was this wrong or is there defined steps that must take place in a specific order (such as, open hand pat down, then if you feel something which you suspect is illegal, then you can use your fingers)?

Click to expand...

read it again!!!!! the drugs found were fruit if the poisenous tree!!
a pat down for weapons cannot find drugs,,, only weapons.
the drugs found were suppressed!!
it is not the only case law that supports the pat down, only for weapons..

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

cato wrote:

...then an open hand pat down only (not pinching or grabbing) for weapons is allowed.

Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for this? In Minnesota v. Dickerson a police officer patted a subject down, thought he felt drug contraband, then felt it with his fingers through the clothing, and then pulled the object out (which ended up being crack cocaine). Was this wrong or is there defined steps that must take place in a specific order (such as, open hand pat down, then if you feel something which you suspect is illegal, then you can use your fingers)?

Click to expand...

In Dickerson the court threw out the contraband they found. The "Plain Feel" rule was established allowing a Peace Officer to sieze contraband that was IMMEDIATELY identifiable as contraband without further manipulation than is necessary to identify an object as not a weapon.

imported post

Thanks Mark for the info.

I wrote this letter and submitted it to the local paper (it hasn't yet been published, don't know if it will be)



Four days ago I was accosted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. My friends and I were detained without cause and searched without reason. Having committed no crime we were held against our will by four Sheriff’s deputies and a sergeant, our pockets searched and our belongings seized and never once was cause or reason given for this clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights; all of this because we were exercising our second amendment rights in full compliance with state and local laws.

In the state of California it is legal for an individual who may legally possess a firearm to openly carry a handgun without a license so long as that handgun is not loaded. The only legal search that may be done is to verify that the weapon is unloaded. In Terry v Ohio, The US Supreme Court has held that, should a peace officer have reasonable suspicion that we were engaged in criminal activity they may detain and perform a pat search for weapons and only weapons. Had the extent to which we were molested only included such a pat search I would not have felt so violated. However, the three Sheriff’s deputies who performed the searches went far beyond what was legally permissible. They reached into pockets, removed wallets, car keys, and cell phones, none of which could have been mistaken for a weapon, and kept them in their possession for the duration of our detention. They ran our identifications, criminal records and serial numbers on our weapons, all overstepping their authority and the limits placed on them by the 4th amendment to the constitution and over 200 years of case law and American jurisprudence.

The right to keep and bear arms has been established in this country since December 15, 1791 and The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this as an individual right in 2008 with District of Columbia v Heller, idea that exercising these rights in a non-threatening and perfectly legal manner will subject you to detention by the government and a search and seizure of your belongings is not something which can be tolerated, but more than that we cannot tolerate a policing authority which does not understand or willingly refuses accept the rule of law which is the foundation for the survival of any republic. The fact that an agency we as a society employ for the sole function of protecting us from harm will not prevent itself from instigating such harm should inflame in the heart of every American the understanding that an armed citizenry truly is required for the preservation of this Union.

I, and my friends who were molested that night, understand the need for the police to protect themselves from harm, we understand that theirs is a dangerous profession relied on by the people to keep us safe, but there is a point beyond which any search alters the searcher from a position of legal authority entrusted to them into an illegitimate tyrant.

I ask that all Americans embrace their rights, even if they are not rights you would yourself exercise, if only to demonstrate that we are still a nation which recognizes that it is “we the people” who are in control and that those in government trusted with the authority to arrest and even use deadly force, still answer inevitably to us.

imported post

fine letter,,
maybe they would print it as an obit for the 4th amendment?

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

fine letter,,
maybe they would print it as an obit for the 4th amendment?

Click to expand...

DITTO!