|
Dealing With the Police/State
I'm not quite sure if I can apologize to anyone who is not at this moment having a good ride, but this is what tyranny is designed to do - unsettle your mind. However, now that we know the history of this monkey on our backs, we can assert ourselves, and without fear, whenever having to remove it. This information could be the difference between you walking away from an arrest, or spending the next ten years of your life in a cage.
The first thing you must remember is that you are dealing with a police officer. These are people who have been conditioned to enforce "the law" without asking about its moral implications.
Have you ever met a cop who questions the work he is asked to do? I have. They normally don't get too far in their career. But these are usually not the ones you will be dealing with. A peace officer of that stature would not harass you when you are doing nothing that interferes with someone else's life, liberty, or property. Only the cop who doesn't care, the cop who is looking to impress some other so he can get more power and money, only he would harass and intimidate the very same people he has sworn to serve and protect.
It is a fact that people fear the police. And I'm not just speaking about those that are out committing crimes and don't want to get caught, I'm speaking about the average person who is not hurting anyone by their day to day customs; the guy who hits the breaks, or misses a beet, whenever a police car is seen. For those people, a run in with the police usually ends up with them having to fork over some federal reserve notes. To these ends, the cop is viewed as an extortionist. The fear comes from having to deal with a situation created only for the collection of money and not from any misdeed we may have committed against another person or property. People whom simply "live and let live" should have nothing to fear.
Here is something I notice when I am driving down the highway. See if you do too. It is all those people who live in fear of the government. I would be cruising at 65 miles per hour behind a car when all of a sudden they hit the brakes. It's not that there might be anyone in front of them that they are about to hit. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no one in front of them. Yet, out of the blue they just hit their brakes and send you into a panic thinking you are about to rear-end them. Then you come to learn that the reason they hit the breaks (in panic) is because they spotted a police car ahead of them hiding in the bushes. Neither of you were speeding, yet the person in front of you (and may-be even yourself) is so conditioned, much like a Pavlovian dog, that the condition/response is, see cop - hit brakes.
Admit it, most Americans live in fear of these extortionists that hide on the side of the road waiting for someone to stop and demand money from because they took their car over a certain speed. The people who were pulled over never hurt anyone's life, liberty, or property. In fact, they were driving a car engineered to cruise at 110 miles per hour on a road designed to allow speeds up to 100 miles per hour, so driving at 80 miles per hour was safe for the conditions they were in, except, some others say that if you go over 65 miles per hour we will demand money from you, and, if you don't pay, we will either put you in a cage or not allow you to travel freely on the highways anymore.
This is all ridiculous as well as dangerous. Who reading this can say that they have never been in the situation of where they are driving down the highway when all of a sudden the flow of traffic starts to drastically slow down and box everyone in, thus creating a danger to everyone entering that pocket, and for no other reason then because there was a police car on the side of the road? This panic breaking is very hazardous, and is something created by the police just by their presence. This fear of the police has gotten so great that now it doesn't even have to be a police car people see for them to hit the breaks. Now, those people who live in the most fear are hitting the breaks whenever they see any car pulled over to the side of the road in fear that it might be one of those governmental agents looking to get money off them. And it doesn't even matter if the driver is speeding or not. The fear of being harassed by the police is so great that it has travelers constantly searching the sides of the road for them and hitting the breaks whenever any car is spotted. Do you travel in a condition of tranquillity, or tyranny?
So it is this above-mentioned relationship, which is the root of the "respect" problem between the police and Joe Average American. When Joe Average American is arrested or given a ticket (for the demand of money) when his actions were doing nothing to interfere with some other's life, liberty, or property, he becomes resentful to the uniform and office that did this to him. He feels the officer (a.k.a. agent) should have been out protecting our lives, liberties, and properties from anyone other then ourselves, and not interfering with the pursuit of anyone's happiness. This leads to Joe defaming the occupation. And cops wonder why people just don't like them? The police, and other agents of and for the state, need to realize that this is America's gripe and have to stop participating in the lawyer's extortion racket. Otherwise, they will continue to receive little cooperation from The People whenever having to deal with them.
