View Full Version : General Information
This is a great thread. I wonder noone wrote in here. Most of us write locally but there is some general issues and they are almost the same in most States. For example prostitution is illegal in US with the exception of Nevada LasVegas. On the other hand it's legal in Canada with lots of restrictions.
I found an official site for Canada;
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/index.html
AmIaCriminal2
12-29-06, 20:00
I would be interested in joining any assocoiation fighting for Civil Rights of legalizing prostitution. Does anyone know of large national organization? Alot of Civl Rights Groups have organized and gotten equal right in the past 30 years; how about us?
There is an organization. It is the Libertarian Party. Below is a portion of their official platform:
If you believe in these ideals, you should become a member. It is cheap and they don't bombard you with junk mail.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime
The Issue: Violent crime and fraud threaten the lives, happiness and belongings of Americans. Government's ability to protect the rights and property of individuals from crimes of violence and fraud is compromised because resources are focused on vice rather than on real crimes. Laws that codify "victimless crimes" turn those who simply conduct voluntary transactions and exercise free choice into criminals. This results in the United States having one of the highest percentages of the population in prison of any country in the world; yet real crime remains prevalent in many parts of the country.
Principle: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.
Solution: The appropriate way for the federal government to address crime is through consistent and impartial enforcement of laws that protect individual rights. The law enforcement resources of the federal government can be used most efficiently if limited to appropriate federal concerns. Limiting law enforcement to true crime will restore respect for the law and those who enforce it.
Transitional Action: Immediately reform the justice system's mandatory sentencing policies to ensure that violent offenders are not released from jail to make room for non-violent offenders. Repeal criminal laws which work against the protection of the rights and freedom of American citizens, residents or visitors, particularly laws which create a crime where no victim exists.
AmIaCriminal2
12-31-06, 11:08
Yah. I already vote Libertarian. I am just suprised there isn't a civil Rights organization focusing solely on legalizing prostitution. It is a life style choice between consenting adults and we people choosing this lifestyle are oppressed. Mostly through religious lobbyist groups which I am sure would be illegal due to Seperation of Church and State, and the fact that there are urine tests strips to check for bacterial and viral diseases and that there can be medical cards to show for AIDS and Hepitiis Screenings, as well as condoms, it seems time to get a National Organization for the Legalization for Prostitution. Hell I guess I should start it. I'll get a website and start it.
My post was not completely accurate so I am posting some quotes I received Sorry
QUOTE=PsyberZombie]That quote is in·accurate with regards to Las Vegas , as KC·Q just wrote below
It's also wrong about Prostitution ONLY being Legal in Nevada
Here in my home state of Rhode Island , In·door Prostitution is totally Legal
Soliciting is il·legal , though , which is why so many guys here get the girls' digits and arrange
perfectly legal private indoor 'dates' with them
When LE busts AMPs here , the only thing they can charge is operating a massage facility with
the masseuses not being properly licensed ; and immigration violations
The legality of in·door prostitution has also turned our strip clubs into barely disguised Brothels[/QUOTE]
Actually it is NOT legal in Las Vegas. Lots of tourists head to "Sin City" thinking that it is, and the scads of escort services operating in the open might serve to convince. But in fact Clark County (which includes Las Vegas) is the only county in Nevada which could not have legal prostitution.
Under Nevada law, any county with a population of fewer than 400,000 is allowed to license brothels if it so chooses (NRS 244.345). As of January 2005, Clark County is the only county in Nevada with a population of over 400,000.
The town of Pahrump, 60 miles outside of Las Vegas, is the location of the closest legal house of prostitution for visitors to the neon nightlife.
This is a copy/paste of a conversation that has taken place in the Cincinnati Board.
I have, as per Jackson's suggestion, reposted the salient parts of the conversation here, in order to stimulate further conversation on the matter, and to clear the conversation from the Cincinnati board, as it is not directly related to Mongering.
Again, this is a repost, the original thread can be found here: http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3977 These posts end with post number 425 in that section.
{SPECIAL NOTE to Jackson: I am not intentionally violating the Blue Law of the Forum in this repost, just trying to accurately reflect the conversation as it occurred on the Cincinnati board, including your Editor's Notes.}
I would never allow a cop to search my car, especially if sw held drugs and possibly dropped it on the floor. There is no reason to give a cop more ammo to put you in jail. But even if I had nothing in my car, I will never grant permission for someone to rifle through my belongings. We do have rights.
EDITOR'S SUGGESTION: This is interesting, but you might consider re-posting it under the Police Tactics and Legal Issues thread in the Special Interests section of the Forum where it will benefit the Forum Members who are specifically looking for this type of information. Thanks!
Hmmm...
I'm from Indianapolis, but kind of keep an eye on the activities in the surrounding region as well, after all, you never know, a post from a nearby area may make me decide to take a road trip.
Here's my .02 about your friend's encounter. I am not a lawyer, so take it for what it's worth.
{Fair Warning, and an Apology to all of you, and to Jackson. This is a LOOONNG post.}
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
...Yes, he COULD have argued with LE about the legitimacy of the stop (for which there was NOT even a flimsy excuse...) ...No traffic violation, seat belts fastened--the sole reason for the stop?
You have every right to ask why you are being stopped. Yes, LE will come up with some BS excuse, but it's a good idea to let LE know that you know you haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to be confrontational about it, just ask why you're being stopped. They have to have a reason. In fact, LE has to have what is called "Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion" that you are involved in a Criminal Activity, or have demonstrably broken the Law (ie. speeding) to pull you over. Asking why you are pulled over lets the LEO know you are, at least somewhat, aware of your Rights. They will be a bit more careful during the rest of the encounter if, in fact, this is just a harassment stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
...Yes, he COULD have "stood up for his rights" and said, "No way, you can't search my vehicle," even being confident that there was nothing in there by which they could nail him (no drugs, no guns, no nuthin'...)...
Basically, the same applies to a search of the vehicle as does pulling you over in the first place. If a LEO sees something in plain sight which is illegal; drugs for instance, then they have Probable Cause. However, just searching in hopes of finding something is not allowed, and is a violation of your Rights. Unless they have PC, they are required to secure your permission to make a search, and you have every Right to refuse a search. When they do search your vehicle, the trunk of the vehicle is not automatically included in the search. They can only search the area that is in direct control of the driver at that time, that being the cabin of the vehicle. Permission to search the trunk is required, and it is separate and apart from the permission to search the cabin of the vehicle.
Also, regardless of what they would have you believe, if a guest in your vehicle is carrying something illegal, again, let's say drugs, then you cannot be also held responsible, even if you know they a carrying. Of course, if your guest throws them under your seat, then you are responsible, as it is your vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
But, as BSG suggests--how much time do you want to spend in police custody to make a point?
OK, some terminology clarification is in order here. "Police Custody" suggests that you have been arrested, and there are laws regarding how long you can be held before a hearing, how long before charges are filed, etc. I believe though, that you are speaking more specifically about "how long do you want to be stuck at the side of the road doing Stupid Human Tricks?" This is quite separate from Police Custody, and also quite different from being "Detained".
Being Detained means you are being held, basically for suspicion of a crime that they don't quite have enough to tie you to yet. It's the first formal step before "Custody/{Arrest}"
However, unless you are being formally Detained, the longest LE is allowed to hold you, and make you do the Stupid Human Tricks, is 20 minutes. That's why you should always ask if you are free to go/are you being detained. Generally, they will have to say "No", and establishes that you are not Detained/Arrested. Again, it let's them know you are aware of your Rights. You should ask this often while LE is questioning you. If, after 20 minutes, they have no reason to detain you, then you, legally, have every Right to leave. Of course, wording this to the LE is tricky, you don't want to make them think you are trying to escape, etc. and, granted, it takes HUGE cahones to say "OK Officer, we've been here 20 minutes now, am I being Detained? No, OK, well, as per my Rights, I leaving now.", but, those are your Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
There are times when we take a stand, and are willing to be held in custody, or even go to jail for it--but (and doesn't LE know it) most of us duck and take cover.
Correction, LE DOES know it. That's why they do it. They know that most people just want to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible, hoping for the best, and get away with as little hassle, or as small of a ticket as possible. After all, everyone is taught to Respect the Law, and Police Officers. They take that very Respect for granted, and use it against you in order to try to get you to confess to doing something, or into giving up some of your Rights, so they can get a bigger case out of the encounter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
I would love to hear of one of us who EVER said to LE, "No, I will only give you my name, call my lawyer. No, you can't search my car. No, I will not answer ANY of your questions..." If you have, let us know.
Ironically, as for giving them your name, it is your Right not to give them that information either. You don't have to give a LEO your license either. It is up to them to positively identify you. After all, we are not a "Papers Please" type of country. (On a related note, if you are arrested it is your Right to refuse to be fingerprinted and/or have a mug shot taken as well. The Supreme Court has ruled that your fingerprints are your Personal Property, and you cannot be compelled to submit them. In some states (Indiana is one) LE will often times ask you to put a thumb print on a ticket you receive, you have the Right to refuse to provide that print as well.)
You have the absolute Right to Remain Silent. You are not required to answer any questions asked of you. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
Short of that, we all agree that it is scandalous the way that, in the name of the Patriot Act, etc, that individual rights have been eroded, LE lies, schemes, deceives, and bullies the "underclass" in ways that violates civil rights.
It's too easy to blame to Patriot Act. Granted, there are definitely excesses in it, but the major problems in the System have existed well before the Patriot Act was passed, and, we have all been trained to be submissive, and, as you put it, "duck and take cover".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giani
What happened to "Law and Order" in the "Land of the Free?" And is there a way we can fight this injustice without going straight to jail or paying a lawyer big bucks??? Maybe not. Giani
The Land of the Free is, for the most part, still there. We just have to be willing to stand up, and protect our Rights. "Duck and Take Cover" theories only help erode our Rights. Protecting them is the right thing to do.
Also, keep this in mind: the Supreme Court has also ruled that the protection of your Rights cannot be converted into a crime. If you get arrested because you were protecting your Rights, then you have a Major League Civil Rights Lawsuit you can file for having those Rights violated.
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.
For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.
Here's the URL of the site that Harpo2u was referring to/quoting from: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2605.
Visit this site for information related to some of our other Rights that are constantly being trampled upon: http://www.landrights.com. Warning, this guy has some odd ideas about Hydrogen Peroxide, and some other stuff, but, for the most part, alot of his information is true. I am acquainted with a person who is involved in the law, and he says most of the info there is valid.
Really finally, to answer your question: I have not yet begun to protect all of my Rights when dealing with LE either. I generally give them my license, and answer their questions. I have refused a Search before, and the LEO didn't say anything, just walked around the car, hoping to see something that would give them PC to search. As I learn more from my friend who often deals with protecting our Rights, I learn more, and learn how to protect my Rights. Knowledge is the Answer to fighting the Injustice you speak of.
Wallie
PS, this whole conversation should probably, as Jackson suggested, be moved to the Legal Affairs Section of the Guide.
OK guys... Let's be straight up. Tell us when YOU said no to LE...
To my friends on the board who busted the chops of my friend (see previous posts).
I agree that my friend might have handled things differently. But reconsider several facts:
He had, in fact, NOT picked up the black girl in OTR--he was IN FACT driving through OTR (BIG mistake) to take her for a bite to eat... He made no flagrant traffic moves, did not call attention to himself except... see next. (Yes--he WAS hoping for a little intimacy after the meal--NOT a crime, inspite of LE's claim.)
Yes, he COULD have argued with LE about the legitimacy of the stop (for which there was NOT even a flimsy excuse...) I mean, EXCUSE him for driving in Hamilton County with an out of county license plate--and EXCUSE him for having a black girl in the vehicle, he being white... (LE: "You know--it looks bad a white guy having a black girl in his vehicle..." Sheesh.) No traffic violation, seat belts fastened--the sole reason for the stop? Racially mixed couple, out of county license...
Yes, he COULD have "stood up for his rights" and said, "No way, you can't search my vehicle," even being confident that there was nothing in there by which they could nail him (no drugs, no guns, no nuthin'...). But, as BSG suggests--how much time do you want to spend in police custody to make a point? There are times when we take a stand, and are willing to be held in custody, or even go to jail for it--but (and doesn't LE know it) most of us duck and take cover. Yes, my friend copped out instead of resisting... Maybe I would have done differently--maybe not. And you???
I would love to hear of one of us who EVER said to LE, "No, I will only give you my name, call my lawyer. No, you can't search my car. No, I will not answer ANY of your questions..." If you have, let us know.
Short of that, we all agree that it is scandalous the way that, in the name of the Patriot Act, etc, that individual rights have been eroded, LE lies, schemes, deceives, and bullies the "underclass" in ways that violates civil rights.
What happened to "Law and Order" in the "Land of the Free?" And is there a way we can fight this injustice without going straight to jail or paying a lawyer big bucks??? Maybe not.
Giani
Indeed you got that right - but "spelling" you did not...
But beyond all this legal advice below - I say - do not put yourself into the position were the Police even have to ask you to search anything. Then there is nothing to worry about.
If you get pulled over doing this hobby, then you need to stop doing it for awhile and reflect. You have done something to draw attention to yourself and thus the Police came into the picture. I have seen some mongers do some really dumb stuff out there, insofar as driving and the way they approach the girls. If you don't blend into the surroundings then you will stick out and the cops will have an interest in you.
Also be aware that the "Patriot Act" while the intent was to give Law Enforcement powers to fight terrorists, the same laws can be applied to any Americans and the definition of "probable cause" has been severely watered down.
Best thing to do if the Police pull you over is to only answer yes or no to questions and to cooperate. Do not offer information that is not asked for and keep you your mouth shut. Be polite. Do not agitate them or question them. Do not tell them how to do their job. If you do not have something to hide, then do not act as if you do. For me it is not a question of right or wrong or rights - it is a question of how long do you have sit there with them and go through that. For me - the answer is I want it over as soon as possible - thus, the less you prolong them the less time you will be there.
That is my word.
Harpo You Are Right On Target ....
.
..
....
This is a POST that can NEVER be repeated enough !!!!
It was just posted again last Summer (06). The poster gave a web site to go to, to know your RIGHTS. It should be a part of the Header next to the Home and Forum buttons.
I have been Stopped before and I have NEVER EVER, consented to ever have my car search. Even when threatened by Cops that if I am not hidding anything, what harm is it. Or that they can have a drug dog down in 30 minutes to walk around the car. I still say NO !!! I don't do drugs so, there is nothing to hide, but I will never give up freely my constitutional right(s) regardless.
Ask any Attorney and they will tell you exactly the same. Ask the proper questions, as if you can leave. If you are being detailed or arrested
" KEEP QUIET" even if they say the girl told them everything. A decent Attorney can CRUSH that statement easily.
The Police are hoping you are Too Afraid and will talk, or the you don't know your right, because they will lie to you, or that you are just being a good citizen .... Yea, Right !!!!
That same goes for your Home as Will as your Car. Go on line to
Lexus Nexus ( I think that is the spelling ) and you can buy copies of The Ohio Search Warrant Laws, and the ALMIGHT .... Ohio Revised Code. Get two copies, one for your home the other for your car. And let the Cop know you wish to knowthe code he thinks your have violated. Watch how careful he will become as "NOT" to make a Mistake then.
This especially works for those City Wide small time Police Dept. like Arlington Heights, Reading, Norwood, Springfield/Springdale .... and alike.
If you can go to Finley Market, shop a little, so you have a decent accuse for being in the area, well at least during the day. At night stop at Ollies Troley for a bit to eat. It will cover a little, and Ollies has GooD food.
EVEN WILLIE CUNNINGHAM SAYS THE SAME ON HIS SHOW TIME TO TIME.
He is an Radio Idiot, but he still one damn Good Attorney.
G Man tell your Friend to buy the Book if he can, or go to someone law library.
HARPO YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY .... AGAIN !!!!
WORD ....
...
..
.
Police Encounters
This is response to Giani post #418.
One big mistake your friend made was giving consent to LE to search his car!
Again BIG BIG mistake and I'm sure some people will disagree with me on this point. Your friend was stopped because the LE were trying to find something to arrest your friend and or the girl he was with that day.
Another point to remember everyone, "NEVER BELIEVE COPS IF YOU GET PULLED OVER AND THEY JUST WANT TO TALK TO YOU".
Your friend was stopped and what is called being detained. Obvoiusly he wasn't pulled over for a driving violation.
LE can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time, and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and go into your bag to make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they feel a weapon.
If LE are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you should say the Magic Words: "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" and nothing else.
A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. For example, if you gets pulled over for speeding (detained) and the cop sees drugs in the car, the cops may arrest you for possession of the drugs, even though it has nothing to do with you getting pulled over. Cops have two reasons to detain you: 1) they are writing you a citation (a traffic ticket, for example), or 2) they want to arrest you but they don't yet have enough information to do so.
Now it doesn't make sense what the LE said about it's against the law to hire a prostitute and there was no money involved!!!!!!! If you ever been in a sting or watched the tv show "COPS" it's all about money!!!!!! If a undercover female cop posed as a SW and you the monger drives up and say "$20 for whatever BJ, FS,etc" you are caught breaking the law.
Never say anything to a COP than your name and home address and info that identify you. Don't get caught with their lies and tricks to say something that could get yourself arrested.
SEARCHES
Never consent to a search. If the police try to search your house, car, backpack, pockets, etc. say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search." This may not stop them from forcing their way in and searching anyway, but if they search you illegally, they probably won't be able to use the evidence against you in court. You have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search and lots to gain. Do not physically resist cops when they are trying to search, because you could get hurt and charged with resisting arrest or assault. Just keep repeating the Magic Words so that the cops and all witnesses know that this is your policy.
Be careful about casual consent. That is, if you are stopped by the cops and you get out of the car but don't close the door, they can search the car and claim that they thought you were indicating consent by leaving the door ajar. Also, if you say, "I'd rather you didn't search," they can claim that you were reluctantly giving them permission to search. Always just say the Magic Words 2: "I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS SEARCH."
Giani, your friend made a few mistakes and giving consent to a search was a big one. They were trying to find something to arrest him. If the girl was carrying drugs they probably taken them both in but if there was no search warrant and your friend tells them he dosen't consent then they can't use that against him in court. If he was by himself and got pulled over and all then it would be a different situation. But he didn't know if she was carrying therefore putting himself at risk if LE searches and find her carrying. She had time to drop any drugs under his seat before LE walked up to his car. Get the picture. Under his situation I would said no to the search and go through the hassle and protect my rights even if they make me wait for a warrant or take me to the police station.
Remember, anything you say to the authorities can and will be used against you and your friends in court. There's no way to predict what information the police might try to use or how they will use it. Plus, the police often misquote or lie altogether about what was said. So say only the Magic Words "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" and let all the cops and witnesses know that this is your policy.
One of the jobs of cops is to get information out of people, and they usually don't have any scruples about how they do it. Cops are legally allowed to lie when they're investigating, and they are trained to be manipulative. The only thing you should say to cops, other than identifying yourself, are the Magic Words: "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" And remember the Golden Rule: Never trust a cop.
Here are some lies they may tell you:
* "You're not a suspect -- just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"
* "If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."
