Discussion in 'Legal Edge' started by Garden Knowm, Aug 7, 2008.
I never talk to the police, even when I sober.
I all ways have a hidden camara, its powered on by my phone.
It is downright disturbing and sickening that people have to exercise such caution around police officers. What the hell is wrong with this world?
If the police come to your door and knock... don't even answer it. They will knock and knock and eventually go away.
If they had a warrant, they wouldn't be knocking at all. Or they'd knock once just to let you know the door is getting smashed down.
Just opening the door and stepping outside increases their suspicion and provides potential evidence for the warrant they are no doubt fishing for. Smell, attitude, pieces of bud on your clothes, the quick glimpse of your interior while the door is open.... like the bong in the background. Anything and everything provides an excuse.
No good can come of opening the door to answer. In the course of answering the door you have to say something after all. Remember the first rule of police contact. You have the right to remain silent. Use it. Don't even open the door.
Now this is funny
the other thing we need to do as citizens in the United States is know about jury nullification. instead of bitching and moaning when you get jury duty, exercise your Rights as a citizen!
if anyone doesn't know what jury nullification is, it's when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
jury nullification is ESPECIALLY important when the cops use anti-terrorism laws to come after growers. those laws give the cops extra latitude to break the law in going after terrorists, but 99% of the time they use these laws improperly and illegally.
i was arrested for handing out flyers (protected under the First amendment and Forth) telling people about jury nullification at a courthouse. eventually they dropped the charges, but they tried to harass me for exercising my Rights and informing the People.
^^^ think I've seen you on youtube.
Can anyone explain to me how warrents work? Does it take the smallest amount of suspision for them to try to get one? Maybe someone could share a story were the police came knocking with a warrent?
What if the police come knocking on your door (say that there are suspicious smells that have been reported by the neighbours) and you don't answer, is that enough proof for them to get a warrent?
It's warrant. It's a deep question. It's really about probable cause. However the supreme court has made rulings that define what it takes to get probable cause.
You would have to do alot of researching.
Smell would be a big part of them having probable cause. Probably would need more than a neighbors story though. But let's say the cops go smell it. Then they get a warrant to use thermal imaging. Then they see your heat and go back to the judge and get a search warrant fir your house.
Now just to be clear, now a days, the cops aren't knocking on your door with a warrant. They will bust in and raid you at 3 or 4 in the morning. If you have a dog they will probably shoot it and if you're real unlucky they might shoot you.
the cops need probable cause to get a warrant. they have to demonstrate to a judge you are committing a crime with whatever couple shreds of evidence they present to him/her....multiple complaints of smell, a couple arrested snitches say they are buying from you(easy to fake), fertilizer bags in your trash, etc. these things have to be able to be casually observed. however, with the implementation of the patriot act, designed to let law enforcement cut corners to go after terrorists(because who doesn't want that right.) instead, the overwhelming majority of the time the patriot act has been used, it's to prosecute "crimes" that have fuck all to do with terrorism. that is why i previously mentioned jury nullification as a means to beat that crap.
i've sat in the next room and heard cops lie to a magistrate, outright lie, to get a warrant. because their goal is always going to be throwing your ass in jail and if they can't play by the rules and do just that, they will settle for simply fucking with you.
1-if the cops are able to go by the book and get a warrant and hem you up, you weren't careful enough and barring a fanfuckingtastic lawyer and a stroke of luck, you are fucked.
2-you might have left some shit unattended to and the cops through no hard work of their own happen upon some chance discovery of circumstantial evidence that no judge would ever issue a warrant for, they will makeup evidence that will never be presented as such, and by the time they need to prove their case in court, you've already paid bail, paid for a lawyer, lost all your grow equipment, lost all your plants, they've destroyed your property....and the case is dropped. you get none of that back. mission accomplished, the prosecutor has spent zero effort to send you up and you are most likely left severely fucked with. sure you could sue, but most don't because that process just left them ruined.
To reiterate whats been said, if stopped by the police your first question should be am I under arrest, if the answer is anything other than yes, then you are free to go. They have no right to obstruct you and any further communication would be voluntary.
If answered yes, then you should asked on what grounds and reasonableness of suspicion, and to be formally charged.
I have to laugh when police say' or else you WILL be charged. Good , do it and give me full rights as a detainee and access to legal council.
In fact I would ask to be charged if I had allegedly committed an offence and take any time that would be voluntary spent, off the detention limit.
Officer?? Am I under arrest?? Oh no??
Then fuck off bitch!!!!!
I don't think being needlessly rude is of particular benefit to anyone. Police are not always particularly concerned with procedure.
Last time I was stopped was walking home at night. Talked to them voluntary and complied with my name ect and what I work as and my uni studies in Law.
As the questions got more probing I told them that I don't see the relevance and at that point am I under arrest and if there was anything specific that I could help them with.
He said no but would I submit to a voluntary search. Well I found this funny. Its probably the first time I have heard an officer request anything. So wanting to see where this went I complied and in a friendly way I out lined the pointlessness of the situation.
At the end of this he said to me that we appreciate my cooperation but there was no need for the attitude.
Given my accommodation of the situation I was bemused. He seemed offended that I had rights.
But yeah at the point he said I wasn't under arrest I could have just left.
Terry Stop. Allows short detention, no?
Yeah I'm from the UK. Here the reasonable suspicion is enough to make an arrest so the probable cause part of a 'Terry Stop' does not come in to it.
Perhaps our standard is lower. Given such searches in the US as not under the power of arrest I'm getting it's voluntary up until refusal that would change the facts from reasonable suspension to actual provable cause. From non cooperation off, in Wikipedias words, a non intrusive pat down, at which point an arrest would be made.
But I'm guessing so don't know to be sure. There is case law of defendants arguing against the legal position off particular states.
You should read up on Terry stop. A Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion to detain you. You can't search someone who isn't detained or voluntary.
So my interpretation is That not only can they not search me but I don't have to identify myself either. So I would ask if I was detained. If not then I'm free to go.
If you are really interested in this you need to go to youtube and look for videos by honoryouroath. And a guy called battousi has a good one where he refused to identify to the point of them arresting him and putting him in the squad car. They finally let him go. Unidentified. Lol
As Lord Delvin stated; “the first object any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subjects fate in the hands of 12 of his countrymen”.
I have. That's why I said that
Separate names with a comma.