The People come to me all the time and tell me their stories of how they had their human rights violated and what the police did to them and how much it cost them or how long they had to be in a cage. Then, they most often end their stories with, "I hate cops." Tell me, if you were traveling down the road and someone stopped you against your will and went through your stuff, and maybe found something of yours which you grew for your own consumption, then stole it, then kidnapped you and held you hostage until you or a friend gave them money (ransom) for your release, wouldn't that make you hate them? Would you even allow it? I know people who would knock your teeth out, or even worse, put a knife or a bullet in you for trying that on them. So why should you, you cops that is, as a server and protector of the People, think that just because the person who does that has a badge, and is backed-up by others allowing and encouraging it, it makes the situation any different? It doesn't. Don't you understand that this predicament is tyranny no matter who is conducting it? The victim will only resent you. But what we must realize, as people who just get on with our own business, is that it is not always the police officer but the esquires who are to blame. The "honest" peace officer does it, acting only as an ignorant henchmen, a mere tool, for the bar cronies. Go easy on them, but take note of the "pig", his betrayal of the public trust makes him unfit to be a peace officer – let alone a human.
So to our peace officers I can say only this, straighten up, fly right, or continue to be the object of hate in America. Do the job of serving and protecting the people, and not the wallets of the esquires, and maybe we will start working with you. Because of the current situation, most self-respecting patriotic people would sooner shoot your ass for stopping them, than play your extortion game. But at the moment we are out gunned and out numbered by agents who have no idea what true freedom is all about, so for now, you can get away with it. But gentlemen, the excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg trials, don't expect it to work at yours. You will be held liable.
The subjects for dealing with the police are broken down into the following:
We will have a code word which will be used with all police officers that have signed the defection form. Whenever the police have to arrest someone, they will nonchalantly ask them, “Ninja?” If you hear that word asked of you at anytime during your arrest your response will be, “right on,” then let it drop. This will make all the solders feel somewhat at ease knowing that the police officer has signed the defection form and has your back throughout all this.
Each of these techniques can be used, a la cart, in everyday life and this is why you are going to get the best training I can give about each. Even if your case doesn’t involve an action, the New World Attitude, the NWA, will be there for you. They will also come in handy with each of your actions. Again, this is also important for the New World Ninja Lawyers, so you guys read it too.
Conversing With the Police.
This is a very important subject to cover. Myself, I try to avoid contact at all costs; even if that means not calling them when I should. But there are times with an encounter with the police in unavoidable.
There are many different reasons why any of us would find ourselves having a conversation with a peace officer. The first of the many reasons could be placed into the category of "consensual contact".
Consensual contact would consist of a conversation either initiated by you or by the officer when he has no other reason to stop or question you. In the decision of Meranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to remain silent exists whenever having ANY contact with the police. So, the moment you give up that right, anything you say can and WILL be used against you.
If you are doing nothing that interferes with anyone's life, liberty, or property, then you must remember that the officer has no jurisdiction over you, and in reality you are the one in control. He is the public servant and you are the master (sovereign) of whom he serves. You must remember, and he must be made aware, that his job was created, and is supported, by, the consent of People, of which you are a part. Without your permission, our government could not exist nor function like it does. So, if you don't consent to a conversation initiated by an officer of "the law", then he has no other choice than to leave you alone.
Say you are walking down the road and a peace officer says to you, "hey, buddy...come here," and you for some reason or another don't have the time for, or just don't want to be, speaking with him. (I’ve got great stories that I will place here in video as soon as I have a crew) You could ask, "is that a request?" If he says yes, you would respond, "I respectfully decline your request," and go about your business. Now if he tells you no, that it is an order, then comply with the order to the best of your composure. Always converse with tact. Feel out the situation before you go invoking the king's privilege. He might just want to ask some innocent questions about a crime that may have occurred and he may only be looking for witnesses. But like I said, feel out the situation.
In any conversation see where it is going. If it seems to be headed away from routine police business, and feels like it is turning into a game of twenty questions, then invoke the king's privilege and inform the officer, "I no longer consent to contact with you and unless I am under arrest, I will be leaving your company." I use this one a lot. I always ask if I am under arrest and as soon as they say no, I get up and leave. (I”ve got a lot of stories on that subject as well.) Reactions have been many. The most important thing I am trying to say here is, don’t talk to the police if you can help it.
Traveling v. Driving
Where did our government get the authority to regulate our God given inherent right of travel? When we travel we are freely going from point "A" to point "B". It makes no difference how that travel is being accomplished. Whether it be by foot, carriage, horse, bicycle or car. Traveling from "A" to "B" is a free and voluntary action, which interferes with no other person. So regulating it becomes an act of tyranny against those it intends to control. I know there are safety concerns and I don’t disagree with them, just the methods.