* "All of your friends have cooperated, and we let them go home. You're the only one left."
Cops are sneaky buggers, and there are lots of ways they can trick you into talking. Here are some scams they may pull:
* Good Cop/ Bad Cop: Bad cop is aggressive and menacing, while good cop is nice, friendly, and familiar (usually good cop is the same race and gender as you). The idea is bad cop scares you so badly you are desperately looking for a friend. Good cop is that friend.
* Prisoners' Dilemma: The cops will tell you that your friends ratted on you so that you will snitch on them. Meanwhile, they tell your friends the same thing. If anyone breaks and talks, you all go down.
* The cops will tell you that they have all the evidence they need to convict you, but that if you "take responsibility" and confess, the judge will be impressed by your honesty and go easy on you. What they really mean is: "We don't have enough evidence yet, please confess."
The Miranda Warnings
The police do not have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer of other agent of law enforcement (c) while the suspect is in police custody (you do not have to be formally arrested to be "in custody"). Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops to inform you of your rights or ask if you want to remain silent. You know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying the Magic Words, "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER"
LE was looking to make a bust and your friend was lucky that day. Did your friend called this girl and arranged to pick her up at so and so corner? Or did he drive by and saw her standing there and picked her up? LE is all over the place watching and it's hard to check around to see if anyone is watching you.
If you are in OTR have a good operating plan for driving through the area. Somethings I stop at a business and pretent to write down the address or stop to use my cell phone because I don't want to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, get it. I make stops at the Shell station for gas if I feel LE is following me on McMicken or Liberty St. During the summer I would stop and park near the "Lucy Blue" Pizza place on 12th and Walnut and meet SW near by out of my car. I can't be arrested or stopped by LE while eating pizza and talking to people, get it. Change the way you operate when looking for SW's. Have a city map in your car and you're looking at the area for a condo you're thinking about buying, get it. Have a plan if you do get stopped and more importantly KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!
I speak from experience.
Don't believe cops if they want to stop and talk to you. They will do anything to make an arrest and let the city prosecutor decide your charges in court. If LE can scared you into confessing or saying something to get you arrested, they will do that any way they can.
Tell me what you guys think about all this because it's going to be like this for awhile in OTR.
BE CAREFUL AND STOP AND THINK ABOUT WAHT YOU WILL DO
Harop2U
EDITOR'S SUGGESTION: This is interesting, but you might consider re-posting it under the Police Tactics and Legal Issues thread in the Special Interests section of the Forum where it will benefit the Forum Members who are specifically looking for this type of information. Thanks!
Heat in the OTR...
Things have been REALLY hot in OTR recently. With the following experience of a friend of mine from a week ago, it makes me leary to grace those streets these days... He asked that I post it for him, and not reveal his name.
This friend was in a vehicle from a county other than Hamilton (LE looks for out-of-county_cars). He, a white guy, was taking a black female out to a meal (not yet any contact--though it was most likely in the offing). Traveling down Elm, LE started trailing them. He is marking his laundry...
They turned towards Main, and LE flashes the lights. LE takes my friend into the squad car ("you are not under arrest...") while his partner questions the black girl in the vehicle. "What are you doing in this area? Why are you (a white guy) carrying a black girl in your vehicle? How do you know her? What is her full name? Don't you know that she is a known prostitute with a long record?" My friend says that he is taking her to get a meal, no $ exchanged, is that a crime? "You can still get arrested for hiring a prostitute, even with no money exchanged." [Is this correct???]
"Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" My friend, as most of us, seeing that saying "no" would wind up them both up at the precinct, says yes (hoping the girl is not carrying...). Luckily, no contraband was found. [Another lesson: do NOT be carrying when mongering...]
Bottom line, nothing was found, and LE told him (get this) "You don't want to get caught like this... Have them come to your place if you want to engage in this activity..." My friend was relieved. But I am pissed.
Sheesh. I personally have seen saturation coverage with LE, both city and county boys, as reported in several previous posts.
At the same time, I also have seen MANY SWs out there. But... be extremely careful, get the hell out of OTR, and preferably, cruise in areas less extremely hot than OTR for a while.
Sorry for the bummer post--but my friend had the sh*t scared out of him--and who knows what would have happened if she HAD been carrying???
Hoping for more pleasant posts and times,
Giani
I think there may be some misunderstandings here.
I think that LE can force you to ID yourself for their safety.
Buffalo Bill
01-04-07, 11:34
I think there may be some misunderstandings here.
I think that LE can force you to ID yourself for their safety.
Right you are !
Doubters might check 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004.
I could very well be wrong, I will double-check with my source, and take a copy of the case cited with me, and get an opinion.
Wallie
Nightflyerx1
01-06-07, 01:31
Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Nightflyerx1
01-06-07, 01:45
Some interesting sites for legal discussion .
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/
http://www.unknownnews.net/cops.html
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
AmIaCriminal2
01-09-07, 17:15
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html
It is apparently a place forming a coalition for lobbying to legalize prostitution in the USA. I urge you to send this link to local Escorts, AMP's, Libertarian Parties, Stripclubs and others in your area suffering persecution in this country; Other groups have won freedom in this country; it is time to take action and end this idiotic opression against men in this country.
Buffalo Bill,
Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.
Right you are !
Doubters might check 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004.
Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Very good points.
However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from ANY Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.
For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is not, in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. "Driving", in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a "driving without a license" ticket. I know people who do.
I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision based on the argument put forth by Hiibel. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are not required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It is part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.
Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.
Wallie
Buffalo Bill,
Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.
The statutes of each state are, in fact, law. In federal law, the code of federal regulations (which I think you may be referring to) is the interpretation of the US Code, which is federal law. For instance, Title 38 of the US Code is veterans law, but you refer to 38 Code of Federal Regulations for the federal government's interpretation of that law. Here again, someone references a Supreme Court decision that grants a citizen the right do drive from one's home to the grocery store without a license. In the absence of a Supreme Court citation of the specific case that determined this, there is nothing to rely on as factual. If such a case exists and is helpful to others, especially in the sense we are talking about on this forum, then the case citation should be provided. In the absence of a case citation I would be extremely reluctant to rely on something such as, "I know people who do" go into court and beat a driving without a license ticket. Standing up for one's rights is often very important but it's more important to know what one's rights are and are not.
Very good points.
However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from ANY Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.
For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is not, in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. "Driving", in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a "driving without a license" ticket. I know people who do.
I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision based on the argument put forth by Hiibel. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are not required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It is part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.
Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.
Wallie
Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.
Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.And even more cautious, if not reluctant to advise someone else to do so. Good point NY Monger.
The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.
Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.
I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.
Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.
Wallie
The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.
Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.
I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.
Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.
Wallie
Wallie, with all due respect. And I concede and recognize you are trying to be helpful to anyone reading this stirng. You may not be trying to advise anyone to do anything. But then you say, "I was just saying that those are the facts, " without providing the factual foundation. Consequently, some people will tend to believe what you say. Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive. It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another. As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/supct/html/03-5554. ZO.html. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,
"1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "
There is even reference in this decision to circumstances where one may not have to identify one's self but I'm not so confident of what I read there to refuse to identify myself or provide a driver's license when requested. I might be willing to say I don't wish to provide any information and want an attorney.
Essentially, my contribution to this discussion is to say we should not rely on anecdotal statements, or statements saying they are fact without factual foundation. Or, even someone's interpretation of case law. When the citation is provided as it is here. Whether it's your interpretation of the decision, my interpretation of the decision, or someone else's interpretation of the decision.
The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.
...Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive.
There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.
The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you do need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is "travel'. For that, you do not need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another.
It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.
As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/supct/html/03-5554. ZO.html. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,
"1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "
I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.
Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the correct ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on that argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."
I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.
Amen Brother.
Finally, I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
Wallie
Wallie,
I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2
There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.
The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you do need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is "travel'. For that, you do not need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.
I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.
Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the correct ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on that argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."
I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
Amen Brother.
Finally, I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.
Wallie
You are correct, we are talking about a citizen who is operating a motor vehicle. Legally, "drive" is a commercial term, and "travel" is the term that describes what the vast majority of us do in our everyday lives. If you are a cab driver, semi-truck driver, traveling salesman, etc., then you drive, because you are using the Public Roads for Commercial Gain. However, if go to your place of employment, to the store, to a friend's house, etc., then you travel. That's the difference. Since the courts have ruled that we have a right to travel, and that the roads are the Public's to use, etc., then you do not need a License to use those roads. The backing for the case is that you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.
I don't have the actual citings for the Driver's License issue as of yet, since, as I understand it, there a several involved.
Since I am not an Expert, I wouldn't advise you to not renew your license. Renew it. There are a number of reasons, but here are the biggest:
1. You have to know exactly how to defend yourself should something happen. There are very specific arguments you have to present should you wish to protect this Right. Without knowing how to do it correctly, you will end up in trouble, and it will cost you more than it costs to renew your license. Like the Hiibel case, he used the wrong argument, and lost. He go the correct answer to what he asked, but asked the wrong question. With the proper case, he could have won.
2. You have to be prepared to go jail. Again, unless you know the exact argument, you will lose in court. Also, a LEO doesn't care. They are trained to do what they are told, based on the law as it has been taught to them. They aren't the Judges, just the Enforcer. Depending on the jurisdiction, the LEO may have the option of ticketing you and giving you a summonses, but they may also just go ahead and arrest you. When protecting many of our Rights, we may have to deal with the inconvenience of Arrest initially, just to win the case in Court later. You have to be prepared for that eventuality.
Ergo, renew your license until you know exactly how to defend yourself. As I have said, I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. I was just stating the facts as I understand them. I still have a valid license, and probably will for awhile to come. I can't defend myself yet either.
There are Civil Rights groups who deal with these, and other issues regularly. Here in Indy, one of the groups (the one my friend is involved with) will be giving a seminar fairly soon. It is a 2 week class that teaches all about our Rights, how to defend them, how to research laws, defend yourself, etc. They bring in experts to teach the class, and help support each other, and graduates from the class. The class is around $500 to take, which helps pay for the travel, books, materials, etc. I hope to take the class, but am not sure I can get the time off work yet.
Renew your license.
Wallie
Wallie,
I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2
OK, now about not having to identify yourself to LE, and the Hiibel case's seeming contradiction.
Based on your Miranda rights, (Miranda v Arizona, 1966) (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/pdf/miranda_v_arizona.pdf for a synopsis and explanation of the case), you have the protection of Miranda anytime you are experiencing "Custodial Interrogation". Miranda gives you the absolute Right to Remain Silent.
What is Custodial Interrogation? Anytime the Police are investigating a crime, and you are being detained and questioned, this could qualify as Custodial Interrogation. If you are being Detained (which can, unless you are arrested, last no longer than 20 minutes) and Questioned, you have the unrestricted Right to Remain Silent. Silent. You do not have to answer any questions you are asked by LE.
As it was explained to me, if you are pulled over, you can ask the LEO, "are you investigating a crime?" They will probably answer yes. You then have every Right to say: "I choose to remain silent", and there is nothing they can do. They will threaten and cajole, and may even threaten to arrest you. You can remain silent, although they may arrest you. You have to be prepared for that to happen, and ready to go to jail to protect your Rights. Or, you could show them your ID, and say nothing else.
If, when you ask the LEO if they are investigating a crime, they say "No", then the next thing you should do is ask "Am I free to go?" If they say "No" to that, then guess what, you are being detained, and your Right to Remain Silent is always there.
re. Hiibel: His argument was that his arrest for not showing ID violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. Here are the texts for the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution:
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Hiibel was ruled against by the US Supreme Court. The 4th doesn't apply as he was not at his house, wasn't being searched, and there were no Warrants being served. His argument as to the 5th was closer, as he was defending his Right against self incrimination. However, the Court ruled that simply giving your name wasn't, per se, going to lead to self incrimination. The Dissenting Opinion of the Court made an effort to relate the case to Miranda, saying in part:
Under the Nevada law, a member of the targeted class “may not be compelled to answer” any inquiry except a command that he “identify himself.” Refusal to identify oneself upon request is punishable as a crime. Presumably the statute does not require the detainee to answer any other question because the Nevada Legislature realized that the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling the target of a criminal investigation to make any other statement. In my judgment, the broad constitutional right to remain silent, which derives from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is not as circumscribed as the Court suggests, and does not admit even of the narrow exception defined by the Nevada statute.
“[T]here can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467 (1966). It is a “settled principle” that “the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes,” but “they have no right to compel them to answer.” Davis v. Mississipi, 394 U. S. 721, 727, n. 6 (1969). The protections of the Fifth Mmendment are directed squarely toward those who are the focus of the government’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. In a criminal trial, the indicted defendant has an unqualified right to refuse to testify and may not be punished for invoking that right. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 299–300 (1981). The unindicted target of a grand jury investigation enjoys the same constitutional protection even if he has been served with a subpoena. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 767–768 (2003). So does an arrested suspect during custodial interrogation in a police station. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467.
There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection. Indeed, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply with equal force in the context of Terry stops, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), here an officer’s inquiry “must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for [the stop’s] initiation.’” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (some internal quotation marks omitted). “Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Ibid. See also Terry, 392 U. S., at 34 (White, J., concurring) (“Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation”). Given our statements to the effect that citizens are not required to respond to police officers’ questions during a Terry stop, it is no surprise that petitioner assumed, as have we, that he had a right not to disclose his identity.
Judge Stevens made a reasonable attempt to protect Hiibel, but, sadly was in the Minority of the Court.
The entire text of the Hiibel case finding can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf.
Essentially, if Hiibel had gone to Court with the argument that the Nevada law violated his Rights as given in Miranda, he probably would have won the case. However, his 5th Amendment argument wasn't wasn't the right argument for the case.
As always, I am not an Attorney, nor an Expert on our Rights. I am not recommending anyone do anything, just stating a few of our Rights, as I understand them.
Wallie
PsyberZombie
01-18-07, 10:24
The backing for the case is that you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.
You've made this assertion several times during this discussion . You and your lawyer friend's
understanding of the concept of a "license" is blatantly *WRONG* and yer mis·leading people here
A LICENSE is " The permission by competent authority to do an act which , without such permission ,
would be illegal , a trespass , or a tort "
IOW , your definition of the need for a license is completely back·wards from the legal reality
There are a few instances where you need licenses or permits to do a whole lot of things that
are perfectly legal to do without a license some of the time , but which require them in
specific circumstances . Examples =
· You can drive a motor vehicle on your property with·out a license , but need one to operate on public roads
· You can nail two boards together , no problem , but you need a building permit to build a house ,
and then an occupancy certificate before you can move in
· You can remove a delapidated dog house from your property , but need a demolition
permit to tear your house down
There are also a lot of activities that *always* or almost always require a license =
· Flying an airplane [ some experimental aircraft are exempt ]
· Hunting , fishing and trapping [ some Native Americans are exempt ]
· Selling alcohol
· Practicing Medicine , Dentistry and other medical professions
· Operating a motor vehicle on public roadways falls into this category
Why don't you give this one up and go back to trying to explain why none of us
need to pay income taxes
Perhaps the single biggest reason to renew one's license is because each state requires by law that you have a license to drive a car.
Since I am not an Expert, I wouldn't advise you to not renew your license. Renew it. There are a number of reasons, but here are the biggest:
1. You have to know exactly how to defend yourself should something happen. There are very specific arguments you have to present should you wish to protect this Right. Without knowing how to do it correctly, you will end up in trouble, and it will cost you more than it costs to renew your license. Like the Hiibel case, he used the wrong argument, and lost. He go the correct answer to what he asked, but asked the wrong question. With the proper case, he could have won.
2. You have to be prepared to go jail. Again, unless you know the exact argument, you will lose in court. Also, a LEO doesn't care. They are trained to do what they are told, based on the law as it has been taught to them. They aren't the Judges, just the Enforcer. Depending on the jurisdiction, the LEO may have the option of ticketing you and giving you a summonses, but they may also just go ahead and arrest you. When protecting many of our Rights, we may have to deal with the inconvenience of Arrest initially, just to win the case in Court later. You have to be prepared for that eventuality.
Wallie
You've made this assertion several times during this discussion . You and your lawyer friend's
understanding of the concept of a "license" is blatantly *WRONG* and yer mis·leading people here
A LICENSE is " The permission by competent authority to do an act which , without such permission ,
would be illegal , a trespass , or a tort "
IOW , your definition of the need for a license is completely back·wards from the legal reality
There are a few instances where you need licenses or permits to do a whole lot of things that
are perfectly legal to do without a license some of the time , but which require them in
specific circumstances . Examples =
· You can drive a motor vehicle on your property with·out a license , but need one to operate on public roads
Again, you do not need one to operate on the Public Roads, but I will not belabour this point until I do have the specific cases.
· You can nail two boards together , no problem , but you need a building permit to build a house ,
and then an occupancy certificate before you can move in
That actually depends on the specific laws of the State. In Indiana for example, there are (obviously) building codes, and the state gives the counties the right to create building codes as well. However, generally speaking, individual cities don't have the right to create building codes. So, if a city says you need a building code, there is a good chance you actually do not, because they may not have been given the statutory power (by the county) to mandate the requirement. This is an example that is not 100% accurate 100% of the time, but is a case where some local principalities usurp power that is not theirs, and then try to punish those who "disobey", when they don't have the statutory power to do so.
· You can remove a delapidated dog house from your property , but need a demolition
permit to tear your house down
Again, depends.
There are also a lot of activities that *always* or almost always require a license =
· Flying an airplane [ some experimental aircraft are exempt ]
· Hunting , fishing and trapping [ some Native Americans are exempt ]
· Selling alcohol
· Practicing Medicine , Dentistry and other medical professions
Generally, true.
· Operating a motor vehicle on public roadways falls into this category
Nope. On that, you are wrong my friend. Again, until I have the specifics, I will not say anymore.
Why don't you give this one up and go back to trying to explain why none of us
need to pay income taxes
I don't believe I have ever said any such thing. However...
Wallie
The link here will take you to a front page story in the Tampa Tribune in Florida. http://media.tbo.com/ttt/images/pdfs/TribFront.pdf
PsyberZombie
01-19-07, 08:52
Again, you do not need [ a driver's license ] to operate on the Public Roads, but I will not belabour this point until I do have the specific cases.
Wallie ,
Here's the relevant State Code of your home state , Indiana =
Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
01/19/2007 07:38:22 AM EST
IC 9-24
ARTICLE 24. DRIVERS LICENSES
IC 9-24-1 Chapter 1. Individuals Required to Obtain a License or Permit
IC 9-24-1-1 License required
Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid Indiana:
(1) operator's license;
(2) chauffeur's license;
(3) public passenger chauffeur's license;
(4) commercial driver's license;
(5) driver's license listed in subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) with a motorcycle operator's license or endorsement; or
(6) learner's permit;
issued to the individual by the bureau under this article to drive upon an Indiana highway the type of motor vehicle for which the license or permit was issued.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.156-2006, SEC.3.
The language in that Statute is as crystal clear as they could possibly make it so
what part of it don't you understand ??
