General Information

[Hargow20]

Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning
(http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/a...ON01/306039980 )
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.

[Nightwatchman1]

Needs repeating

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...postcount=1199

[IrishMale]

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]

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.

[IrishMale]

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.

[Clinton Bush]

http://www.fox8.com/news/sns-ap-oh--...,4584359.story

[Hargow20]

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.

[Malabar]

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

[IrishMale]

[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.

[Spankin]

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?"

[IrishMale]

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.

[Supereloquent]

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.

[Poncho]

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!

[IrishMale]

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.

[Poncho]

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.