The following case cites are from as far back as when they began to license all of us for operating our personal property and before. They were those, “don’t worry, we’re not going to extort money from you to use your own streets,” decisions. Read them, learn them, understand them; use them. I just want you all to know this stuff so you understand that it is not your driver’s license that is suspended, it is your freedom to travel that is taken away. I know they say that driving is a privilege, and it is, traveling is not.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 934. Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607, 25 A M JUR(1st) Highways, Cec. 163.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
The United States is a corporate fiction. The only people it can regulate on the road, air and waterways are those who "drive" and “captain” for hire.
A driver is one who is being PAID to move itself, the vehicle, and whatever else is in the vehicle, from point "A" to point "B". The people with the driver are passengers. Compare that to those just traveling. Those people are not driving their vehicles; they are merely operating them for the purpose of travel. The people traveling in those vehicles are not passengers, but guests of the owner/operator. Be careful of the wording.
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and 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 stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader, the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to other, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." Ex parte M.T. Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 579; 85 S.E. 781 (1915);
A lot of this on how to fight a traffic ticket is located in part two of the Justification. Make sure you read it all so you know your rights. There are also many other publications on your right to travel. I suggest you explore them.
Getting Pulled Over
Crosby, Stills, and Nash, has a song entitled "Almost Cut My Hair", which goes, "...and it increases my paranoia, like looking in my mirror and seeing a police car." We all know what that feels like. With myself, I would have to say, "felt like". I no longer have that paranoia. As the song continues, "but I'm not giving in an inch to fear..." I know how to make them fear me, rather than vise-versa. As Jefferson said, "When people fear the government you have tyranny, when government fears the people you have freedom." That feeling of freedom is blessed liberty which comes from knowing that the government of the United States lacks jurisdiction over my person while it is engaging in conduct which does nothing to interfere with another's, life, liberty, or property.
Being pulled over by the police is a touchy subject with me. When I was cruising around the country in my 1972 Volkswagen Camper Bus, complete with about 40 stickers on it and a hippie paint job, I was getting pulled over on average of once a week. I knew the game. They were only stopping me because of the way I looked, so the best the police were hoping for was to "get" me on some statutory law. It got to the point where I bought myself a micro-cassette recorder. After that, those who interrupted my travels knew I have played "heads and feds" before. But just the mere subject of having my travel regulated by agents of the state is what really bothers me.
Most of what you’ve read so far was taken from my book, “Justification for the Fourth American Revolution”. I never mentioned that I was being pulled over for DWH. It’s like DWB only the terrorized is a white male hippie. And I don’t mind traffic laws, they’re logical, but the taxes one has to pay to use this mode of transportation is killing us all.
The first thing the police are going to ask you for are "your papers". It is like the World War II films where the scene is Nazi Germany, and the S.S. have a road block where the first thing they tell the traveler is, "Let me zee your paparz please." In Nazi U.S. it's, "Let me see your license, registration, and insurance." Again you could go with the, "is that a request" gig. But in any event, before you comply with their demands, you should demand to know what it is they interrupted your travel for. Don’t get into a friendly conversation before the officer asks for your papers. He might start out with a hello, where are you going, shit like that. At that point, you should politely ignore his questions and ask why you have been stopped. Again, if he wants to play 20 questions ask him or her if you have the right to remain silent, when he says, “yes”, say, “then I would like to exorcise that right.” When he tells you you’re not under arrest, ask him if you are free to go. When he says no, then inform him you would like to just have the officer conduct their business and be done with it.
Now I wrote these techniques so that other hippies could use them in a courtroom or while trying to just live. This does not only apply to hippies, but to the black and brown people of this country as well. Not only them, but any sub culture that the “government” feels doesn’t fit in with its society; bikers, hippies, blacks, browns, turban wearers, Native Americans, poor. All those the government has deemed lesser to them and worthy of harassing.
You'll know when the stop is about bullshit. If the cop acted in haste, he will be stumped. He will not have an answer, and without probable cause, there is no reason why he can stop you. When the tape recorder is put in his face he becomes very uncomfortable. His eyes focus on the recorder. Having no real answer, he is either quick to make-up some story, or has no other choice but to let you proceed. Many times, when I have done that, the cop just told me I could leave. If he makes up a story, then hold him to that and allow him no other function than to write you the ticket for what he said and send you on your way. Be firm in not playing "twenty questions" with him.