Go right ahead and spout out yer weird legal theories that have been disproven and have
gotten people imprisoned [ like the 'theory' that Income Taxes are 'voluntary' ]
.... but when you suggest that Mongers don't carry a DL because they don't need one
you're endangering them so I felt I had to speak up
Dog forbid any of us are ever stopped by Uncle LEO , but if you are the goal should be
to end the encounter as quickly as possible with·out getting arrested
Any driver stopped who refuses to provide a DL &/or otherwise identify them·selves is
gonna end up in hand·cuffs and will stay in a lock·up until a Judge or Bail Commissioner remands them
Is *that* what you want for your fellow Mongers ??
Benchseats Rock
01-19-07, 09:05
PZ,
Your quote specifies highway. There is a definition for highways... there is an argument to be made here. This doesn't mean that said argument is supposed to occur outside the bounds of mental masturbation - and nowhere near a courtroom isn't far enough away, but that being said, one could, if they wanted to, make an argument. I would rather get a hummer.
BSR
PsyberZombie
01-19-07, 09:34
Your quote specifies highway. There is a definition for highways... there is an argument to be made here.
The Legal definition of "Highway" is a little more encompassing that the way lay people use the term
The standard Legal definition is =
" A free and public roadway or street , one which every person has the right to use
... Its prime essentials are the right of common enjoyment and the duty of public maintenance "
There's an entire paragraph noting and outlining the differences between the "popular usage" and the "broader sense"
Also , 'highway'
" ... includes areas other than and beyond the paved surfaces of a roadway "
... so don't try driving down the Interstate shoulder and expect to claim you weren't actually on a 'highway'
Source = Black's Law Dictionary
PZ, that is precisely the type of documentation I have been asserting is needed to post to this particular forum what one should or shouldn't do when in the presence of LE or during a traffic stop. You have cited the specifc law of a specific state and anyone can now do the research on their own to verfiy that it is, in fact, the appropriate law. And, while it's fair to assume that the other 49 states require licenses, the law may differ in every state as to requirements of age and so on but you can bet they all require a valid license to drive on the highways and roads.
Common sense tells you that if you are involved in a traffic stop for whatever reason, LE not only has a right but an obligation to determine if you have a license to drive the car. It is incidental (and I concede that this "incidental" part of it may grate people) that in checking the license LE is able to identify you, determine your legal standing to drive an automobile on a public highway or road, and get a good look inside your car to determine if he should take any further action than just giving a warning, issuing a citation, or taking necessary action to conduct a search.
My common sense tells me that refusing to provide my license or challenging LE's right to ask for my driver's license in a traffic stop is the quickest way to raise suspicion and create more trouble than one is probably in by just giving the license and listening to the lecture. And, if it's for a speeding ticket, chalk it up as a lesson learned - in particular if you just left an AMP 3 blocks earlier.
As someone else posted some time ago, if there was no presumed probable cause for the stop (in the mind of the person being stopped) it would take some huge cojones to challenge the requirement for identification and carrying a valid driver's license.
Wallie ,
Here's the relevant State Code of your home state , Indiana =
Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
01/19/2007 07:38:22 AM EST
IC 9-24
ARTICLE 24. DRIVERS LICENSES
IC 9-24-1 Chapter 1. Individuals Required to Obtain a License or Permit
IC 9-24-1-1 License required
Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid Indiana:
(1) operator's license;
(2) chauffeur's license;
(3) public passenger chauffeur's license;
(4) commercial driver's license;
(5) driver's license listed in subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) with a motorcycle operator's license or endorsement; or
(6) learner's permit;
issued to the individual by the bureau under this article to drive upon an Indiana highway the type of motor vehicle for which the license or permit was issued.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.156-2006, SEC.3.
The language in that Statute is as crystal clear as they could possibly make it so
what part of it don't you understand ??
Go right ahead and spout out yer weird legal theories that have been disproven and have gotten people imprisoned [ like the 'theory' that Income Taxes are 'voluntary' ]
.... but when you suggest that Mongers don't carry a DL because they don't need one
you're endangering them so I felt I had to speak up
Dog forbid any of us are ever stopped by Uncle LEO , but if you are the goal should be
to end the encounter as quickly as possible with·out getting arrested
Any driver stopped who refuses to provide a DL &/or otherwise identify them·selves is gonna end up in hand·cuffs and will stay in a lock·up until a Judge or Bail Commissioner remands them
Is *that* what you want for your fellow Mongers ??
PsyberZombie
01-19-07, 14:35
First off = Thanks for being another Voice of Reason here in Post # 32 , I·M·2
This Post may seem off·topic but it isn't because listening to legal opinions from amateur
'Jail·house Lawyers' —— like " Don't bother carrying a DL because you don't need one " ——
can land a guy in a LOT of Trouble in a hurry
Most 'Perry Masons' get their start by making the following observations =
· The Law often seems arbitrary and capricious . How can so many SCOTUS decisions be split 5 — 4 ??
After a hundred years of established Case Law , how can Anna Nicole Smith get a case heard
by the SCOTUS to clarify a minor point of an arcane legal doctrine like Supplemental Jurisdiction ??
· It doesn't help that lawyers & judges tend to use what seem to be un·necessary words
and redundancies , like Last Will & Testament
· And it *really* doesn't help when some case gets tossed over what seems to be a minor verbal
technicality . We had a case here in Rhode Island where a public corruption case was dismissed
because the definition of one of the elements of the crime used the word "AND" instead
of the term "AND / OR"
The General Assembly corrected that error quickly , but the seeds were no doubt planted
in a new generation of amateur Lawyers =
Just parse away , re·define terms and split hairs and you can violate any Law or get it ruled
un·constitutional ... the classic example is Frivolous Tax Arguments that the IRS happily refutes ,
then imprisons any·one still dumb enough to try to resurrect one of these canards =
http://www.quatloos.com/friv_tax.pdf
And now we've got Wallie claiming you don't need a DL
Sorry , Folks , but it just doesn't work that way in real life
...
· The Law often seems arbitrary and capricious . How can so many SCOTUS decisions be split 5 — 4 ??
After a hundred years of established Case Law , how can Anna Nicole Smith get a case heard by the SCOTUS to clarify a minor point of an arcane legal doctrine like Supplemental Jurisdiction ??
As we saw in Hiibel, the SCOTUS is often split since there are a myriad of cases upon which the Court may base a decision. In the Hiibel case, the majority concentrated (correctly actually) on the argument that was presented to them, that identifying yourself to LE is a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution. They found (again, correctly) that it was not. The minority in the Hiibel case thought about other previous findings, and found precedent, including Miranda, that supported their Opinion. It happens. There are lots of Court Cases, and the SCOTUS rarely makes a mistake, or even contradicts themselves, if you read the case, and the logic used in their Decisions. If Hiibel had gone to the SCOTUS saying the Nevada law violated Miranda, there is a decent chance he would have won.
· It doesn't help that lawyers & judges tend to use what seem to be un·necessary words and redundancies , like Last Will & Testament
· And it *really* doesn't help when some case gets tossed over what seems to be a minor verbal technicality . We had a case here in Rhode Island where a public corruption case was dismissed because the definition of one of the elements of the crime used the word "AND" instead of the term "AND / OR"
The General Assembly corrected that error quickly , but the seeds were no doubt planted in a new generation of amateur Lawyers =
Just parse away , re·define terms and split hairs and you can violate any Law or get it ruled un·constitutional ... the classic example is Frivolous Tax Arguments that the IRS happily refutes , then imprisons any·one still dumb enough to try to resurrect one of these canards =
http://www.quatloos.com/friv_tax.pdf
And now we've got Wallie claiming you don't need a DL
Sorry , Folks , but it just doesn't work that way in real life...
Parse Away and redefine terms and split hairs huh? And I bet you try not to violate the "Spirit of the Law" too?
Here's the thing: the Law has no Spirit. The Law is made up of words, and words mean things. In the Law, there is always a section of definitions. There's a reason for that. You have to know what a word means in order to use it in Law. We all laughed at Bill Clinton for asking what the meaning of the word "is" is, but his legal question was sound. For the umpteenth time, "drive" is a word which carries a commercial meaning, "travel" is the private use of the roads by a citizen. Read this post carefully, and try to understand.
Now, as for the Driver's License issue (and this is the last time I will post anything about it) feel free to research these findings by the Courts. {NOTE: Some of these cases are not available online. You will have to go to a Law Library to find the text of the decisions.} I have also included a few definitions as well.
Also, I have included relevant quotes from the cases for your convenience.
~"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
~"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.98
~"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
~"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone's Commentary 134;
Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777
As for Commercial Use, when the State allows the formation of a corporation, it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
~"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."
Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75
Therefore, Corporations fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
~"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
Public Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
~"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
and ...
~"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
~"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
and ...
~"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
So, what is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
~"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
and ...
~"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."
State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
~"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
and ...
~"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
~"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987
The distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held.
~"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
So, obviously there is a difference between ...
1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and ...
2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
~"[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
~"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
~"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important as this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, there aren't any case(s) or authority(ies) acknowledging a state's power to convert the individual's Right to travel on the public roads into a "privilege."
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property on the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
DEFINITIONS
~"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
~"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
~" "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.[/i]
Definition of "Travel":
~"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717
~"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309
~"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey."
Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
The term "driver" is defined as:
~"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "traveling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. Driver, therefore, is a commercial term.
Definition of "Operator"
~"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both "operator" and "driver."
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
"Driver" and "Operator" are commercial terms, while "travel(er)" is a term referring to a private citizen.
Definition of "License":
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the Laws as they are properly applied:
~"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort."
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
~"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent."
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118
{I freely admit to mis-defining "License" in an earlier post.}
In order for these two definitions of "license" to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law.
In this case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
~"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power."
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
Now, keep these in mind too:
~"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
and ...
~"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
and ...
~"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
~"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)
This means then that the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel on the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."
Additionally , keep this in mind:
~"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
Ergo, a "license" is not, regardless of what they tell you, required for you, me, or any citizen, to operate a motor vehicle on the road. We are Traveling, not Driving.
Use of the roads is Right. A Right cannot be regulated lest it be regulated out of existence.
Again, and for the last time, I am not advising anyone to anything. You can be arrested for not having a Drivers License. Unless you know exactly how to defend yourself, you will be found guilty. You will be in trouble. I, for the time being at least, have a Driver's License, and do not advise anyone to not have one.
Wallie
Member #4581
01-25-07, 09:26
This is something I tripped over while in a car chat room. It's from the ALCU, who I usually don't agree with, and it could really help you out in a tight spot.
It giver you your rights and how to deal with a police stop and their efforts to entrap you. I tried to attach the document but it was too big. Here's the web address to check it out.
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15865pub20040714.html
PsyberZombie
01-25-07, 09:44
Ergo, a "license" is not, regardless of what they tell you, required for you, me, or any citizen, to operate a motor vehicle on the road. We are Traveling, not Driving.
Use of the roads is Right. A Right cannot be regulated lest it be regulated out of existence.
Again, and for the last time, I am not advising anyone to anything. You can be arrested for not having a Drivers License. Unless you know exactly how to defend yourself, you will be found guilty. You will be in trouble. I, for the time being at least, have a Driver's License, and do not advise anyone to not have one.
Lemme see if I got this straight =
You aren't *required* to have a Driver's License to drive , but if you get caught
driving with·out one , you'll get arrested for driving with·out a Driver's License
Thanks for clearing that up for us , Wallie
Wallie, I commend you on your research and the time you took to support your arguments with factual information. Having said that, however, I don't see anything that would convince me the states have no right to require a driver's license. I also do not see anything that I would depend upon to refuse to provide my driver's license in a routine traffic stop. The states have a right as well as a responsibility, as I read some of the case law you provided, to keep people who would infringe on your safe use of the streets and roads. How else can you control this other than requiring a driver's license? To get a habitually drunk driver off the road, or a frequent offender of traffic laws such as a speeder or overly aggressive driver how else can you control these situations other than to suspend or revoke their driver's license? Virtually everyone in this country has the right to use the streets and roads, on that point I agree, but having to have a driver's license does not take that right away. As for advising someone they do not have to have a license, the one comment you made in post #7 was,
"You don't have to give a LEO your license either. "
In post #15 you said,
"They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. 'Driving', in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a 'Driving without a license' ticket. I know people who do. "
This may not be advising someone they do not have to have a license but the wording infers it. Had you said something like "It's my opinion" it would not have sounded like you were suggesting that it's OK to drive without a license. You also said you knew people who have beaten a charge of driving without a license, but did not offer their case reference nor did you offer factual documentation of those cases. I just don't believe that "you can go into ANY court and beat a driving without a license ticket. " Maybe you can if you just left your license at home or forgot your wallet but if you failed to renew or were suspended, I think one would be very hard pressed to have the ticket quashed. I know you spent a lot of time getting the citations and making your arguments and I appreciate the time you took but I just am not conviced by either the case law you cited nor am I convinced by your arguments about what the quoted parts of the cases you cited means.
Looking Around
01-25-07, 11:09
Lemme see if I got this straight =
You aren't *required* to have a Driver's License to drive , but if you get caught
driving with·out one , you'll get arrested for driving with·out a Driver's License
Thanks for clearing that up for us , Wallie
In the Corps, we called guys like this "sea lawyers." They freely gave advice based on thin unsubstantiated logic and untutored interpretation of the UCMJ, but weren't accountable for what happened to ya if you followed their advice.
The bottom line is pretty simple. Yeah, you can travel the king's highways for free if you're walking, riding a bicycle, or using some other form of transportation that doesn't need a license. Operating a motor vehicle on those same highways is a privilege, not a right, and is regulated by the states and Federal government. You need a valid driver's license. Simple as that. All those cites, quotes, and other stuff that Wallie throws up is unrelated and irrelevant, once you look at each states' laws/statutes that govern the operation of motor vehicles on public right-of-ways and property.
You might not like the comparison, Wallie, but the dolts who go to jail for claiming that income taxes are illegal use the same MO that you do here. They take unrelated and irrelevant laws, cases, and incidents, and stitch them together into a loosely structured and illogical argument that has more holes in it than a cheese grater.
Nightflyerx1
01-30-07, 11:32
In the Corps, we called guys like this "sea lawyers." They freely gave advice based on thin unsubstantiated logic and untutored interpretation of the UCMJ, but weren't accountable for what happened to ya if you followed their advice.
The bottom line is pretty simple. Yeah, you can travel the king's highways for free if you're walking, riding a bicycle, or using some other form of transportation that doesn't need a license. Operating a motor vehicle on those same highways is a privilege, not a right, and is regulated by the states and Federal government. You need a valid driver's license. Simple as that. All those cites, quotes, and other stuff that Wallie throws up is unrelated and irrelevant, once you look at each states' laws/statutes that govern the operation of motor vehicles on public right-of-ways and property.
You might not like the comparison, Wallie, but the dolts who go to jail for claiming that income taxes are illegal use the same MO that you do here. They take unrelated and irrelevant laws, cases, and incidents, and stitch them together into a loosely structured and illogical argument that has more holes in it than a cheese grater.Just a couple of recent cases on income tax. Check out the video from google videos.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234
It's what happened when asked to show the law that says you have to pay taxes. And heres another one.
http://www.unknownnews.org/030812VerniceKuglin.html
If you do a search for Vernice Kuglin or Whitey Harrell you will find these cases most interesting because the core of there defense was the same , just show me the law , not the code the actual law. Seems they were both found innocent.
Just a couple of recent cases on income tax. Check out the video from google videos.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234
It's what happened when asked to show the law that says you have to pay taxes. And heres another one.
http://www.unknownnews.org/030812VerniceKuglin.html
If you do a search for Vernice Kuglin or Whitey Harrell you will find these cases most interesting because the core of there defense was the same , just show me the law , not the code the actual law. Seems they were both found innocent.In reference to the first link, which is a video clip of the jury foreman explaining why they found the defendant not guilty, there was nothing in the information provided proving there is no law requiring one to pay income taxes. What the information did explain, in my opinion, is that the judge was irresponsible and arrogant in relating to the jury. To simply say you have everything you need - as he did - with no further explanation ignores the question and fails to recognize the jury was struggling with trying to issue a just verdict. When a jury does not know what a law is but is told to issue a decision based on that law, and requests to see the law, it seems to me they truly do have an obligation to find in favor of the defendant.
In the second link, it’s clear that it was a criminal trial for tax evasion. The defense attorneys wisely used the fact that the defendant had requested more than once a copy of the law but never received it. Consequently, the element of intent was not present and the defendant was found not criminally responsible. However, that does not relieve the defendant of the responsibility of paying the taxes she did not pay. According to her own attorney, she will probably be civilly tried or at the very least an attempt will be made to collect the money prior to a civil trial. As the article stated, “The five-day trial did not resolve whether she must make the tax payment."I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft.”
Both cases revolve around the fact that the government, which sometimes forgets that it is of the people, by the people, and for the people - and therefore serves the people - arrogantly and irresponsibly failed to act in a way that a rational and reasoned person would act. The government failed to respond to a request for help in both issues and consequently lost in both instances, as they should have.
In previous posts, it has been inferred that there is a difference between a code and a law. Sometimes that is so and sometimes it is not. Below is a legal definition taken from http://dictionary.law.com/. Now, before all the sea lawyers get on my case and insist that Black’s Law dictionary is the standard in the field of law, I am fully aware of that. However, I have no desire to go out and buy it or run to the nearest college library to obtain Black’s definitions. For the purposes of this discussion, the definitions below are sufficient to show that sometimes the word code does mean a law and sometimes it doesn’t. (Note that within the definition that laws are often frequently changed by legislative bodies, some codes that are not laws have the force of law, and don’t forget that case law can often further refine, define, or overturn a law.)
code
n. a collection of written laws gathered together, usually covering specific subject matter. Thus, a state may have a civil code, corporations code, education code, evidence code, health and safety codes, insurance code, labor code, motor vehicle code, penal code, revenue and taxation code, and so forth. Federal statutes which deal with legal matters are grouped together in codes. There are also statutes which are not codified. Despite their apparent permanence, codes are constantly being amended by legislative bodies. Some codes are administrative and have the force of law even though they were created and adopted by regulatory agencies and are not actually statutes or laws.
law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived. The term "eye for an eye" (or the equivalent value) is found there, as is drowning as punishment for adultery by a wife (while a husband could have slave concubines), and unequal treatment of the rich and the poor was codified here first. It took another thousand years before written law codes developed among the Greek city-states (particularly Athens) and Israel. China developed similar rules of conduct, as did Egypt. The first law system which has a direct influence on the American legal system was the codification of all classic law ordered by the Roman Emperor Justinian in 528 and completed by 534, becoming the law of the Roman empire. This is known as the Justinian Code, upon which most of the legal systems of most European nations are based to this day. The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life.2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws."
A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:
"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."
OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?
One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?
Just some food for thought.
A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa... ...There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:
"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."
OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?
In that case, who knows. However, UC LE can, and will, break the law when undercover. After all, that's often times the only way to get an officer deep UC during, say, a drug investigation. UC (and non-UC Officers, can legally lie when working.) After all, as we all know, the "are you a cop" question so often asked by SWs after being picked up offers absolutely no protection at all.
Or, they may have actually participated and left, both happy, and with "evidence" of the "crime".
