Oceanside UOC Stop

oc4ever said:

I think you did a great job. Too bad they stomped on your Constitutional rights along the way. Frankly a three minute detention without the LEO's showing any poor attitude is not bad. Maybe a call to the Oceanside PD brass might help them with training on the serial number issue. Hard to dispute your video.

Click to expand...

wolfeinstein said:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

Click to expand...

cato said:

To my brothers in blue,

You need to go back to the squad room and review a few things (all Supreme Court 4th Amendment Cases);

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...UQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFV2w45wiRINg5YC2O89bsBg0iTBw

Arizona vs HICKS - you can not manipulate an object (search) to find the serial number which you don't have the power to keep in your custody, even when it is in 'plain view'. You were obviously searching for the serial number; an activity which is not part of checking the chamber for a round - the only activity authorized by 12031(e) PC (the constitutionality of which is in doubt since it is an non-warrant search for criminal activity absent consent, an exception, or probable cause).


http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHogb9ZrnfbZvC8qO0mmbViDgf6OA

JL vs Floridia - there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment.


http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHy4NTCioUsvFfYd1FwvC16uMulkQ

Terry vs Ohio - A patdown is for officer safety during a legal detention for criminal investigation supported by reasonable articulated suspicion AND the officer has articulable belief that the person detained is both armed AND dangerous. If armed was synonymous with dangerous the Supreme Court would not have used the second descriptor.

There was NO suspicion of criminal activity yet you prolonged this detention falsely imprisoning this man. You unlawfully searched that free American's property against his explicit instructions. You unlawfully put your hands on his body, an assault under color of law. And you say you were just doing your job? Ever hear of the Nuremburg defense? Shame on you bro.

Click to expand...

IYAOYAS said:

Just an update: Today I went and talked to the supervisor at the OPD about the incident. The SGT. seemed like a really good guy and pro 2A I brought up the three issues that I had with the conduct of the officers involved i.e. Search of serial number, physically detained, and search of my person. We both agreed that this is a training issue that needed to be addressed with the junior officers, He said that he would bring these issues up with the DA and inform me of what they say. He said that the officer was new to the force and training would be implemented. I kinda wish that excuse worked with traffic tickets.
Im sorry your honor I am a new driver I wasn't aware of all the little traffic ordinances.
I informed him that as long as it is legal I will continue to UOC and when I feel my rights are violated I will comply with orders while verbally protesting and I will not physically resist his officers. He said he wished more people protested as peaceful as I did.
In conclusion I think that the issues will be dealt with through the chain of cmd. I feel that we have all learned from the experience and the OPD and UOCer's are kinda on the same page. Still there is much work to do because the general public doesn't have this understanding and they will continue to call the Police on law abiding citizens exercising their rights openly which will continue to be a waste of the Police departments time and tax payer dollars. I think that officers should follow up with "concerned" citizens that call them on UOCers and explain to the citizen that it is perfectly legal for a person to UOC in california.

Click to expand...

Sons of Liberty said:

Excellent points, sir!

Click to expand...

cato said:

To my brothers in blue,

You need to go back to the squad room and review a few things (all Supreme Court 4th Amendment Cases);

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...UQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFV2w45wiRINg5YC2O89bsBg0iTBw

Arizona vs HICKS - you can not manipulate an object (search) to find the serial number which you don't have the power to keep in your custody, even when it is in 'plain view'. You were obviously searching for the serial number; an activity which is not part of checking the chamber for a round - the only activity authorized by 12031(e) PC (the constitutionality of which is in doubt since it is a non-warrant search for criminal activity absent consent, an exception, or probable cause).


http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHogb9ZrnfbZvC8qO0mmbViDgf6OA

JL vs Floridia - there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment.


http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHy4NTCioUsvFfYd1FwvC16uMulkQ

Terry vs Ohio - A patdown is for officer safety during a legal detention for criminal investigation supported by reasonable articulated suspicion AND the officer has articulable belief that the person detained is both armed AND dangerous. If armed was synonymous with dangerous the Supreme Court would not have used the second descriptor.

There was NO suspicion of criminal activity yet you prolonged this detention falsely imprisoning this man. You unlawfully searched that free American's property against his explicit instructions. You unlawfully put your hands on his body, an assault under color of law. And you say you were just doing your job? Ever hear of the Nuremburg defense? Shame on you bro.

Click to expand...

cato said:

I would recommend sending them something in writting via registered return receipt mail. Supervisors (Sgts) have a way of talking out of both sides of their mouths. They know how to talk to you, make you feel good so you don't file a formal complaint, and protect their men. I'm not saying make a formal complaint just put them on notice. It could help you in the future. Just send the sgt. an e-mail memorializing the conversation.

Have you applied to SDSO and gotten a ccw denial for legal insurance?

Click to expand...