Almost 25 years ago, before I wrote the book most of this was taken from, my interaction with the police was no joke. I have written and lost many stories of encounters with them over the years. Most of them wins. But no one was recording them at the time. I had seen the need for recording the police every week as I was pulled over time and time again for no other reason than the way I looked. No one would believe me, so I got a micro-cassette recorder and went to it. I still have some of the tapes today. They were sure shocked by it then. Today, we have hand held computers that record all we command. I’m sure this has had an effect on the officers of the law. We’re going to make them all stars.
Now, today, video recorders have exposed the everyday workings of the police. People walking by have caught these criminals on tape and it is having a pretty good effect of waking the people up to just what is going on with our law enforcement agencies. Even cities are now placing cameras on their police. Wow, and I have been calling for that for 25 years now. Good. It’s about time. Not that they will really help, but they are a good start.
So as you go through your next encounter with being pulled over and harassed by the police, remember all you have read so far. Keep your doors locked, windows up leaving an inch to talk through, never get out of your vehicle and if you have an audio or video recorder take it out and let the officer know you are recording them for your protection as well as theirs.
As far as signing any tickets, that’s another touchy subject. If you do, reserve your rights under the UCC. For more on that go to part two in my book. There is a good explanation of how to do that there.
The Road Block
Other than having your travel interrupted by the flashing lights of a police car, another method the police/state uses for "catching" "criminals" is the roadblock.
The roadblock is a real revenue raiser for the Federal Reserve Board/International Monetary Fund. We must remember, any money the court collects in fines, or from issuing "licenses", goes to the state "Trust Fund", which is published and found in the libraries at the state capitals. This "money" is being held, in trust, for payment of the national debt. So that is who the real party of interest is in any action taken under "statutory" jurisdiction. Because of the disappearance of the Amendment of 1819, and because we have been made "subjects" under the known 14th Amendment, and because of the creation of the FRB and the IRS, and because of the bankruptcy of 1930-33, we find ourselves a people who are once again "subject" to "statutory" laws (much like those who fought in the 1st American Revolution), which we have been compelled to perform under since 1938. Again, it is the real party of interest, the international banksters, who are using America's federal government to pressure America's state governments, who are using their county and local governments to all put pressure on the police to "bring in the business." And they really don't care how much the price is to bring you in. You, and the other taxpayers pay for that. They will spend thousands of your tax "dollars" to prosecute a case where they will receive $500.00 in "fines". The banksters win three ways: 1) they don't pay for the police or the courts (you do), 2) they collect $500.00, which you must now work to obtain and 3) your "punishment", the word of your fine or imprisonment, keeps you and those who hear about it "in line" and "subject" to their laws.
Our U.S. Constitution would never allow such practices as restricting travel, or setting up roadblocks to "catch criminals". Really...Where is there any law being broke which is enforceable under an Article III court, when a traveler is moving from point "A" to point "B"? Unless he is fleeing from "justice", or the commission of a crime, there is none.
So just what are the police really up to when they set up a roadblock and waste all our time (and money)? It is nothing more than an extortion racket, as described in pages 1-13 (of the “Justification”), to keep a reign of tyranny on the land and the people subject to it. But none of these practices seem to be allowed on paper. Our God given unalienable right to free passage was confirmed as early as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777. Article IV of said Articles states:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,...
The United States Constitution was supposedly just a way of revising the Articles. And James Madison states in Federalist Papers No. 40:
“The truth is that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation.”
Thus, the principle of free travel throughout the union, as established under the Articles of Confederation, was not abrogated by the U.S. Constitution. It still is a valid part of our Constitution and is therefore part of the 'supreme law of the land.' The only aspect of this provision of the Confederation which was altered by the Constitution, is that the words "free inhabitants" were changed to "citizens" according to Article 4, Section 2. It is this section of the U.S. Con-stitution that had specifically preserved Article IV of the Confederation as verified by the United States Supreme Court:
“That the Constitution plainly intended to preserve and enforce the limitations as to discrimination imposed upon the States by Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, and thus necessarily assumed the continued possession by the States of the reserved power to deal with free residence, ingress and egress, cannot be denied for the following reasons: (1) Because the text of Article IV, sec. 2, of the Constitution, makes manifest that it was drawn with reference to the corresponding clause of the Articles of Confederation and was intended to perpetuate its limitations; and (2) because that view has been so conclusively settled as to leave no room for controversy. United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281,294 (1920)."