Check this out: http://www.unknownnews.org/060214stinkybadges.html. I have seen other stories like this one before, this was the just the first I found doing a quick Google search. This does contain a nice discussion about the "right" and "wrong" of pursuing a Prostitution Arrest by having sex with the accused though. Some good stuff in there.
Now, as to whether the charges will stick if the UC did have sexual contact with the masseuse or not, that is a different question. A skilled attorney could probably get the masseuse off (no pun intended) with an entrapment, or coercion defense, unless, of course, the UC had a wire of some kind, (digi-tape recorder, wireless mic, etc.) planted in their clothes, say, in a pocket of their jeans, which captured any negotiating that may have gone on before the sex took place.
Wallie
I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.
A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:
"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."
OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?
One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?
Just some food for thought.
That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.
I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?
That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.
I think you missed my point, Broome. It wasn't that the person arrested would be released, it is about the fact that every time this happens, the journalists take the boiler plate press release from the police and don't even make an attempt to see what the other side has to say. In any other issue that would make it into the press they would fall all over themselves to get a quote from the person arrested and if they couldn't get a quote they would make note that they tried but the person declined. The unmentioned point is that LE has been proven to lie in these situations in the past and seem to have carte blanche with the press to say anything, whether it's true or not. I would just like to see one newspaper article or TV news story in which the journalist made an attempt to at least ask the person arrested if they are an illegal alien, if they are being forced to work in this business, and if they are forced to stay in the businesses day and night. And I'd like to see just one journalist have the testicular fortitude to ask one if any of the officers patronized the place or accepted any of the services offered. It's not a big deal, but it's a pet peeve of mine that those in the media seem disinterested in seeing if the other side might or might not have something to say.
I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?
I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?
PsyberZombie
06-07-07, 07:38
I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=490658&postcount=419
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal-rights/your-rights-miranda/arrests-interrogations-faq(2).html
Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??
I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?
Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??
I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?
You always have the Right to Remain Silent. You don't have to answer any questions asked of you. (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.)
Your protection of any of your Rights can not be converted into a crime. ("The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.)
The Right to Privacy includes the "Individual interest in avoiding discolsure of personal matters". (Whalen v Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).)
You may refuse to provide LE with ID or Information. (US v Brown, 731 F2d1491 (1984); Moya v US, 761 F2d322 (1985); Brown v Texas, 443 US 47 (1979)
Specifically though as to whether a previous arrest for solicitation could be used against you... In court, probably, but maybe not. There are many cases which deal with "prior bad acts", and some have allowed such evidence in, under the theory that it shows a pattern, other cases have severely limited introduction of "prior bad acts" as evidence. An interested one, found here: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2006/14652.pdf, involves a murder case, and the court considers the various "prior bad acts" cases, and the court found against the use of it as presented in that case. IMHO, your best bet is to do what you did, and not answer at all.
However, a previous "bad act", again, IMHO, has nothing to do with why you were stopped "today" if you will. I say this because an Officer's questions must relate to the purpose of the stop, or detention is unreasonable. (US v Barahona, 990 F2d (1993).)
Wallie
I am not an attorney, and this was not legal advice.
I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.
I had the same problem. The officer charged me with obstruction of justice for not answering questions and because I did not answer the questions fully he considered me lying!
As the lawyer told me this was a BS charge because he did not find anything.
J
If you answer any question it's possible that it could be bogusly construed as obstruction of justice since the officer may try to claim you were lying to him. If you tell him you are choosing the right to remain silent this another matter altogether. If the officer tell you he is arresting you for obstruction of justice then tell him you want his captains name and you are going to file a complaint. Also tell him you want a lawyer.
This will probably stop him unless he is dumb and a jerk.
I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.
Unfortunately, that is standard MO. They try to get you to confess to something to make their life easier. Otherwise, all they can do is threaten and cajole.
Wallie
I had the same problem. The officer charged me with obstruction of justice for not answering questions and because I did not answer the questions fully he considered me lying!
As the lawyer told me this was a BS charge because he did not find anything.
J
If you answer any question it's possible that it could be bogusly construed as obstruction of justice since the officer may try to claim you were lying to him. If you tell him you are choosing the right to remain silent this another matter altogether. If the officer tell you he is arresting you for obstruction of justice then tell him you want his captains name and you are going to file a complaint. Also tell him you want a lawyer.
This will probably stop him unless he is dumb and a jerk.
Unless your answers provide PC (Probable Cause), you are free to go. Unless an arrest is made, once your documentation is returned to you, you are free to go. { Parker v Strong, 717 F. Supp 767 (1989); US v Soto, 988 F2d 1548 (1993) }
Association with criminals by proximity, conversation or companionship is insufficient to support PC to arrest. { US v Munoz, 738 F. Supp 800 (1990) }
You may verbally challenge an Officer's actions/ask for his ID. { Gainor v Roberts, 973 F2d 1379 (1992) }
If LE falsely arrests you with no PC, they have no "qualified immunity" against suit/prosecution. { Malley v Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986) }
Police Supervisors are liable if they authorize or approve Unconstitutional Conduct of offending Officers. { White v Farrier, 849 F2d 322 (1988); Ghandi v Detroit P.D., 747 F2d 338 (1984); Stokes v Delcambre, 710 F2d 1120 (1983) }
Wallie
I am not an Attorney, and this is not legal advice.
Here's another fairly well written item that I reposted on my Home Thread. Check it out: http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=483609&postcount=708
Wallie
It's is very rare that a cop will make a deal with the prostitute to get her to implicate you. In fact I have never heard of such a case. I have only heard second reports of this.
The cops are more interested in getting the SW's off the street. Chances are she has been arrested before and this is a good way to lock them up for awhile. A lot of SW's have warrants and a cop would much rather go after someone with outsanding warrants because it's adds another notch to their employment record.
This also why it is a good idea to drive a few blocks away before you negotiate with them.
One lesson I have learned since then it is best to pick up a SW with your car facing the street she was walking on. This way it makes it easier to see if a cop is around.
I agree with you all and actually Hizark21 this report triggered me
I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.
Now read these scenarios and the bolded italic portions that I added:
Let's say I pull over and invite someone into my car. We drive away and an officer pulls my vehicle over. I haven't committed a crime
The officer might have just cause to pull me over. What he witnessed was a female who he knows to be a prostitute enter a males vehicle in an area that is "infested" with drug dealers and prostitutes. What he witnessed was "Suspected"; he has "Just Cause" to investigate.
you need to cooperate
So he turns on the Christmas tree lights and you pull over...
LESSON 1: DON'T ADMIT TO ANYTHING - EVER!
The officer probably will leave you in your vehicle and ask your young friend to step to the back. Depending on the SW, and your relationship with her she's going to do one of two things. LIE is one of them. She DOESN'T want to go to jail. And if she get arrested she would appreciate it if the officer charges her with the minimal statute. She likely to cooperate with the officer. So if the two of you talked pay-for-play she'll "implicate" you.
you also need to cooperate. Give simple short answers
I just offered her a ride...
Hopefully you just said hello and didn't get into any $$$ yet. As far as you're concerned you haven't done anything illegal. The officer isn't stupid. He knows you haven't broken the law - and, he knows exactly why you picked up your new female "friend." HE will start a little speech about prostitutes, drug dealers, STDs...yada yada yada... and inform you that your new friend has been arrested numerous times for prostitution and possession...Don't answer anything but, "I haven't done anything wrong. I just offered her a ride...she looked like she needed a lift." REMEMBER - THE OFFICER IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.
So let's say you just picked her up; she hops in, does a Jimmy check and the two off you start talking half-and-half, ben - jackson and abe...and then the cop take you down. I'd be real worried about then 'cause she's not going to attempt to lie her way out of it to save your ass. You're both probably going for a ride. If she's lucky with minimum charges if she's not holding any dope. If you're lucky it will be your 1st offense - it still will hurt your wallet.
LESSON 2: THE COP ISN'T YOUR FRIEND Don't give him (or her) too much information. If your friend hasn't already admitted to "solicitation" or your "offer to" then all the officers can hope for is for you to ADMIT YOUR GUILT.
that's when the officer would start pushing you. The officer will tell you "you are lying to me" "you are challenging my intelligence" "tell me the truth so I can help you"
Here are some more lies they may tell you:
* "You're not a suspect -just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"
* "If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."
* "All of your friends have cooperated, and we let them go home. You're the only one left."
this and that "now that you did not tell me the truth I am placing you under arrest"
Unfortunately, that is standard MO. They try to get you to confess to something to make their life easier. Otherwise, all they can do is threaten and cajole.
Wallie
If your friend has already "implicated" you, the officers are probably trying to get you to implicate yourself. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! DON'T ADMIT ANYTHING! EVER!!!
Even though she's a known prostitute her accusation alone might get you arrested - it might not get you charged. You might be released without charges at your arraignment. If both of you admit your involvement your both in trouble and will probably be charged.
The officer might charge you with obstruction of justice but the lawyer knows this is a BS charge.
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3280
1.The cop may have reason to investigate, but you are not obligated to give any info. Your 5th amendment rights remain no matter what.
2. I doubt most cops will do this. If he persists tell him you want to speak to top person on duty at that time. Also tell him that you are going to file a complaint.
Say LE somehow finds out that it is you posting about sw's. Could they use what you have wrote as a confession in court. Or do you have to be caught in the act? Say you take a pic. of a sw in your car and she finds out you posted it, then reports you. Can this be used?
Dave
While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.
For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.
Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424
It is incorrect that because a lawyer is an officer of the court that they are not supposed to do anything that displeases the court. Lawyers are officers of the court and are bound by the rules of the court, which are procedural in nature, and by the law. They are not supposed to do anything to violate those rules or the law, but if you ever watch a trial in person you will see that attorneys frequently do things that displease the court. They have a cannon of ethics and certain legal obligations to a client that they must follow or face malpractice suits and/or disciplinary action from the bar. As an officer of the court, they cannot condone or participate in a defense they know violates laws, court rules, or that constitutes knowledge of perjury by the defendant. It is possible that an attorney may not go out of his or her way to make sure your rights were not violated during an encounter with LE but if you are the one making the assertion that your rights were violated then the burden of proof falls upon you to prove they were violated.
Attorneys have a number of legal and ethical obligations to their clients. That obligation may be fiduciary, may be an obilgation of confidentiality, and/or one of an aggressive defense. An aggressive defense does not include perjury or other illegal actions to beat a charge. If an attorney determines that a client might perjure himself or otherwise violate the law or court rules, then the attorney has an obligation to advise the client against it. If the client will not cooperte then most attorneys would refuse to take the case or withdraw as the representative.
Like anyone else you do business with - doctors, auto mechanics, contractors - or lawyers, if you have bad vibes or are dissatisfied you need to look for someone else to do business with.
While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:
Originally Posted by Wallie
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.
For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.
Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424
Bad Bad Boy
06-17-07, 13:04
I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.
Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.
Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.
This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.
Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!
BBB
[QUOTE=Bad Bad Boy]I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.
THIS SEEMS TO CONTRADICT YOUR NEXT SENTENCE. IF SO MANY LAWYERS HAVE WOUND UP IN JAIL, DISBARRED OR PENALIZED IN SOME MANNER, DOES THIS NOT INDICATE THAT THE SYSTEM OF ETHICS AND RULES WORKS? ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ONLY A FEW HONOR THE CODE OF ETHICS AND COURT RULES OF PROCEDURE, THEN WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF LAWYERS NOT IN JAIL, DISABARRED OR OTHERWISE PENALIZED?
Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.
YOU COULD ALSO SAY THAT ABOUT DOCTORS, MECHANICS AND MANY OTHER PROFESSIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT PARTICULAR ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DEFENSE YOU RECEIVE YOU CAN ALWAYS SEEK OUT A SOLE PRACTITIONER WHO HAS NO PARA-LEGALS OR OTHER PARA-PROFESSIONALS AND WORKS FROM A SMALL OFFICE. THEY WON'T HAVE THE OVERHEAD AND THE PER HOUR CHARGE WILL BE LESS. HOWEVER, THAT LAWYER'S EXPERIENCE MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO CHARGES THE LOCAL MARKET RATE FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND HIS ATTENTION TO YOUR CASE MAY BE DISTRACTED BY DEMANDS FROM OTHER CASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU JUST MIGHT GET A HELL OF A LOT MORE PASSION ABOUT YOUR CASE FROM HIM THAN YOU MIGHT GET FROM A LARGER LAW FIRM.
Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.
WHETHER OR NOT A MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS IS IN THE EYE OF THE DEFENDANT. IF IT IS KEEPING THE DEFENDANT OUT OF JAIL OR PERMITTING THE DEFENDANT TIME TO GATHER MONEY TO PAY A FINE (AND DEFENDANTS KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OF CHARGES OR NOT) THEN THE MOTIONS MAY NOT BE AS FRIVOLOUS AS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT MIGHT THINK. AS FOR DISCOVERY, I SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T WANT MY LAWYER GOING INTO COURT IF HE FEELS FULL DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN MET. AND IF IT HASN'T, THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE PROSECUTOR, NOT THE DEFENSE LAWYER. AS FOR SENSLESS HEARINGS, HOW ABOUT THE HEARINGS IN WHICH CERTAIN EVIDENCE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CASE GETS QUASHED OR THE PROSECUTION IS OTHERWISE HAMSTRUNG A LITTLE MORE? WOULD A DEFENDANT THINK THAT WAS A SENSELESS HEARING?
This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.
THAT'S LIKE SAYING AN ACCOUNTANT CHARGES BY THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE. WHAT IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO RECEIVE A REFUND, SHOULD YOU NOT BE CHARGED FOR THE WORK THAT PERSON DOES? LIKE ACCOUNTANTS, ATTORNEYS HAVE A MINIMUM FEE AND IF HE HAPPENS TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE YOUR CASE QUICKLY THEN HE MAKES OUT. HOWEVER, THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOU WILL INDEED BE CHARGED BY THE HOUR FOR THE WORK. AS FOR THE FINANCIAL ASSETS, THE ATTORNEY FOR BOTH SIDES IN A DIVORCE CASE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE BOTH PARTIES COMPLETE ONE. THE JUDGE REQUIRES IT. NOT TO PROVIDE IT WOULD PUT THAT ATTORNEY IN A POTENTIAL POSITION TO BE DISCIPLINED BY THE COURT. IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN OVERCHARGED COMPARED TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHERE YOU LIVE WHO HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND THEIR CASES TOOK THE SIMILAR TIME AND ATTENTION AS YOURS, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OR WRITE TO YOUR STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL. OF COURSE YOU CAN INSIST THAT HE NOT DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GO TO COURT FOR YOU BUT HE WILL PROBABLY NOT CONTINUE TO REPRESENT YOU.
Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!
SOME ARE INDEED RICH AND SOME ARE NOT. IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CHARGE, IT'S NOT LIKE A RETAIL OPERATION WHERE YOU MAKE THE INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THEN JUST REPLENISH YOUR INVENTORY AS YOU SELL IT. LIKE ANY BUSINESS, THOUGH, ATTORNEYS HAVE OVERHEAD THAT INCLUDES RENT OR OFFICE MORTGAGE, ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWER, PROPERTY TAXES, PAYROLL TAXES, PAYROLL AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE LEGAL RESOURCES THEY NEED. LAW BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED JUST ABOUT EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND TO NOT BUY THEM EVERY YEAR WOULD BE POTENTIAL MALPRACTICE IF HE FAILED BECASUE HE DIDN'T HAVE UPDATED RESOURCES. HE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RESOURCES LIKE WESTLAW OR OTHER SOURCES AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PRACTICE, THAT CAN AMOUNT TO SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ITSELF. I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE WHAT AN ATTORNEY CHARGES ME BUT I'M REALISTIC ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND RESEARCH THEY HAVE TO CONDUCT, THE COST OF MANAGING A BUSINESS, AND THE ALTERNATIVE OUTCOME I MIGHT FACE THAT IN THE LONG RUN WOULD COST ME A GREAT DEAL MORE MONEY. IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL LAWYER, THE END RESULT COULD BE THE LOSS OF YOUR FREEDOM IF YOU DON'T USE ONE OR IF YOU HAMSTRING HIM IN DOING HIS JOB.
Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld
Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."
Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "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."
Benchseats Rock
06-19-07, 16:58
Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld
Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."
Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "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."
Warshak v. USA
Update On 6/18/07: Sixth Circuit issues opinion upholding district court's injunction against secret warrantless seizures of email
In Warshak v. USA, EFF is fighting to make sure that your email is as safe against government intrusion as your phone calls, postal mail, or the private papers you keep in your home.
This case was brought by Steven Warshak to stop the government's repeated secret searches and seizures of his stored email using the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). In a landmark ruling, the district court held that the SCA violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing secret, warrantless searches and seizures of email stored with a third party.
The government, which has routinely used the SCA over the past 20 years to secretly obtain stored email without a warrant, appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is now primed to be the first circuit court ever to decide whether email users have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their stored email.
In a friend-of-the-court brief, EFF and a coalition of civil liberties groups argue in support of the district court's ruling. Email users clearly expect that their inboxes are private, but the government argues the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect emails at all when they are stored with an ISP or a webmail provider like Hotmail or Gmail. EFF disagrees and argues that the Fourth Amendment applies online just as strongly as it does offline.
Legal Documents
* Circuit Decision Upholding District Court's Injunction [PDF, 3.5M] June 18, 2007
* District Court Order Enjoining Government from Secretly Seizing Email Without a Warrant July 21, 2006
* Government's Opening Brief to Sixth Circuit October 11, 2006
* Warshak's Brief to Sixth Circuit November 13, 2006
* Law Professors' Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 85K] November 21, 2006
* EFF, ACLU and CDT Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 95K] Nov 22, 2006
* Government's Reply Brief to Sixth Circuit December 13, 2006
Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld
Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the
travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."
Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "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."
The USSC made exactly the right decision.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld
...Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. The state has since conceded there was no basis to stop the car.
I added the emphasis to the above quote from the article.
Detention must be based on specific, articulable facts, and rational inferences. "Unaparticularized suspicion" and "inarticulate hunches" are not enough. A valid "investigative stop" must be based on "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS). { US v Briggman, 931 F2d 705 (1991) }; {US v Strickland, 902 F2d 937 (1990) }; { US v Strahan, 984 F2d 155 (1993) }
Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Ammendment { US v Eldridge, 984 F2d 943 (1993) }
Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply...
Not "might apply". It does apply. That's exactly the point Justice Souter made.
Wallie
And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.
And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.
I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.
You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.
However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.
Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.
Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.
A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.
The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.
I can already see the flames headed my way from this....
Wallie
All excellent points, Wallie, and very germaine to the subject. I think we think the same, just in a little different way. People absolutely should know their rights and if appropriate, stand up for them. Having said that, however, in some instances it can be a very expensive fight to do so. I agree that far too many people don't know their rights, don't understand their rights, or feel that because they think they have the right to do something then they must have the right to do that something.
I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.
You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.
However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.
Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.
Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.
A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.
The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.
I can already see the flames headed my way from this....
Wallie
There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.
So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.
There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.
So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.
Hizark, can you convert it to PDF, and post it here for us to check out too? Or, is there an online version we can check out? (Or, just list that case name, and court ref, and I can find a copy, although a PDF would be great.)
Wallie
Wallie, you are going to love this one. A Louisiana attorney was acquitted on charges of failing to file income tax returns. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321
While it was a federal court making the decision, I wouldn't hang my hat on it just yet. It's possible that the IRS will want to get it into the Supreme Court. If it does go to the Supreme Court and gets overturned, everyone who used this case as support for not filing income tax returns will probably pay some stiff penalities.
Benchseats Rock
07-31-07, 00:02
This video was made in Canada. More recently, these systems have begun to see use in the United States to quickly pick out vehicles without insurance, unregistered, reported stolen, involved in crimes, etc… that have been entered into a database.
Combined with the ever growing camera surveillance program, it would appear that Big Brother is trying to make our sport harder to play than it already is.
Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGY1CD9y_4)
Benchseats Rock
I know it's been said here before and possibly in different ways, but the best thing one can do if they are stopped in their car is this. Respectfully and without anger or confrontation simpley say when stopped, "Am I under arrest? If I am I would like an attorney before answering questions. If I am not under arrest, please allow me to leave." There is no law prohibiting you from saying that over and over and over again every time another question is asked. The reason you say it respectfully and without anger and confrontation is because police officers are trained in the art of questioning you, cajoling you, and instigating you to get frustrated, angry, or confrontational, thereby blurting out something you should not say.
All excellent points, Wallie, and very germaine to the subject. I think we think the same, just in a little different way. People absolutely should know their rights and if appropriate, stand up for them. Having said that, however, in some instances it can be a very expensive fight to do so. I agree that far too many people don't know their rights, don't understand their rights, or feel that because they think they have the right to do something then they must have the right to do that something.This post I am sure will keep me from forgetting any info in the future but I used to be a state trooper until I retired due to an on the job injury at the ripe old age of 25. Nothing like a medical retirement throught he state drawing 80% plus allowed to get a civiliian job.
In training for the state police (I am unsure about city/county) they went over court cases with us wins for LE and losses for LE so we could learn the right way and the wrong way. This included everything from murders to traffic stops. I know Where I was a trooper the academy was 37 weeks 9 oclock Sunday night until they let you go home on Friday. They took us out and did all kinds of things. I entered the academy before I was 21 turned 21 while I was there and they used me to buy liquor and beer from bars to strip clubs to stores. They had multiple vans carrying my 32 classmates with a wire on me. After each time (about 20 a night for 2 weeks) we went to the acadamey and went over everything I said clerk did etc with the DA from the county the academy was located. This is the type training some departments get so never think you know more about your rights then I do. There was an incident where a gentleman I pulled over on the interstate for sppeding refused to sign the citation. You must do this or the police officer has the right to take your before the judge right then and there. Needless to say a little pepper spray later he was before the judge and sentto jail until trial (he was from out of state) no bond and his vehicle was impounded. Verdict? Guilty for failure to follow a lawful order, failure to sign a citiation, resisting arrest, speeding, improper exhaust, improper display of a license plate, unsigned registration card, no proof of insurance, and several other charges I can't remember. The total was 21. There is not one vehicle on the road to day that is 100% legal according to state laws. Anytime an officer wants to cite you or pull you over there will be probable cause. Who knew a license plate holder was against the law?
Fact is most cops are trained and trianed right to beat you in court. Small towns excluded. Yes I participate in the hobby no they don't have to tell you they are a cop, yes if you ask them to touch you they can and if you ask to touch them and they say yes you can. Dosent matter if you offer to pay you are busted even if you both have been touching? Reason why? It was recorded and consentual. The best way is to just say do you need a ride? Looking for a date? Etc and don't talk about anything sexual or money until you are SEVERAL blocks away. Most if not all depts. Will not let a femal officer into a car for a period of time for that long if at all due to safety. They will find a reason to stop you to get her out if she should get in your car if you don't make an offer quick best of luck guys and stay safe. If you have any questions about this please feel free to PM me.
This post I am sure will keep me from forgetting any info in the future but I used to be a state trooper until I retired due to an on the job injury at the ripe old age of 25. Nothing like a medical retirement throught he state drawing 80% plus allowed to get a civiliian job.
In training for the state police (I am unsure about city/county) they went over court cases with us wins for LE and losses for LE so we could learn the right way and the wrong way. This included everything from murders to traffic stops. I know Where I was a trooper the academy was 37 weeks 9 oclock Sunday night until they let you go home on Friday. They took us out and did all kinds of things. I entered the academy before I was 21 turned 21 while I was there and they used me to buy liquor and beer from bars to strip clubs to stores. They had multiple vans carrying my 32 classmates with a wire on me. After each time (about 20 a night for 2 weeks) we went to the acadamey and went over everything I said clerk did etc with the DA from the county the academy was located. This is the type training some departments get so never think you know more about your rights then I do. There was an incident where a gentleman I pulled over on the interstate for sppeding refused to sign the citation. You must do this or the police officer has the right to take your before the judge right then and there. Needless to say a little pepper spray later he was before the judge and sentto jail until trial (he was from out of state) no bond and his vehicle was impounded. Verdict? Guilty for failure to follow a lawful order, failure to sign a citiation, resisting arrest, speeding, improper exhaust, improper display of a license plate, unsigned registration card, no proof of insurance, and several other charges I can't remember. The total was 21. There is not one vehicle on the road to day that is 100% legal according to state laws. Anytime an officer wants to cite you or pull you over there will be probable cause. Who knew a license plate holder was against the law?
Fact is most cops are trained and trianed right to beat you in court. Small towns excluded. Yes I participate in the hobby no they don't have to tell you they are a cop, yes if you ask them to touch you they can and if you ask to touch them and they say yes you can. Dosent matter if you offer to pay you are busted even if you both have been touching? Reason why? It was recorded and consentual. The best way is to just say do you need a ride? Looking for a date? Etc and don't talk about anything sexual or money until you are SEVERAL blocks away. Most if not all depts. Will not let a femal officer into a car for a period of time for that long if at all due to safety. They will find a reason to stop you to get her out if she should get in your car if you don't make an offer quick best of luck guys and stay safe. If you have any questions about this please feel free to PM me.
Firedigg, I mean no disrespect to you or any other person who earns an honest living enforcing the law. I think most of us believe that there are many important laws to be enforced. However, based on the fact that you concede having worked in LE and partake in the hobby, I suspect that you and many others both active and retired, probably feel the same deep down as we do. When it comes to AMPs, which in most of the experiences here you will see are found by hobbyists to be clean, as safe as having sex with another person can be, and discreet, tax money could be much better spent on other legal issues.
I've never read or seen on television any reports (nor have I experienced them my self in the AMPs I have visited or for that matter with any of the ladies I have developed some kind of relationship with (including live in), problems with selling drugs, taking drugs, mugging, or even stealing. I'm not saying stealing does not occur but it has never happened to me in many visits to many different AMPs.
Having said that, what would have happened to the individual you pulled over on the interstate if he had said to you, "Am I under arrest? If I am I would like a lawyer before answering any questions. If not, may I go?" Would you have pepper sprayed him for saying that? If you asked him to sign the citation and he said, "I am unwilling at this point to sign the citation so if you need to take me before a judge now I am willing to cooperate and go before the judge," Would you have pepper sprayed him?
Or, in fact, did you pepper spray him because he became combative and escalated the incident to the point where you had to pepper spray him to protect yourself and quite possibly him? If this is the case, those facts are far different than what we have talked about in this particular part of the forum.
I want to be sure that no one is mistaking what you are saying. So, I'm asking again for no other reason than clarification, did you pepper spray this person because he refused to sign the citation or did you pepper spray him because he acted like an ass and became combative and potentially dangerous? This is a very important distinction.
This is not about how smart you are or how much you know about the law and rights, it's not about how smart I am or how much I know about the law and rights, nor is it about how smart anyone on this forum is or about how much they know about the law and rights. It's about not foolishly putting yourself in the position of saying or doing something that can create other problems for you than just having visited an AMP.
As for streetwalkers, if you believe you have probable cause to stop someone because you saw them talking to one, thereby giving you the probable cause, what will you do if they say to you in a calm and respectful manner, "If I am under arrest I would like to have a lawyer before I answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, can I please leave?" If that's all you get out of the person, will you pepper spray him?
If you write him a citation for, say, freqenting a known area where prostitution is solicited (assuming only strictly for the sake of discussion here that is a legitmate charge) and he says, "I am sorry but I am unwilling to sign the citation at this time," will you pepper spray him?
And if you then say to him, "If you won't sign the citation I will take you to a judge right now," and he responds, "If you have to do that I will cooperate and either follow you to the Judge's location or ride with you there," will you pepper spray him?"
If you read back through this forum you will see two things. First, you will see some angry posts or posts by individuals who are frustrated and learn after the fact that they perhaps should have handled the whole thing differently than the idiot you stopped on the interstate. Second, you will see responses to many of those posts urging the angry or frustrated posters not to get carried away, be more careful how they conduct themselves, and to not, repeat, not go toe to toe with an officer of the law.
That, my friend, is far more about what this particular forum is about than anything else.
If you or some other cop happens to stop me for not having a license plate holder (whether my state has or does not have a law requiring one), I may or may not agree to sign the citation. However, if I do not sign it, I will be and will continue to urge others here to be respectful to the officer, not express anger or be confrontational, and stick to the simple words, "I am sorry but I am unwilling to sign the citation at this time." If told I must accompany the officer to see a Judge at that very moment I will say, again with respect and without confrontation, "I am willing to accompany you now to see the judge."
I suspect that you are unable to find any law or cite any case law that gives you unfettered authority for pepper spraying me or anyone else who is being cooperative. I also suspect that if you do pepper spray someone under the circumstance I'm outlining here you and/or your department would face charges of excessive force. Whether you win or lose will probably be more a province for a court to decide than it will be for you or the department to decide.
The operative word in your post is MOST, as in, "most cops are trained..." What about those who are not? What about those who ignore their training? What about those (and everyone is human) who allow their anger and frustration to carry them away? What about those who eventually turn out to be rogue cops?
And, if all or most cops are trained not to lose, why do defense lawyers make so much money? Why do some of the cases (traffic or otherwise) make it in to the court? Why do some of them get resolved in favor of the defendant? In fact, if cops are correct most or even all of the time, then why do we even need courts? We need them because there is that pesky thing called a constitution. And the basis for this thread is - be aware of your constitutional rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
And let's face it Fire. It matters not one whit how smart you think you are, or how smart I think I am, or how smart anyone else on here thinks they are, or how smart any Chief of Police or State Police Commander thinks they are, or how smart any judge thinks he or she is. We are all human. We will all make mistakes throughout our lives. It's just the nature of the human condition.
Everyone should watch the video on this page, and be ready to assert your Rights if needed.
IMO, this is a very well done video, and outlines some of the information we have talked about here previously.
http://iwantmylawyer.org/busted.html
Wallie
In its ongoing efforts to rid the state of Florida of anything related to sex, police have now arrested ad executives for accepting adult services ads. Read the story at http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/277880.html.
QUOTE: "In Sweden [where paying for sex was criminalized only in 1999], men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days' salary, or a six-month jail term."
[Again, that's 40 *DAYS* salary! Talk about Draconian.]
"Street prostitution has reduced by up to 80 per cent, officials say."
Here's the full article from the Daily Mail ( www.dailymail.co.uk ):
Buying sex should be illegal, says Women's Minister Harman
21st December 2007
Paying women for sex should be outlawed, Harriet Harman said yesterday.
Her remarks put her at odds with the Government, which is considering relaxing the law to protect vice girls.
At present, it is illegal to solicit sex, or to kerb-crawl, but not illegal to pay a woman for sex.
Women's Minister Miss Harman, an avowed feminist, said a ban is needed to stem the demand for sex workers which encourages human trafficking.
She said Britain should follow Sweden, where paying for sex was criminalised in 1999.
"My own personal view is that's what we need to do as a next step," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Just because something has always gone on, it doesn't mean you just wring your hands and say there's nothing we can do about it."
In Sweden, men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days' salary, or a six-month jail term.
Street prostitution has reduced by up to 80 per cent, officials say.
But the [British] Government's recent prostitution strategy suggested that allowing more than one woman to work from a brothel could improve their safety.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who is responsible for the issue, said a review would begin early next year with a visit by ministers to Sweden.
Benchseats Rock
01-30-08, 19:48
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who is responsible for the issue, said a review would begin early next year with a visit by ministers to Sweden.
That's it. I'm running for office. The field trips are definitely worth it. ;)
Bench
Virile Vito
02-19-08, 14:21
Massage-parlor probe rubs judge wrong way
Associated Press
ALLENTOWN - State police engaged in "outrageous" conduct when they paid an informant to have sex with employees of a spa on four occasions as part of a prostitution investigation, a judge has ruled.
State police investigating the Shiatsu Spa in North Whitehall Township paid the informant $180 and gave him money to pay for sexual acts in the spa in 2006.
"We conclude that the decision to send the citizen into Shiatsu Spa on four occasions for a smorgasbord of sexual activity violates the principles of fundamental fairness," Lehigh County Judge Robert L. Steinberg wrote.
Steinberg dismissed prostitution charges against the spa's owner, Sun Cha Chon, 53, of Cross Kill, N.J., agreeing with Chon's allegation of "outrageous government conduct" on the part of the police.
"Does the public want their tax dollars to be used to pay some guy money to get sexual intercourse four times? It is disgusting," said Chon's attorney, Maureen Coggins.
State troopers have testified that they had been trying to determine if prostitution was going on at Shiatsu Spa and that although having sex is not the preferred method, it is not prohibited as an investigatory tool.
But Steinberg said that police could have made an arrest after the spa's employees offered sex for money.
"We expect more from the police and demand that they conduct their investigations and utilize their resources without resorting to such embarrassing investigative techniques," he wrote.
District Attorney James Martin said he will appeal the Jan. 24 ruling. *
Original article can be found at http://www.philly.com/dailynews/national/20080206_Massage-parlor_probe_rubs_judge_wrong_way.html
How very refreshing to find a judge who combines fairness with justice. Not to mention takes into consideration how the police spent other people's money. The judge made a such a valid point when he said the police should have stopped as soon as sex was offered for money that the sentence should be taken from the transcript and sent to every police agency in the country.
That's why it's very unlikely the ladies ask for tip money upfront that automatically puts them in a incriminating position for solicitation of prostitution.
If the police really followed the law it would be very difficult to bust these ladies.
Give federal law enforcement their due. They don't seem to discriminate when it comes to policing the world's oldest profession. With Governor Spitzer on the chopping block, some who may be in relationships with providers may want to review what they will and won't do for the providers. Spitzer may very well be charged with a violation of the Mann Act. The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 38, Part I, Chapter 117, subsection 2421. The text is pretty simple:
"Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
If your favorite provider asks you to take her the next state over for her next gig, you may be violating a federal law. Just something for hobbyists who have become close with providers to think about.
The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 18, not Title 38. My original post had the typo in it so if you went looking for the law you didn't find it. My apologies.
Give federal law enforcement their due. They don't seem to discriminate when it comes to policing the world's oldest profession. With Governor Spitzer on the chopping block, some who may be in relationships with providers may want to review what they will and won't do for the providers. Spitzer may very well be charged with a violation of the Mann Act. The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 38, Part I, Chapter 117, subsection 2421. The text is pretty simple:
"Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
If your favorite provider asks you to take her the next state over for her next gig, you may be violating a federal law. Just something for hobbyists who have become close with providers to think about.
R Consultant
05-29-08, 09:29
I can tell you about a undercover cop that was getting orally serviced and he went to the wrong place they were suppose to conduct the sting. So he had to unfortunately get completely orally serviced without busting or blowing his cover as a LE.
It was on the local news a few years back. I was like heck I bet they do that more times than they tell the public.
Happy Hunting..
How very refreshing to find a judge who combines fairness with justice. Not to mention takes into consideration how the police spent other people's money. The judge made a such a valid point when he said the police should have stopped as soon as sex was offered for money that the sentence should be taken from the transcript and sent to every police agency in the country.
Everyone should watch the video on this page, and be ready to assert your Rights if needed.
IMO, this is a very well done video, and outlines some of the information we have talked about here previously.
http://iwantmylawyer.org/busted.html
Wallie
I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. He asked if I had any illegal drugs in my car, I said no (this was true). He asked, "Then you don't mind if I search your car ?" Well, I had embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff in the car, like condoms, plus I didn't want to be bothered, so I thought I'd exercise my Constitutional right against unreasonable search, and I answered "I don't consent to any searches." According to a video I saw, this should make the cop give up, but I now think that was naive. This cop had a hunch, so he called a K-9 unit and about 5 other cop cars. It was a circus ! The dog jumped at my car, which apparently gave the cops "probable cause" to gain entry to my car. But the dog was wrong, as I've indicated. The police ended up reading me the Riot Act and then let me go. This is what I was hoping to avoid, but it happened anyway, just delayed and with more cops.
During the ordeal I was calm and only talked to answer questions. The police will ask why you are there (it was an area with a lot of crime), where you came from, where you are going. You need a story, like visiting a friend in the area. They won't believe anything you say anyway, but they are looking to confuse you with inconsistencies and maybe trick you into some admission, and probably they just want to know you are sober/sane. I knew some street names and said my "friend" was from there. They wanted to know the name and address of my friend, which I politely refused to give (of course, there was no friend). Overall I was cooperative and polite, and I think this is VERY important: your goal is just to get out of there and not piss them off or give them an incentive to arrest you.
I think next time I'll just let them search the car. That's what I normally have done. Constitutional rights are easy to trample on the mean streets. In my case, they just needed a dog trained to jump at my car. If their hunch is right, they score a bust. I was actually a little worried the cops might plant some drugs, but fortunately they were not corrupt.
IMO, you still did the right thing. Sure, it may have been inconvenient, but still, you have the right to do what you did.
LOL, I never said it would be painless !!
All joking aside, it is up to each of to decide if defending our Rights are worth the effort it takes to do it, and I would never tell anyone else that they should do what you did; although I applaud the balls [and it does take some to do it when you are there and it is happening] to do what you did.
I know a person who is involved in Research into/Defense of our Rights, who will allow himself to be arrested if necessary, go to jail, and then fight the charges/sue the city to make the point needed, and make abuse of a given Right end. Obviously, this is a hard-core commitment for him, and he is able to properly present his case/defense in court.
Again, I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but even what you did is a piece of the effort that helps to keep the police/government in the box they are supposed to be in.
Wallie
I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. He asked if I had any illegal drugs in my car, I said no (this was true). He asked, "Then you don't mind if I search your car ?" Well, I had embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff in the car, like condoms, plus I didn't want to be bothered, so I thought I'd exercise my Constitutional right against unreasonable search, and I answered "I don't consent to any searches." According to a video I saw, this should make the cop give up, but I now think that was naive. This cop had a hunch, so he called a K-9 unit and about 5 other cop cars. It was a circus ! The dog jumped at my car, which apparently gave the cops "probable cause" to gain entry to my car. But the dog was wrong, as I've indicated. The police ended up reading me the Riot Act and then let me go. This is what I was hoping to avoid, but it happened anyway, just delayed and with more cops.