“The right of every citizen, or person to enjoy free egress from, or transit through the State, is, in our opinion, an undoubted constitutional right. The framers of the Federal Constitution clearly intended that personal intercourse between the States should be, so far as practicable, as free as the transit of the ocean, and as unembarrassed as the commerce of the public seas. ~ Joseph v. Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 506 (1882).”
So why should there be ignorance of our right to travel?
The meaning which a constitutional provision had when adopted, it has today; its intent does not change with time nor with conditions; while it operates upon new subjects and changed conditions, it operates with the same meaning and intent which it had when formulated and adopted. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) vol. 1,p.123. As Judge Cooley says:
"A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable." Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W.(2d) 1007, 1011; 124 Texas 45
And Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969), states:
This court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
That proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):
"For all the purposes for which the federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
This is the problem with America. Its foundation and court rulings look great on paper, but in all actuality, it's not really practiced. Those of us who know the meaning of the law and the constitution can tell you, "yeah, we know what they can't do, but in reality they do it anyway." And those who are still unaware of the law will tell you, "look, don't tell me what police, or state (or police state), can't do, they did it to me."
But can the agents of the state stop people in the middle of their travels - most often with the sole intent of simply searching you for "your paparz" so they can raise revenues? Remember what it is you must produce before you can even think of proceeding.
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways...includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon,...The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while the exercise thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police power of the State, and although those powers are broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded in the constitutional structure. The police power cannot justify the enactment of any law that amounts to an arbitrary and unwarranted interference with, or unreasonable restriction on, those rights of the citizen which are fundamental. Teche Lines v. Danforth, 12 So.2d 784, 787-88 (1943).
But the police power, even as thus defined, vague and vast as it is, has its limitations, and it cannot justify any act which violates the prohibitions, expressed or implied, of the state or federal constitutions. If this were not so, and if the police power were superior to the constitution and it extended to all objects which could be embraced within the meaning of the words "general welfare," as defined by the lexicographers, the constitutions would be so much waste of paper, because no right of the individual would be beyond its reach, and every property right and personal privilege and immunity of the citizen could be invaded at the will of the state, whenever in its judgment the convenience, prosperity, or mental or physical comfort of the public require [it]. Tighe v. Osborne, 149 Md. 349, 357; 181 A. 801, 803
Let me tell you all how I would deal with a police road block if I ever came to one. I used to do this during Dead tours when the police would be set up at the end of an exit off the interstate. They just stood there waiting for people to stop, but never making anyone. That’s what I would do. I would approach, with my doors locked, windows up and ignore them. In essence I wouldn’t stop. If they placed an officer in front of the vehical I guess I would have to stop, but i would not talk to them, I have the right to remain silent. There are many videos on Youtube that show many people defying roadblocks.
Being Searched
So where does this all fit in at a roadblock. Well, first off they are restricting your God given ancient right of passage. And second, they are violating the 4th Amendment to the United States Con-stitution, which states:
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 person or things to be seized.
Those who have been paying attention from the beginning probably have smiles on their faces right now because they can see where I am going with all this.
Again, what is the first thing they ask you for? "Let me zee your paparz please." Now again, you could go with the "is that a request" gig and take it from there. But, always remember that by their laws they have to have probable cause to stop you. If there answer is, "it's just a 'routine' check, we want to zee your paparz," then know now that that is a definite statement of intent to search you for such papers.
You could ask, "What makes you think that I don't have the proper paperwork either on my person or in my effect known as my car?"
Now that would probably stump the officer. He may think that you are copping an attitude with him so he might put on the bad cop routine. He might demand that you "step out of the car." Under no circumstances should you leave your property nor invite the officer in it. Keep your doors locked and your windows up, just allowing enough room for conversation. If their "probable cause" to interrupt your travel is only to look for your paperwork, then it would be with the assumption that you do not have any either on you or in your car, or that it even exists in the first place. You were not stopped for any moving violation, so the need for the officer to request or demand "the big three" (license, registration, and insurance "card", a.k.a. in Russia as, "your travel permit") would be nonexistent. I’ve never done this before, but I would tell the pig to go get a search warrant to search me for my papers. See where it goes from there. In fact, new idea, anyone trying his get in touch with me and we’ll publish the results.