During the ordeal I was calm and only talked to answer questions. The police will ask why you are there (it was an area with a lot of crime), where you came from, where you are going. You need a story, like visiting a friend in the area. They won't believe anything you say anyway, but they are looking to confuse you with inconsistencies and maybe trick you into some admission, and probably they just want to know you are sober/sane. I knew some street names and said my "friend" was from there. They wanted to know the name and address of my friend, which I politely refused to give (of course, there was no friend). Overall I was cooperative and polite, and I think this is VERY important: your goal is just to get out of there and not piss them off or give them an incentive to arrest you.
I think next time I'll just let them search the car. That's what I normally have done. Constitutional rights are easy to trample on the mean streets. In my case, they just needed a dog trained to jump at my car. If their hunch is right, they score a bust. I was actually a little worried the cops might plant some drugs, but fortunately they were not corrupt.
I agree with Wallie, but for different reasons. If you're innocent, you want the search conducted with many witnessing officers and civilians, and preferably on videotape. You don't want the cop (or worse, cop and his partner) that stopped you to "find" something in your car that he brought to the scene himself. Of course, if you're "riding dirty" you're screwed either way -- in which case, make them work for it. This is a pain, but as you saw they will construct a way to search your car if they really want to. Making things as complicated as possible gives them more opportunities to make mistakes, which would seem to increase your chance of invalidating the search in court (IANAL but I wonder if that police dog was really trained for drug sniffing -- search might not have ultimately held up in court?!)
I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. ...
Hos Cuisine
07-18-08, 14:38
Actually, unless you have some "significant other" reason to play it low it might be worth investigating the training of said dog. Drug dogs are not usually taught to "jump".
If the dog is not trained, or did not provide the right signal, a civil suit could pay your mongering bills for a while.
I have more experience with these police stops than I care to admit, and I think the police in the USA are generally honest and follow procedure. But they are humans and they have a tough job, so they can get angry or disgusted. The worst I've encountered was very aggressive questioning -- one time a cop said that I "must admit I was looking for prostitutes" or he would arrest me ! After thinking hard for a minute about calling his bluff, I humbly admitted. He read me the Riot Act, no doubt proud of his moral superiority. And he let me go.
Assuming they are honest, then the best policy would be to let the one or two officers search your car. Usually they call backup anyway, so then there are more witnesses. The key goal, I think, is to be cooperative and not piss them off. Because if I'm not mistaken most towns have laws against cruising with the intention of finding prostitutes, and then it's a judgement call on the part of the police officers to arrest you for that. The more you cooperate, the more lenient they will be. Simple human nature. I suspect it would be difficult to get conviction for such an arrest, but for many guys (like me) just the arrest would be a huge problem. And I've never been arrested.
One other comment: streets are to be avoided. I still cruise sometimes out of old habit, but rarely pick up anymore. Not much out there. Instead, CL, eros, and AMPs are the way to go. Far less chance of these police encounters.
The Editor suggested that I add this posting to this area of the forum to benefit all the readers. I had posted the following as an answer to the basic question:
"If LE catch you picking a girl up or driving around with her won't they pull you over and arrest you? Do they give you a ticket or do they call the hook and lock you up?"
Here is my response:
Please read the entire posting.
Technically, prostitution, is defined as sex for hire.
That being said, just driving around with a prostitute in your car, having not discussed sex or money should technically get you scared at best, if you are stopped. BUT:
The LEO can make life hell for you if they desire. Some posters on this board are well aware of that. Even though they did nothing illegal.
If the SW is wanted for anything or has illegal drugs in her possession (which is not uncommon amongst SW's), they can arrest you for possession and depending on the amount of drugs possibly confiscate your vehicle.
If she is wanted for anything, you could be considered harboring a criminal. You can be ticketed for loitering (and maybe more).
Ticketed for picking up a hitchhiker (if not allowed in that area).
You can get a ticket for almost any made-up charge also, like running a stop sign or a red-light, an illegal u-turn or simply reckless driving.
There is no limit to what you can be stopped and ticketed for.
Odds of getting hauled off to jail and losing your car would only happen in a "sting" type operation. Or if you solicit a cop.
The problem with all the other potential violations that you could be written up for is that you are presumed guilty (similar to a speeding ticket) until you prove yourself innocent in court (or pay a fine. Which goes on your record).
If you are smart and know the area that you are in, and also know how to approach a SW and verify that they are not LE, most likely you will have no problem.
Remember. A LEO posing as a SW will almost never get in your car due to the risk that the LEO would be taking.
Also, depending on the city and whether it has had complaints about a certain area can cause extra pressure to crack down on SW's and their customers for a while.
There is no exact specifics that define what LE can or cannot do. If they want to make your life hell for a while, they can. Period.
If you have a good SW that you see on a regular basis and are pleased with the service and price, Stick with them. On the other hand, if you are looking for something new and play the game correctly, you should not run into problems.
Actually, I think some of us like the cat and mouse game along with finding that new SW. The pursuit may seem more rewarding than the conquest.
Bottom line is think with your brains and not your dick. If you feel uncomfortable, get out of the situation or don't say anything that will get you in trouble. Stay alive to play another day.
LE has more important things to do than to pull you over for having a known prositute in your car. In fact, if they get a call for something more urgent (before you a ticketed etc.) they will just leave.
You're question may sound simple but it is actually not an easy one to answer.
This news story originating from the Sarasota Herald Tribune shines a new light on the practice of using drug sniffing dogs to create probable cause for searching one's car. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/21/me-drug-dog-results-can-be-spotty/
I have a question for legal beagles: there is discussion on the Providence escort board about the idea of getting a prepaid "monger phone" registered under a false name. Great idea, but strictly speaking is it illegal to register a cell phone under a false name?
I have a question for legal beagles: there is discussion on the Providence escort board about the idea of getting a prepaid "monger phone" registered under a false name. Great idea, but strictly speaking is it illegal to register a cell phone under a false name?
First, I would ask the service provider (not the salesperson) before you buy it. And then, I would check what they say with a call to your state's attorney general's office. You cannot be arrested for asking a question about what is legal and illegal. And, regardless of what the RI AG says, the answer in the other 49 states may be different.
Snake, I couldn't disagree more. Of course, when detained by a police officer always be polite, civil and courteous. Remember, one of the worst offenses in a cop's view is "contempt of cop, " which is a non-crime, but will lead to all sorts of really nasty retribution from the cop who is on the receiving end of it. And he can get away with it.
However, do not admit to anything. Ever! They will try all sorts of angles. Yelling at you, threatening you, shaming you, sympathizing with you, etc. , all in an effort to encourage you to incriminate yourself. Do not be fooled! They are not your friends, and they will use you if you let them. Exercise your right to remain silent. You cannot help yourself by talking. They are much better at this than you are, plus they have a huge tactical advantage over you when you are scared, alone and with a lot to lose.
Let them search your car? You do not have to give permission. Some would argue against it in any case. Others would say to allow it if you have nothing illegal in your car. But remember, a lot of things might be illegal that you would never think of.
You guys should spend a little time on Youtube. They have some very good and educational videos dealing with what to do if confronted by LE. Here is just one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch? V=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=related
I've run into the police twice in prostitution-related incidents. The first time was over 25 years ago, and I was stopped with a SW in my car. I was young and caved in to all their intimidation. They let me go and kept the girl. I was lucky. They could have busted me for the shit they found in my car. Don't know why they didn't, to tell you the truth. Instead, all I got a lecture and an "angry cop" performance. You might think that proves you should go along with what they want, but I repeat, I was lucky.
The next time I was older, and caught when the cops pounded on the door of an incall girl I was visiting. Looking back, they had no real grounds to barge into a private residence (hers) without a warrant and push us around, but they did. This time I clammed up, ignored their games, but was polite. They let me go this time too, and they were very cool once they saw I was on to their tricks. You know what? They asked me if I was a cop! I guess that means I played it smart the way a cop would have. You be smart too.
Woodrow, I agree with you, and if the reader examines our posts carefully they should find we basically agree. Stay polite and silent.
As in explained in one of my anecdotes, I did cave into police pressure and admit what I was doing (and didn't get busted) but I don't recommend that, I was just giving an example of things that can happen. Nowadays, I stay as silent as possible and only answer in a non-incriminating way. Actually, nowadays I am much better at avoiding these confrontations altogether. "Get a room", as they say. ;)
This statement was posted on CL
"LE cannot do anything that would be considered entrapment. Here are a couple of things that they CANNOT DO. They CANNOT post a nude picture. AND they cannot post a fee for services. Just like being out on the streets, YOU have to make the first fee offer. They can nail you for that."
Any part of this statement true?
This is good news. Hopefully this will force more girls to work the streets again. I am hoping that LE cracks down even harder on CL.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10084304-93.html )
"Craigslist will require anyone posting ads to the Web's site's "erotic services" section to submit a working phone number and credit card, the online classified publication said Thursday."
Joint Statement with Attorneys General, NCMEC
November 6th, 2008 by jim
"Joint Statement with NCMEC and over 40 Attorneys General Detailing Measures to Prevent Illegal Activity and Improve Safety
craigslist Files 14 Lawsuits Against Software and Service Providers who Facilitate Misuse of Site
November 06, San Francisco, CA - craigslist announced today it is implementing sweeping new measures, in close partnership with state law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), to prevent its online communities and classified ads from being misused for the facilitation of human trafficking, child exploitation, and other illegal activities.
The measures were outlined in a joint statement signed by craigslist, NCMEC, and the attorneys general of more than 40 U.S. states and territories, representing a broad collaborative effort spearheaded by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The specific measures outlined in today’s joint statement were shaped during face-to-face meetings between Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, Attorney General Blumenthal, and representatives of NCMEC.
“Preventing site misuse and improving public safety are our highest priorities,” said Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, “and we are extremely appreciative of the encouragement we’ve received from the attorneys general and NCMEC.” He added, “The incidence of crime on craigslist is actually exceedingly low, considering the tens of millions of legitimate ads posted each month by well-intentioned users.” “But no amount of criminal activity is acceptable, and as craigslist has grown, we have become aware of instances where our free services were being misused to facilitate illegal activities.” Buckmaster continued, “We are unequivocally committed to stamping out misuse of the site and to improving safety for craigslist users, through preventative measures such as the ones we are announcing as part of the Joint Statement.”
Due in part to the growth of craigslist, businesses have sprung up selling software and other services designed to evade craigslist’s terms of use, and to circumvent its technical defenses against misuse, including phone verification. By offering services designed to undermine craigslist’s ability to enforce its terms of use, these businesses facilitate the placement of ads for illegal services that would otherwise be blocked by craigslist’s protective measures. craigslist has no tolerance for these activities and has filed 14 lawsuits and is sending “cease and desist” demands to numerous other companies and individuals offering such services. In addition, craigslist will investigate and provide information to state attorneys general for the prosecution of those engaging in and facilitating criminal activity.
craigslist is constantly working to improve its existing tools for enforcing its terms of use. In this regard, the company has continued to refine its protocols for blocking inappropriate postings and advertisements for illegal services. In addition, a flagging system accompanies each ad, so that inappropriate content can be identified by users for quick removal. craigslist has also implemented the industry standard PICS rating system for tagging adult content, to facilitate parental screening software on home computers.
craigslist recently implemented a telephone verification system for the “erotic services” section of the site, requiring a working phone number for advertisers, and enabling blacklisting of phone numbers for those who post inappropriate ads. Phone verification resulted in an 80% reduction in ad volume, and significantly increased compliance with site guidelines.
In addition to phone verification and other existing protective measures, craigslist will soon require credit card verification and a small fee per ad for posting in “erotic services”, to further encourage compliance with
site guidelines. Paid ads that violate site guidelines will be removed without refund. The company intends to donate 100% of net revenue generated from these ads to charity, with net revenue to be verified by an external auditor.
“Requiring credit card verification, and charging a fee to post in this category raises accountability to a point where we expect few illicit ads will remain,” says Buckmaster. “For those that do persist, telephone and credit card information will be available to law enforcement via subpoena. More than ever, those who would misuse craigslist to violate the law will find that craigslist is a very inhospitable place.”
The craigslist site is used by 40 million Americans each month, who represent a potent force for identifying and reporting illicit activity. In addition to participating in NCMEC’s Cybertipline program, and urging craigslist users to flag suspect postings and file a report anytime they suspect the exploitation of a minor or human trafficking, craigslist will work with NCMEC and the state attorneys general to further improve site messaging to build awareness of these important issues. Buckmaster added, “Human trafficking and child exploitation are despicable crimes, and in addition to working diligently to prevent such abuse, we want to do everything we can to raise awareness among craigslist users so that they will be even more vigila"
http://blog.craigslist.org/2008/11/joint-statement-with-attorneys-general-ncmec/
Related to this topic, there's an interesting discussion on "Figueroa Street Walker Reports" on the Los Angeles board, especially posts from "Walter" who claims (somewhat credibly) to be a cop, and who provides entertaining insight into the police's motivations and methods, as well as info about the local scene.
Admin suggested they move their discussion here, but I suppose one reason this thread isn't more popular is that it's obscure. If you click on "All the Forums" from the main page and you will not see this thread in the "Special Interests" sub-forum unless you specifically click on "Special Interests" (only then do you see "Police Tactics & Legal Issues").
This statement was posted on CL
"LE cannot do anything that would be considered entrapment. Here are a couple of things that they CANNOT DO. They CANNOT post a nude picture. AND they cannot post a fee for services. Just like being out on the streets, YOU have to make the first fee offer. They can nail you for that."
Any part of this statement true?
Most likely the truth or non-truth in this statement will be found in each different state's statutes. While every state has similar laws the statutes for each state are sometimes written slightly or largely differently. Case law (court decisions interpreting the law) is tailored to each state's statutes. So, what may be so in, say, New York may be very different in, say, Oregon.
I see a lot of bs about people getting and using prepaid CC with false info as not to trace back to them.
How stupid are they?
How many laws are they breaking?
I can think of a few federal laws such as money laundering and identity theft as possibilities.
At the least they could get you for unauthorized use, because that false person can not come forward and say you had permission.
To me this seems like a very foolish thing to do and add to your troubles.
The false phones are illegal in some STATES but the card is illegal everywhere.
I ran across this law today. This is another one of those ridiculous prostitution laws. I think this law was passed in lieu of impounding cars where the cops cannot prove solicitation. This law is still relatively easy avoid if you take the proper precautions and drive a good distance from where you pick up the SW. This the first time I have heard of such a law so I am uncertain how often the DA uses this. There are similar statutes in other states as well. The only good thing is that they can suspend you license for 30 days. The other option is for them to restrict your driving privileges for 3 months.
(http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.
(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "
(http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.
(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "
This law looks burdensome on first glance but there is some wiggle room within it. First, there's the language in the first sentence of (a) that says the court MAY suspend. This is permissive rather than mandatory language. It gives the court or DMV lattitude to use its own judgement, and a defense attorney negotiating room.
In the same sentence are the words, "upon conviction." Therefore it's not a given that a license will be suspended upon arrest or citation. A conviction must first be rendered by a court and there would, I am assuming, need to be some proof offered during that conviction that the act did in fact occur as prescribed by the law, i.e., within 1,000 feet of a private residence inside a car. Therefore it would seem there is room for a challenge if, for example, someone drove their car up to a SW, was outside of the car and completed an act or, in the case of an aggressive cop, the person was grabbed in the crotch through the window or outside the car but no money exchanged hands. In any event, the operative words of this part of the law is "upon conviction."
Section (b) is interesting in that it also uses permissive rather than mandatory language. It, too requires a conviction under the penal code before it can be imposed, and requires that the person pick up a SW. However, it also seems to require that the act of picking up a SW be witnessed by a peace officer (which section (a) does not require) and that somehow the peace officer has knowledge of the SW's activities or can otherwise prove that the SW is in fact a SW or is working at the time as a SW. However, this section also requires that the person picking up the SW does in fact engage in a lewd act, which of course would have to be proved under the penal code, which is why this law is dependent upon a penal code conviction.
The most interesting part of this law is that it appears designed to punish a person twice for engaging a SW, once under the penal code and once under the motor vehicle code of the state. I'm wondering if at some point someone caught up in this scenario will have the money to hire a good attorney to attack this as double punishment.
The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law.
For many years, government considered a driver's license "A privilege. Not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a licensee's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Good news some wiggle room, bad news its why most DMV's give hearings to challenge suspensions, including California.
The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law. .
I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0319_ZS.html.
I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0319_ZS.html.
My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3
Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/176/176.F3d.1202.97-17006.html
quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).
17
In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license."--end quote
The key word in the quote is full administrative hearing satisfied due process.
For soliciting does the police in California give a notice to appear or promise to appear the latter with a finger print on the notice?
My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3
Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/176/176.F3d.1202.97-17006.html
quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).
This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.
This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.
The Washington and California State Supreme Court, used United States Supreme Court rulings to determine each case. My main point is the DMV does have to give a hearing before they can suspend your license. Requires less due process over taking your car, hence why they changed the law.
CA law on notification of pending action:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13106.htm
I'm guessing that avoiding license suspension is a carrot to gaining plea deals. On regular notice to appear tickets, no finger prints are taken. Most people do not realize after the court receives the ticket and its put on the "system". The courts through out the paper copy of the ticket. Hence why in one year if the ticket is not on the computer system, its an automatic dismissal in California, "statute" of limitation, as it was not properly filed with the court. Therefore you can't fail to appear and they no longer have "evidence" with your "accuser" you broke the law. A traffic offense must be committed in front of a police officer by California Vehicle Code.
Sticky gray area. Notice to appear tickets, if you can avoid being detected over a year and fail to appear for that citation. I'll find the vehicle code, you can when brought before a magistrate "request show cause". That you in fact received a traffic ticket from a police officer. If they can't find the original paper ticket in 45 days they must find you innocent on face value of driving while suspended because you failed to appear on a past traffic ticket. They need the past ticket as evidence. Your screwed if they find the court paper copy.
This is why on promise to appear citations they make you put your finger print on the citation.
Oh, should mention I' am not a lawyer. Just a bad driver, who knows how to manipulate the laws to their advantage
Took some digging but here is California law on being "arrested" for failing to appear to a notice to do so:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40500.htm "(e) (1) A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through his or her local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court determines that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2) Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3) Upon receipt of the issuing agency's or prosecuting attorney's response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the person's driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4) If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court determines that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5) The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 93, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 467, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004." -- end quote
Most times after one year the original citation was tossed when entered on the "system". Its a risky move with "perjury", but my non-legal opinion, the cops lie on their arresting affidavits. So is it so bad to make them find your outstanding ticket?
Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.
This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.
Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.
True. So can other state law, rules and regulations, etcetera. As long as its on the same issue and under the Constitution.
It can if it's on point but if the state law is different, and on some issues state law varies widely, then it may not be very effective. Also, if a decision is noted as non-precedential or is an unpublished opinion it may also not be effective. The point is that the thread of this issue started with a citation that the US Supreme Court had ruled on the issue of driver's licenses and it hadn't in the case citation provided. As someone who has lived in at least 6 states and has had licenses from those states I learned that motor vehicle law is often very different in each state.