You could tell the officer, "I have not been stopped for any moving violation nor have I been involved in any accident. Your demand for those items, therefore, are without reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states that I have the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you can have an elected judge, and not a magistrate, issue a warrant upon your probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized, then I will have no other choice than to comply. Otherwise, I would like to be on my way." Of course, the Supreme Court doesn't feel that way. But think of the logic. You're traveling down the road, when all of a sudden you are prevented from proceeding until you can prove that you have the proper traveling permits, as if you even need them in the first place. I don’t want to hear that you had to sign a paper saying that you would carry these items on you at all times. That was signed under duress. Now either one of three things could happen. One, he laughs and sends you on your way (maybe); two, he makes you wait while he gets the warrant (doubtful); or three, he brings over, or calls for, the dog. He is brainwashed into believing that if you are willing to stand up for your rights, then you must be hiding something, either contraband, or even your true identity which may be wanted. If the officer is totally irate, he may loose it and place you under arrest for obstructing justice. If he places you under arrest just go peacefully (for now) through the motions, which will be discussed a little later. ( I have many stories which will be placed here on video as soon as I get a crew.)
Now the dog thing is a neat trick. Most of the time it is a bluff, just like when he says he will get a warrant. Remember, he must have probable cause to obtain a warrant from a judge. Plus, he has to find a judge to issue the warrant (that's not easy to do in some towns at 3 am. on a Saturday night). But more than likely, he will think your refusal isn't because it is your right, but because you are hiding "drugs". Drugs, the gotcha crimes.
Want to know how to tighten a cop's asshole? The next time one asks you if he can search you or your car, ask him, "do I have a choice?" This is guaranteed to get his goat. The obvious answer to that question is "yes". If you didn't have a choice he wouldn't even ask. He would just do it. His next step would be the intimidation move. "I'll get a warrant if you don't sign." Fine, then get a warrant. Like I said, if he had to ask then he had no probable cause. Without probable cause no judge will give him a warrant. He knows that and knows that he can't go to a judge and say, "well, I think he has this contraband because he is quoting the fourth amendment." Do you really think that is going to hold up with any judge? Not likely. Not at all. His next move will be to call for the dogs.
A lot of times at a roadblock where they have dogs, the dogs are not drug sniffing dogs but bluff dogs. They will have the dog walk around your car and then on single have it bark. They will even do this to a real drug-sniffing dog if he isn't responding. They don't care, they just want to get into your stuff. But the mere bark of a dog doesn't warrant probable cause enough to search. Even though they would tell you that. I told a group of people at a Rainbow Gathering about what to do if they tried that dog trick on them. One brother took my advice and this is what he told me happened many months from this time.
Ned, was pulled over on a Florida highway. Ned never left the van. He had all the doors locked and the window opened enough to hand out the paperwork. After the bullshit was out of the way, rather than letting him proceed, the cop asked if he could search his van. Ned said no. The cop asked why not. Ned said because it was his right and he had already wasted enough of his time. The cop, no doubt feeling a little belittled, told him if he didn't allow him to search he was going to call for the dog. Ned laughed and said O.K. then.
During the wait for the dog, which took 8 1/2 hours, the cop kept coming up to his window demanding for Ned to let him search. He became irate and stated that he was going to bust in the window. Ned pulled out his Federal Firearms License and showed it to the cop. The cop went back to his car and waited for the dog.
The dog arrived. He was walked three times around the van without ever uttering a sound. On his fourth pass, Ned saw the officer single the dog and it barked. The cop who pulled him over became excited, stating that the dog barked so now he had probable cause to search the van. Ned said, "no, now you have probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Have the dog go tell the judge exactly what you intend to find and where. Have your dog sign a sworn affidavit to that and I am sure the judge will give you the warrant." The officer became enraged. He looked over at Ned and yelled, "Augh, fuck it," then left. The officer with the dog looked over at Ned and said, "yeah, he's a real asshole." Ned went on his way.
What if it is now out of your control and either they have a warrant or decide they are going to conduct a search anyway? If they have a warrant read it carefully. If they are looking for a particular person, then they have no right going through your glove-box. You can't fit a person in there. And if they believe they are going to find pot in your stuff, then they have no right going through the stuff in your care, which are not owned by you. You do not have the authority to divulge personal information belonging to others. If they want to search a person or his or her bags, then they must get the permission from them. A name is also personal property. You have no authority to speak for another person and answer personal questions like, “what is his name.” You cannot do that unless that person has given you authorization to do so. You know...like in a signed power of attorney.
Filming The Police
Citizen’s Complaint
|