Well, actually the thread started with a post concerning a motor vehicle law in California that allowed the state to suspend a driver's license for engaging in prostitution. I carefully read the law as it was posted and believe there is wiggle room in that law for Californians but I also questioned then as I do now that enforcement of that law amounts to double punishment, one would be the conviction in criminal court and then losing one's license. It seems on the surface to be unfair but what the hey, that's why all those police officers, attorneys, and judges get the big bucks and we just monger on.
As someone who has lived in at least 6 states and has had licenses from those states I learned that motor vehicle law is often very different in each state. .
Actually motor vehicle law has become fairly uniform. In that its governed by federal law, but that is on a voluntary basis. So it could be argued that it is not binding on state domestic. All states volunteer to make it binding, cause they get fed funds for incorporating federal highway safety act(s) into their domestic law. So really traffic laws and infractions, have become giant revenue generation tools for the state. California has another act. That makes it so they can't convict you if your complying with federal law and regulations. I'd attempt to argue this as a due process issue that it is not in the governments interest in suspending your license is not public safety interest. Therefore, you have more interest in keeping your license for liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I'd attempt to argue this as a due process issue that it is not in the governments interest in suspending your license is not public safety interest. Therefore, you have more interest in keeping your license for liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Good luck with that one at the Supreme Court. Not too many people would have the money, let alone spend it and the time to chase it through the court system to get it into the Supreme Court. And, if they did, it is always possible the Supremes will not take up the Writ of Certriori. They only take up a small fraction of the cases that are submitted for consideration by the Supremes each year. And then there's that pesky legal term found in many decisions from many courts called "harmless error." The court agrees there was an error made by the lower tribunal or appellee but it was not harmful so - no harm no foul. That one is always a tough one for me to take.
And, if they did, it is always possible the Supremes will not take up the Writ of Certriori. They only take up a small fraction of the cases that are submitted for consideration by the Supremes each year. And then there's that pesky legal term found in many decisions from many courts called "harmless error." The court agrees there was an error made by the lower tribunal or appellee but it was not harmful so - no harm no foul. That one is always a tough one for me to take.
I agree. That it is actually very hard to fight on these grounds. Both, minor traffic offenses and even "criminal" misdemeanors are very unfair and impartial in how they are adjudicated. In that most times they will not toss you in jail when your not public safety risk. No jail "harmless error" are just not taken seriously by any court level.
It's almost the same as being robbed in the hobby. Rarely will someone call the police even knowing the location, the thieves are at. Most people want the easiest way out of being charged with a prostitution offense as a "john" because to fight you have to admit paying for sex. The states, via the courts have figured out a system that they can and will rob "defendants".
Take DUI. First time offenders barely over the limit and having good grounds to fight. The lower courts, skirt around your legitimate grievance and make it very hard and not worth fighting. Hence the plea deals when you show up for arraignment. Pay a small fine, plead guilty, might even keep your license, etcetera. Most of all no jail. Defense attorneys, love it as well. Cause its become standard to be offered very light "punishment". My local district court even has a pamphlet explaining the standard plea deal offer from the state. Takes time and money to fight, your lawyer doesn't want to work for the often flat fee they charge for these cases. Hired one for a past license suspension charge it was $750 flat fee, one case fits all. Even from the "defense" attorney side of things.
Its typical and become the standard procedure. Easy plea deal, takes maybe 20 minutes work for both sides, including standing before the "judge". Who makes sure in most cases that this deal if granted is best for you cause we could toss you in jail. Defense attorney has already scared you if you fight, cause you have a weak case. The prosecution, is giving the easiest fastest way out of the situation. Besides you can apply in the future to deffer/expunge most misdemeanors! Its all about the money, hence why most traffic court non-criminal penalty infractions are not tried in a court setting. Really an informal hearing. Misdemeanors, like low blood alcohol, not really drunk DUI, and even prostitution on the monger side are technically moving in the same direction. That is a profit center for the state, court sanctioned robbery.
State, court for non public safety risk area's. Are the McDonald's drive through window of blinders on one case fits all justice. Joe Pesci said it best in Lethal Weapon: "They F*ck you at the drive through!" UN less you have a history of being a bad driver, long time criminal, you'll get the new system of a cop gave a ticket, even if its a wrong application of the law(s) his reason is good enough to find you guilty! The entire reason why the Founders wrote The Constitution, make it hard for the government to extort and abuse its citizens. The Supreme Court to the state legislature have weakened the Constitution to an instrument that is twisted to make it far too easy for government to extort with threat of jail!
Supereloquent
03-08-09, 23:32
I made a post in the Philadelphia General Reports thread on this subject and the Editor suggested I re-post it here for the benefit of members interested in legal issues.
If you want to follow some other interesting information preceding this post on the same subject, you will also find it in the Philadelphia General reports thread.
ENTRAPMENT
I did a little research on Supreme Court entrapment cases. The last one was in 1992, which overturned the conviction of a man who received child pornography in the mail. The general concept of entrapment is whether a law enforcement agent was inducing a person to commit a crime which he otherwise would be unlikely to commit. This particular ruling focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a "predisposition" for committing the crime. Since the man in question had no other such material in his home, save what he purchased from the postal inspectors, the question was whether the idea was implanted in his mind and/or whether it was established that he wished to continue the purchases. So it would seem that behavior patterns are relevant before and after the commission of a "crime" induced by law enforcement to clarify whether indeed there was entrapment. In other words, it would be much more difficult to raise an entrapment defense after a previous arrest and/or conviction for the solicitation of prostitution (or if it can be proven that there was a desire to do it again) because "predisposition" has been established. Or, to put it another way, if you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, swear off cookies for life if you expect an entrapment defense to work.
ENTRAPMENT
...The general concept of entrapment is whether a law enforcement agent was inducing a person to commit a crime which he otherwise would be unlikely to commit. This particular ruling focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a "predisposition" for committing the crime. Since the man in question had no other such material in his home, save what he purchased from the postal inspectors, the question was whether the idea was implanted in his mind and/or whether it was established that he wished to continue the purchases. So it would seem that behavior patterns are relevant before and after the commission of a "crime" induced by law enforcement to clarify whether indeed there was entrapment. In other words, it would be much more difficult to raise an entrapment defense after a previous arrest and/or conviction for the solicitation of prostitution (or if it can be proven that there was a desire to do it again) because "predisposition" has been established. Or, to put it another way, if you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, swear off cookies for life if you expect an entrapment defense to work.
From lectlaw.com: "ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents."
A search for the definition online leaves one with an almost universal idea of what is and isn't entrapment. Essentially, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. In order to be found to be a victim of entrapment, the entrapped person must have been ready and willing to commit the crime prior to the alleged entrapment. The mere providing of an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party.
I've been curious about seeing Craig's List, or other 'open' sites which list erotic services adds, containing a providers specification of race for her clients, "(insert specific racial group here) gentlemen only. " While I'm not advocating any form of discrimination, I am curious as to the legality of law enforcement's ability to use such verbage in a decoy add.
Would such a decoy add stand up to legal scrutiny? Of course they could use multiple adds each specifying a different 'racial' group; add #1, "type A gentlemen only, " add #2 "type C gentlemen only. " Wouldn't multiple adds offer up a subjective argument as to the dilligence the various 'racial' groupings targeted with the individual adds were prosecuted with?
Does the provider's specification, any other consideration aside, provide a, " not a decoy add guarantee?"
[QUOTE=Junglewarrior]I am an attorney who deals with civil and criminal cases and have worked for the Pinellas County DA's office. The 4th Amendment which guards against against unreasonable searches and seizures, ALSO prohibits Law enforcement officers from using stalking tactics to intimidate people, unless they have probable cause to pull you over, which they don't. It doesn't matter if they see you going into a massage parlor or not. There is nothing they can do about it. . .
Second issue is, this person claimed it was in their mailbox, than it was taped. So which is it? If it was mailed, it has to have a return address. You can NOT mail a letter out without a return address. Anyone caught doing so is violating 2 federal laws (read the current laws). Plus anyone placing an item inside you mailbox is also violating a state laws and postal laws which can be fined up to 1,000$ . . . § 1725. Postage unpaid on deposited mail matter[QUOTE]
This post is in response to post #1115 in the St. Petersburg Massage Parlor Reports on May 24. It was suggested that the info in that post be put on this forum. I am responding to it here with a few questions.
It's interesting and intriguing that 1) an attorney would actually let us all know that he or she is an attorney, and even more interesting and intriguing that 2) an attorney would actually let us all know that he or she worked in the DA's office and would go even further and let us all know that it was 3) in the Pinellas County DA's office. But, hey, stranger things have happened.
So, giving Junglewarrior the benefit of the doubt I have a couple of questions. Is it possible that you can give us a couple of case law citations of Supreme Court decisions that we can rely on here in the event that we think we have been stalked by the police? If you could do that it would be very helpful to us all.
You also reference there are two federal laws that may have been violated by another poster and suggest that we read those laws, the current version. As an attorney, you must be familiar with the specific code citations for these laws. It would be very helpful to us all if you could provide the correct citation in the US Code.
You referenced subsection 1725 but did not indicate whether it was a subsection of the US Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. Can your provide us with the full paragraph citation of the Code or CFRs? If you can, it will be very helpful because then we can google it and find it quite easily on the Internet.
Since the great majority of people here are not attorneys any specific citations and information you can provide us would be very much appreciated - by all of us I'm sure.
It's interesting and intriguing that 1) an attorney would actually let us all know that he or she is an attorney, and even more interesting and intriguing that 2) an attorney would actually let us all know that he or she worked in the DA's office and would go even further and let us all know that it was 3) in the Pinellas County DA's office. But, hey, stranger things have happened.
Most excellent point. In my capacity as a layman and Internet rat, I googled the following phrase (with quotes) - "License Plate Scanners" - quite a few links are found. JW states "A law enforcement officer can not look up a vehicles tag without probable cause, even if they follow you for 20 blocks."
Nonsense. If that were true, the companies who make the automated LPSs wouldn't be able to sell their product. I noticed that JW also did NOT specifically reference statute or case law that says otherwise.
Civil libertarians are concerned about what LE will do with the collected info. The answer is NOTHING. There is simply too much data.
Here's one of the links that I found: http://www.wikio.com/article/99624865
Note the last sentence: Police have emphasized the scanning system does not run a full background check on every tag, as it would overload the database system.
I've been in the computer field for over 20 years. I've been a data analyst, programmer analyst, data center manager, and network administrator. I can vouch for the database overload. LE just does not have the budget to do more than selectively process a minimal amount of data.
I look forward to reading the statutes and case law as soon as JW provides them.
Malabar
If you see a SW you want to pick up pull on side street and position your vechicle so that you are facing traffic or pull into alley or parking lot. This primarilly applies at night or in very heavy traffic. The reason is that when you cruise at night it is very hard to see if a cop is behind you sometimes. This strategy will make it harder for the cop to sneak up on you.
Clinton Bush
07-10-09, 03:41
http://www.fox8.com/news/sns-ap-oh--prostitutioncharges,0,4584359.story
Saturday, October 17, MSNBC broadcast a program titled Hollywood Vice. It was documentary about prostitution in Hollywood. One of the ladies interviewed said she keeps the name and phone number of every single man she has ever seen before, just in case something happens to her. That probably explains why escorts want to collect so much information from first timers. However, if an escort is arrested, there is a real concern that the information may be discovered during the arrest.
Nightwatchman1
10-22-09, 16:02
Saturday, October 17, MSNBC broadcast a program titled Hollywood Vice. It was documentary about prostitution in Hollywood. One of the ladies interviewed said she keeps the name and phone number of every single man she has ever seen before, just in case something happens to her. That probably explains why escorts want to collect so much information from first timers. However, if an escort is arrested, there is a real concern that the information may be discovered during the arrest.Just another argument FOR buying, and using, an anonymous, untraceable, pay-as-you-go phone.
Married or not, who needs to go through an LE interview every time an escort gets arrested.
I've only had ONE escort ever check my ID, and it was an outcall to a hotel in another city (of course, after she had my money).
Some people just like to keep records on everyone. Hoping to come up rich with a high profile person.
She's obviously not scared enough to find another profession.
Either that, or this part of the documentary contained fabrications to scare off any potential johns.
We all know MSNBC is not really a news agency as much as it is used for propaganda.
A little off the beaten path but worth the read. Had reason to be in SC for traffic court and made the following observations.
1-The uniform traffic ticket used by SC clearly states on the back you can request a jury trial in writing before the appearance date on your ticket. This will release you from having to go to court on the date designated on the ticket.
2-The judge said in opening remarks that defendants will be asked how they plead. He also said you can plead guilty, not guilty and have a single judge trial, or not guilty and request a jury trial. He advised those who would consider a jury trial to consider seeking legal representation for such a trial.
3-In some instances, after the judge listened to the ticketing officer testify to what happened he then asked the defendant what their side of the story was. He conveniently forgot in a few occasions to ask how they plead first. After the defendant told his side of the story the judge found him guilty and issued a fine that was often reduced from the maximum fine he could issue. I guess they think this takes the sting off being found guilty.
4-In one instance the ticketing officer asked, after the defendant gave his side of the story, for permission to cross examine the defendant. The judge of course granted permission. This does not happen often. However, the defendant has the right to cross examine the officer too but no one asked for that opportunity. This is too often overlooked by defendants in traffic court.
5-Every single defendant responded to the judge’s inquiry about his or her side of the story. Not one said I plead not guilty and request a jury trial. One defendant in a group of four pleaded not guilty and then proceeded to tell his story. He didn’t realize, as the rest who appeared that day didn’t realize, that if you plead guilty and begin telling your story, you are testifying and have acquiesced to a single judge trial. When he was fined, he said incredulously, “but I pleaded not guilty your honor.” The judge said, “I know, and I found you guilty based on your testimony and that of the officer.” End of story. Should have said I plead not guilty and request to be placed on the jury trial docket.
6-There are reasons to request a jury trial in a traffic case but if you do not, listen very carefully to the judge’s opening remarks and remember them. Then use them to your advantage.
7-Reasons for requesting a jury trial are you will be able to ask for discovery. You may find out there is no tape of the alleged violation or of the stop. You may find out that the vision of the camera was impeded by larger vehicle if you are charged with something that may have occurred while the officer was behind the larger vehicle and you were ahead of it. This is especially important if you have witnesses who disagree with the officer’s testimony.
8-Based on what I saw in SC, do not think that you will receive much if anything in the way of a break. Not from the officer and not from the judge.
9-Read the front and back of your ticket carefully. Be sure the date and day are correct, even if it doesn’t help your case. In a jury trial it may help in closing to prove the officer is sloppy in his or her work so how can you (the jury) be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that anything else he did or has said is reliable. Also, be alert to how the weather or condition of the pavement is described on the ticket. If it had rained at 7 in the morning but when you are stopped at, say, 10 AM and the pavement is barely damp but the officer describes the weather as rain or the road as wet versus damp, find a way to prove the description is wrong. The local paper, radio station, TV station can probably provide you with this information. Start preparing your defense as soon as the stop is over. Get witness statements right away.
10-Look up the law you are charged with having violated. Some laws are so ambiguous as to give ticketing officers probable cause for just about anything. For instance, Chapter 56-5-1900 is ambiguous enough to give an officer probable cause to pull you over for changing lanes. That can lead to a lot of other things.
11-It’s been posted many times here before but be very careful what you say when stopped if you say anything at all. Be cooperative and respectful but don’t be tricked by a friendly officer who asks you how you are doing today, then asks where you were going, then says in a very friendly voice can you tell me why you rolled through that stop sign, or why you changed lanes without signaling? Answering those questions, especially if the stop is being recorded, could amount to an admission of guilt. You may not have rolled through the sign and you may have signaled but the officer didn’t see it. By the time you get to court you may very well have forgotten just whether you did or did not stop or did or did not signal.
12-Being firm in standing your ground may be uncomfortable and may raise the ire of the officer. It will be up to you to decide if you want to say in a respectful way that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. You will probably be met with the response “what do you have to hide?” You can say you have nothing to hide but you have just answered a question without an attorney present and that can lead to further answers you did not intend to give. You can also answer that question with the same response that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. Be prepared for a lengthier stop and even some pressure and intimidation by the officer, so you need to be sure you really want to do this.
Going to traffic court can be frustrating and one can feel they can do nothing even if they are convinced they are not guilty. But before you decide that, read the ticket front and back, determine if you think a jury trial is the better forum, and most of all determine if you need legal representation. The cost of representation may be more than the fine but it’s a right we all have and we have the freedom to choose or not choose legal representation. Most of all be very careful what you say during a stop.
Nightwatchman1
12-14-09, 04:55
Needs repeating
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=902111&postcount=1199
Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning
(http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100603/OPINION01/306039980 )
The US Supreme court ruled that cops no longer have to inform you of your right to remain silent. The cops can also try and question you repeatedly after you request a lawyer.
Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning
(http://www.Watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100603/OPINION01/306039980)
The US Supreme court ruled that cops no longer have to inform you of your right to remain silent. The cops can also try and question you repeatedly after you request a lawyer.I think that you misread it. The cops still have to read you your rights but if you want to invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak you must specifically tell them that you are doing so rather than just not answer their questions. In some ways it makes sense but it's one of those things that lawyers can find fault (and loopholes) either way. Safest thing is still to probably keep your mouth shut since their only goal is to get someone.
Brahmabull
06-03-10, 12:40
Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning
(http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100603/OPINION01/306039980 )
The US Supreme court ruled that cops no longer have to inform you of your right to remain silent. The cops can also try and question you repeatedly after you request a lawyer.
That is not even close to what the article says. Did you read all of it? It does not say what you claim, they still have to give the warning, they may change wording so long as everything is covered. They can question you again 14 days after you have been released, without re-informing you of your rights.
NO WHERE does it say what you claim it says.
For the third time this term, the Supreme Court has given police greater leeway in the questioning of suspects after they have been read their Miranda rights.
Under the Miranda rule, suspects must be told they are entitled to an attorney and have the right to remain silent or risk having incriminating statements used against them in a court of law.
In February, the court watered down the right to counsel. It ruled that a suspect who had invoked his Miranda right to an attorney could later be questioned by police without an attorney if they waited at least 14 days after the suspect was released from custody. Previously, the right had been presumed to continue in effect.
The court's revision makes it easier for police to make repeated attempts to question suspects without an attorney.
In that same week, the Supreme Court said that police did not have to use the same exact wording when informing suspects of their Miranda rights as long as the warning advised them of all their rights.
On Tuesday, the high court wrote an exception to the silence rule. In a 5-4 decision, the court said that suspects must specifically invoke their right to remain silent. It is not sufficient to just say nothing.
The decision arose out of a case in which Southfield, Mich., authorities elicited a confession from a suspect they had been interrogating in a murder case for three hours although the man had said practically nothing during that time. His answer was used to convict him.
"If (the suspect) wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to (the detective's) questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"After giving a Miranda warning," he wrote, "police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw the contradiction on that conclusion, noting that the requirement to "unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent ... counterintuitively requires them to speak."
Since Miranda was established in 1966, law enforcement officials have frequently complained about its restrictions that have often resulted in evidence being tossed out of court. Even legislative attempts have been made to revise it.
Now the Supreme Court has done so, swinging the pendulum back in favor of authorities.
That is not even close to what the article says. Did you read all of it? It does not say what you claim, they still have to give the warning, they may change wording so long as everything is covered. They can question you again 14 days after you have been released, without re-informing you of your rights.
NO WHERE does it say what you claim it says.
...In February, the court watered down the right to counsel. It ruled that a suspect who had invoked his Miranda right to an attorney could later be questioned by police without an attorney if they waited at least 14 days after the suspect was released from custody. Previously, the right had been presumed to continue in effect.
The court's revision makes it easier for police to make repeated attempts to question suspects without an attorney...
My understanding of the 14 day rule is that they still have to reinform you of your rights after the 14 days, you just have to re-invoke your Rights. Previously, it was understood that once you invoked your Rights, you could never be questioned again about what you invoked Rights on. Now, they can ask again after 2 weeks, and it's up to you to re-invoke.
Honestly, I don't see that as a terrible change to things either. I mean, really, does it make sense to invoke your Rights once, and the Police can never, ever question you again? Seems reasonable that they should be allowed to come back, and see if you have had a change of heart and want to talk to them now. After all, you can re-invoke, and they have to go away again.
Sure, you can make the case that that allows them to harass a person, but unless it's a major crime, once you re-invoke your Rights a few times, seems to me that they'll get tired of playing that game.
Wallie
The best advice has been posted frequently and it remains the best policy for everyone stopped or questioned by a cop for any reason. Do not answer any questions but first make it clear you won't by respectfully saying you will not answer any questions until you have a lawyer present. It doesn't matter whether it's been 14 days or 14 hours, make it clear any time a cop starts asking you questions that you want a lawyer present before answering questions and then remain silent.
Loitering with intent to solicit 653.22 case outcomes?
I was wondering how successful people have been in fighting intent to solicit cases. Some lawyers have told me that the the will usually drop the case when they see that guys are willing to take the case to a jury trial.
SoCalMonger
05-23-12, 02:22
i think the federal human trafficking task force https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforceguide/eguide/default.aspx) money is being misused by local police dept's. the money is supposed to be used for combating human trafficking / human slavery and minors involved in prostitution. the documents refer primarily to women that are brought into the us for prostitution. about 99. 99% of the sw's are us citizens. now there are some **** prostitutes on the streets. so if this the problem why isn't the cops and the feds targeting these people. la has a estimated 120, 000 gang members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gang_population ). we often here how the cops are undermanned. so why are they wasting so much resources on working girls. the answer is because it's a much more low risk crime to enforce. prostitutes do not carry guns. very rarely do you hear of a sw pulling a gun.
Busted mugshots.
http://www.bustedmugshots.com/
Here is a good way to see if a girl is in jail. You can search by name or view by state.
WARNING: Please abide by Jackson's rules and do not post the mug shots to this site!
If you are arrested you can have your attorney to have all court mail sent to his office. I am not sure if all courts will do this, but San Diego will.
The key to winning to a traffic ticket case is to drag your case out as long as possible. Ask for 30 day extension a few days before your appearance date. In many courts you can get your court appearance extension online. Plead not guilty and ask for a trial declaration by mail. You will have to post the bail amount however. Basically you write your side of the story why you are not guilty to the judge. If you plead not guilty and appear in court the cops are required to appear and receive 3 hours of mandatory over time pay at least in San Diego. But the cops are not paid to respond to a trial declaration by mail. The trial declaration by mail typically takes 60 to 90 days and the cops must respond within 60 days I believe. So you have drawn out your case by 6 months so far. So if you lose the case you can ask for a request a new trial. So there is another chance that the cop has retired or won't show up. Even if you lose your case you can always request traffic school if you are eligible.
The lesson here is that the system is looking for a easy conviction and fine. If you get busted for a prostitution related offense the key is find a lawyer who make it hard for the the. I had such a lawyer and the the dropped the case without going to court.
A little off the beaten path but worth the read. Had reason to be in SC for traffic court and made the following observations.
1-The uniform traffic ticket used by SC clearly states on the back you can request a jury trial in writing before the appearance date on your ticket. This will release you from having to go to court on the date designated on the ticket.
2-The judge said in opening remarks that defendants will be asked how they plead. He also said you can plead guilty, not guilty and have a single judge trial, or not guilty and request a jury trial. He advised those who would consider a jury trial to consider seeking legal representation for such a trial.
3-In some instances, after the judge listened to the ticketing officer testify to what happened he then asked the defendant what their side of the story was. He conveniently forgot in a few occasions to ask how they plead first. After the defendant told his side of the story the judge found him guilty and issued a fine that was often reduced from the maximum fine he could issue. I guess they think this takes the sting off being found guilty.
4-In one instance the ticketing officer asked, after the defendant gave his side of the story, for permission to cross examine the defendant. The judge of course granted permission. This does not happen often. However, the defendant has the right to cross examine the officer too but no one asked for that opportunity. This is too often overlooked by defendants in traffic court.
5-Every single defendant responded to the judge's inquiry about his or her side of the story. Not one said I plead not guilty and request a jury trial. One defendant in a group of four pleaded not guilty and then proceeded to tell his story. He didn't realize, as the rest who appeared that day didn't realize, that if you plead guilty and begin telling your story, you are testifying and have acquiesced to a single judge trial. When he was fined, he said incredulously, 'but I pleaded not guilty your honor. ' The judge said, 'I know, and I found you guilty based on your testimony and that of the officer. ' End of story. Should have said I plead not guilty and request to be placed on the jury trial docket.
6-There are reasons to request a jury trial in a traffic case but if you do not, listen very carefully to the judge's opening remarks and remember them. Then use them to your advantage.
7-Reasons for requesting a jury trial are you will be able to ask for discovery. You may find out there is no tape of the alleged violation or of the stop. You may find out that the vision of the camera was impeded by larger vehicle if you are charged with something that may have occurred while the officer was behind the larger vehicle and you were ahead of it. This is especially important if you have witnesses who disagree with the officer's testimony.
8-Based on what I saw in SC, do not think that you will receive much if anything in the way of a break. Not from the officer and not from the judge.
9-Read the front and back of your ticket carefully. Be sure the date and day are correct, even if it doesn't help your case. In a jury trial it may help in closing to prove the officer is sloppy in his or her work so how can you (the jury) be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that anything else he did or has said is reliable. Also, be alert to how the weather or condition of the pavement is described on the ticket. If it had rained at 7 in the morning but when you are stopped at, say. 10 AM and the pavement is barely damp but the officer describes the weather as rain or the road as wet versus damp, find a way to prove the description is wrong. The local paper, radio station, TV station can probably provide you with this information. Start preparing your defense as soon as the stop is over. Get witness statements right away.
10-Look up the law you are charged with having violated. Some laws are so ambiguous as to give ticketing officers probable cause for just about anything. For instance, Chapter 56-5-1900 is ambiguous enough to give an officer probable cause to pull you over for changing lanes. That can lead to a lot of other things.
11-It's been posted many times here before but be very careful what you say when stopped if you say anything at all. Be cooperative and respectful but don't be tricked by a friendly officer who asks you how you are doing today, then asks where you were going, then says in a very friendly voice can you tell me why you rolled through that stop sign, or why you changed lanes without signaling? Answering those questions, especially if the stop is being recorded, could amount to an admission of guilt. You may not have rolled through the sign and you may have signaled but the officer didn't see it. By the time you get to court you may very well have forgotten just whether you did or did not stop or did or did not signal.
12-Being firm in standing your ground may be uncomfortable and may raise the ire of the officer. It will be up to you to decide if you want to say in a respectful way that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. You will probably be met with the response 'what do you have to hide? ' You can say you have nothing to hide but you have just answered a question without an attorney present and that can lead to further answers you did not intend to give. You can also answer that question with the same response that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. Be prepared for a lengthier stop and even some pressure and intimidation by the officer, so you need to be sure you really want to do this.
Going to traffic court can be frustrating and one can feel they can do nothing even if they are convinced they are not guilty. But before you decide that, read the ticket front and back, determine if you think a jury trial is the better forum, and most of all determine if you need legal representation. The cost of representation may be more than the fine but it's a right we all have and we have the freedom to choose or not choose legal representation. Most of all be very careful what you say during a stop.
Param Ahmad
10-28-12, 06:43
*** I think some of you guys *** jump to way too many conclusions. Or you are all lawyers. Last time I checked, when a massage theripist puts their hand on your dick they are breaking the law. ***My careful reading of the prostitution statutes in North Carolina and Massachusetts convinced me hand jobs you pay for are legal in those states. In other states that is not true, however, so go on-line and read the prostitution statute for the state where you are, and in those states be especially careful how you phrase your requests. All states now have their statutes (laws) on the Internet.
The FBI conducted teen prostitution crackdown. The operation was aimed at getting child prostitutes off the streets and arresting their pimps. There is good chance that LE will be cracking down for awhile. So just be careful all.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57595942/fbi-105-sexually-exploited-children-rescued-in-operation-cross-country-vii/ )
Param Ahmad
12-21-13, 03:19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canadian-court-strikes-down-anti-prostitution-laws/2013/12/20/61c830a0-6989-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html
Perhaps this will encourage judges of courts in the USA to hand down similar opinions.
I am thinking that one good way to detect possible escort / BP stings is to search for a girls ph number. If the girl is completely new then there is a greater chance she could be a decoy.
One can always hope so, but we will probably never see this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canadian-court-strikes-down-anti-prostitution-laws/2013/12/20/61c830a0-6989-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html
Perhaps this will encourage judges of courts in the USA to hand down similar opinions.
Let me throw this out there.
Can an LE setup ad legally include "No African American Guys" in the ad? Or "Must be over 35 yrs old"?
I would guess targeting (or eliminating) a particular race or age group would be illegal and might be thrown out in court. If someone had the funds to fight it?
Although I can understand the defendant did not have to respond to the ad, I am not sure if LE must be all inclusive when conducting such stings.
Let me throw this out there.
Can an LE setup ad legally include "No African American Guys" in the ad? Or "Must be over 35 yrs old"?
I would guess targeting (or eliminating) a particular race or age group would be illegal and might be thrown out in court. If someone had the funds to fight it?
Although I can understand the defendant did not have to respond to the ad, I am not sure if LE must be all inclusive when conducting such stings.Would the police actually go through the Hassle of posting an Ad to snare Clients? Usually don't police answer an existing Ad and Arrest the Girls? From what I've seen and heard about most Clients get Arrested for picking up a Street Walker.
Cephlapod Love
10-24-15, 11:55
Would the police actually go through the Hassle of posting an Ad to snare Clients? Usually don't police answer an existing Ad and Arrest the Girls? From what I've seen and heard about most Clients get Arrested for picking up a Street Walker.LE have several tactics they employ. Key point is that they need to make MANY arrests, no just one, in order to justify the cost of any operation. So be it s street operation or a BP / CL sting, the need to snare many to justify the manpower, planing and other resources.
So LE CAN and does set up in Motels. The women LE can and do post on BP and invite clients to come to them. The male LE will go on BP and call as many girls as they can to come right away.
There is a cable show that covers this and I have heard LE on the show explicitly mention sex acts for money. So what works on the street doesn't always work on BP. In fact, I have seen LE lie and say they are not LE while on the phone ordering a girl. If LE is smart they will ask you to bring party favors with you, as payment, or to set the mood. Solicitation charges usually are lower level crimes, where as the drug charges are felonies. Felonies don't go away as easily!
Don't fall into a false sense of security thinking the BP risk in nil. Thinking like that has you let your guard down, which usually leads to trouble.
WAZE app is a good way help spot cops and alert others to their presence.
CEO of Backpage, called 'world's top online brothel,' arrested on pimping charges in crackdown by Kamala Harris.
Seems like the AG is grasping at straws. The only upside is that this might possibly drive more girls back out the streets.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-backpage-ceo-arrested-charged-20161006-snap-story.html
Cephlapod Love
10-07-16, 10:53
CEO of Backpage, called 'world's top online brothel,' arrested on pimping charges in crackdown by Kamala Harris.
Seems like the AG is grasping at straws. The only upside is that this might possibly drive more girls back out the streets.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-backpage-ceo-arrested-charged-20161006-snap-story.htmlThat Prosecutor must be running for re-election?
Typical news story. Focuses on the 0. 00001% of girls who are under-aged or trafficked to suggest that is what BP is all about! Misses the 99% who are entrepreneurs setting their own rules, rates, etc. Sorry reporting.
But that woman is an idiot! BP and places like it have done more to EMPOWER women to run their own businesses and get away from pimps, drugs and the streets! Shutting down the tools they use only hurts the individual woman and sends her to more dangers methods of plying her trade. Sad. Ignorant.
A lot of is due to the recent human trafficking crackdown we have seen in recent years. Personally I have never understood the what all the uproar was about. LE talks about how there all these minors around. Here in SD there is only 1-3 SW around. Even when there was a lot of SW's around I would only see 1-2 minors sometimes. Now perhaps there are some in massage parlors, but I am not just seeing them.
That Prosecutor must be running for re-election?
Typical news story. Focuses on the 0. 00001% of girls who are under-aged or trafficked to suggest that is what BP is all about! Misses the 99% who are entrepreneurs setting their own rules, rates, etc. Sorry reporting.
But that woman is an idiot! BP and places like it have done more to EMPOWER women to run their own businesses and get away from pimps, drugs and the streets! Shutting down the tools they use only hurts the individual woman and sends her to more dangers methods of plying her trade. Sad. Ignorant.
Crazy Jim Wood
12-16-16, 20:15
Would the police actually go through the Hassle of posting an Ad to snare Clients? Usually don't police answer an existing Ad and Arrest the Girls? From what I've seen and heard about most Clients get Arrested for picking up a Street Walker.Yes.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/sites/default/files/press/121216_Man_Charged_with_Soliciting_Prostitute.pdf
World Wise
12-19-16, 11:20
The police post an ad almost every week here in the Chicago / Rockford area. LEO said in a news release that posting on BP is easier and more fruitful that running a street detail.
Cephlapod Love
12-19-16, 12:35
The police post an ad almost every week here in the Chicago / Rockford area. LEO said in a news release that posting on BP is easier and more fruitful that running a street detail.This is why it is important to know and follow the Rules for BP dating! Put the odds in one's favor and NEVER be afraid to walk away from a situation when the Spidey Senses are tingling!
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?13919-My-Suggestions.-Rules-For-BackPage
Can't tell exactly, from the press release, but I suspect the dude failed at rules, #12, #13, #14, #15, #19, #25 and especially #21!
MongerSeeker
04-06-18, 23:00
Backpage.com site seized by feds.
I was visiting the BP site and noticed that the women seeking men was not working. So did a search on Google.
News and the feds have shut down the site. Hopefully we will see more SW's working in on west coast and elsewhere.
(https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/04/06/fbi-raids-backpage-founders-sedona-home-website-down/494538002/).
MongerSeeker
06-04-19, 11:00
It's possible we could see another nationwide crackkdown like "Operation across America". With the airing of this story. Arizona's H. B. 254 makes prostitution with a minor a sex trafficking crime. I am uncertain if the law applies to solicitation as well. In the end I still believe that sex trafficking is way overblown. Here in SD we keep hearing that there is somewhere between 8000-11,000 human trafficking victims in SD. So assuming there is all these victims why aren't we seeing or hearing more girls working online and on the streets.. I am still convinced that while there is some girls being trafficked. Much of this good PR for LE.
(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/sex-trafficking-in-america/).
MongerSeeker
01-15-21, 18:32
Does anyone have any tips on detecting and avoiding escort sting operations. ?
Does anyone have any tips on detecting and avoiding escort sting operations. ?There's no way to eliminate all risk but you can avoid most sticky (not in a good way) situations if you try to look at things from LEOs point of view.
For one thing, unless there are trafficking or underage factors involved, prostitution and solicitation are usually misdemeanour offences. That means it doesn't make sense to go after individual mongers unless you can catch a bunch of them in the same sting.
Even in this internet age there are still some places where the decoy streetwalker is used. I know some guys love the thrill of the hunt, and the cheaper prices, but this is the riskiest kind of mongering, IMO. Once you roll down your window and talk to the decoy they will make it their mission to arrest you. They've been known to make shit up and then you have to get a lawyer and fight in court. Just don't go there, that's my advice.
Another common sting is to post an ad, put the decoy in a hotel, and arrest mongers who come to the room. LE will have cameras and microphones and cops in a nearby or adjoining room. They'll also have any texts you sent and recordings of any phone calls. Once you're in the room, the odds are against you leaving without being arrested. Even if you think you didn't say or do anything incriminating, the fact you contacted an ad that was obviously about selling sex, and followed up by going to the hotel, means they can probably justify arresting you even if you say very little or nothing. As far as the cops are concerned, you can tell it to the judge. The way to avoid this sting is to do good homework in this forum and the review sites. Never go see anyone without a verifiable history of posting ads for at least a few weeks. And double-check on the local forum to get the opinion of others. LE will post a juicy ad, with appealing pics and advertised svcs, but it's like bait for a fish in that once the sting is gone the ad goes away. Real providers are running a business, so their ads are usually different and tend to stay up longer. If you contact a new, unverified, unreviewed escort, you're rolling the dice.
One thing that LE is always concerned about is the safety of their people. That's why a decoy won't get into your car and won't do an outcall to your place (home or hotel). I've heard occasional stories of supposed outcall stings but never seen any real evidence of that. It does happen that some ripoff girl will visit a client and then claim to be working with LE. Usually she says that after she has the $ and it's just her way of getting out of having to go through with the session.
So, for the monger, outcall is safest when it comes to stings. But there are a lot of other reasons an outcall can be a bad idea. But that's a topic for another post.
There are no shortcuts. Doing good homework, seeing only escorts with a track record of advertising and good reports and reviews. And always thinking with the big head. Good luck and stay safe.
Does anyone have any tips on detecting and avoiding escort sting operations. ?I had never read through this part of USASG but I just noticed that the next thread down, about LE issues specifically in CA, has some excellent general advice. The most recent post is from a lawyer, which I'm not.
Well worth RTFF, in this case.
MongerSeeker
04-09-21, 23:12
I recently noticed that there is a company offering "Prostitution prevention classes" IE John School. Supposedly the provide certificates for the courts. This is a welcome change then having to listen to guilt trip from a some ex-hookers. The schools used to have ex-prostitutes that would yell at the guys about how they made their lives so awful. The guys were not allowed ask any questions or respond. Personally I stick to SW's. In my mind when girls work the streets it is their choice to do so. They can claim that they are trafficked. But they have the option leave or flag down a cop and tell them that a pimp is abusing them.
(https://courseforprostitution.com/states/CA?gclid=CjwKCAjw9r-DBhBxEiwA9qYUpV5m6zYuPjr6tKqy7CAEfMlf7-PflXTZyS966EzZZQCiDEAFhXSLwhoC48EQAvD_BwE).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.