Did you already know before the question the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not apply to federal officers/employees?
Did you already know before the question the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not apply to federal officers/employees?
@jk...you'd be in violation of Brady about now..."the laws were enacted by a legally elected legislature" (i.e. the "State"/"body politic") "empowered by the majority of the residents of whatever state is involved"...how does that prove that the written instruments are applicable to me based solely on my physical presence in a geographic location? It's a mitigating factor with probative substance as to the issue of punishment...It can be used to impeach a police officer/witness, by virtue of leading him on cross to answer the issue of that particular fact, which he relied on, in the field, on his own accord, pursuant to state law or local ordinance, in reaching the legal conclusion/determination.
@RJR...somewhat...this case provides pertinent information. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/...Primary Holding: While there is no explicit right to file a civil lawsuit against federal government officials who have violated the Fourth Amendment, this right can be inferred. This is because a constitutional protection would not be meaningful if there were no way to seek a remedy for a violation of it. I'm presuming that all Constitutional provisions can be vindicated in the same or similar manner. The CA-GOV code is cluttered with repugnant immunity...I choose 1983 and Monell to go after municipalities. Constitutional rights are some of the most important that an individual can have, so it is particularly critical to give the power to enforce them.
Do you study law even casually, or just site snippets and apply them to anything?
@RJR...I try to read through case law to study the rationale behind the judicial officer's decision. To be honest, a lot of it appears biased in favor of government, or for political advantage. I can only go at my own pace, and with the resources offered on the internet. Not privy to as much of the unpublished opinions, although I run across them occasionally, thanks to Google's algorithms.
I specially appeared on my own behalf and defended all the way into to the post conviction relief process, where I'm at currently...I'm also in the process of appealing the denial of my CA-PEN Sec.1018 motion, based on the City Attorney's coercing me into signing a plea agreement, under the threat of depriving me further due process, in addition to their violating Brady, and evidence tampering per CA-PEN Sec. 141(c). Also in the record, is a CA-PEN 1473.6 motion to vacate judgement, based on new evidence which completely undermines the City Attorney's purported "case".
FACTS: Officers approached me at 1:39 a.m. in a "closed" public parking lot, while I was actually engaged in, and in the process of loading my CAR. The officers started asking me for identification despite the fact that I wasn't physically in control of it. My keys were out of the ignition, in the left front seat...the pilot's compartment. I asked them "why", and had they suspected me of having committed, was in the process of committing, or was about to commit a crime. There was no reply, i.e., reasonable articulation, and their silence can only be equated with fraud, because they had a legal duty to speak, under CA-PEN Sec. 841, and the Sixth Amendment to inform me of the nature and cause of their attempt at a mere encounter, and the inquiry they left unanswered is indicative of intentional deceit and ulterior purpose. At this point the officer's actions went beyond the scope of consent, as their actions indicated that I was not reasonably free to leave.
Signs indicating "After 10pm", point to the park's exit, which implies that being in said lot is not a crime per se. Other signs indicate that the "Parking Lot [is] Closed 10pm - 6am", which would constitute an "overnight" stay. However, according to local ordinance, stopping or standing a vehicle cannot be deemed thus, while one is actually engaged in, and in the process of loading, as mirrored by CA-VEH Sec. 463. The signs are posted to limit or regulate the stopping or standing of vehicles. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify anything other than to inform me that the parking lot was closed, terminate the mere encounter, and be on their way. The Common Law Right of Inquiry permits an officer or agent to engage any individual in a purely voluntary conversation. In these cases, an individual must be free to terminate the conversation at any time and go his way with no restrictions.
Instead, the officers persisted in coercing information from me that I wasn't required to provide, under well established, 9th Circuit decisions. There's no California law requiring me to provide the coerced information. And, because they had me blocked in from 2 angles, had their spotlights aimed directly into my eyes, and failed to inform me of the right to terminate the encounter, they turned the illegal investigatory detention into a de facto false arrest, by virtue of unreasonable seizure of my person, under the 4th Amendment. As I was being coerced by one armed officer, the other began a cursory invasion of my reasonable, albeit "diminished", expectation of privacy interests, intruding upon my prescriptive easement per se, by "running my [valid and legal] plates", with no reasonable suspicion that my car was stolen, or that it had contained evidence relating to a non-existent "crime", when he began searching through my car, with a flashlight, in violation of the founding document he swore an oath to support, which was compounded by the fact that no law had been violated, thereby having absolutely no sufficient legal basis upon which to conduct any investigation, or to prolong the illegal detention. CA-VEH §§ 12801.5(f); 14607.6(b) provide: "a peace officer shall not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver" and, "a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed".
The basic requirement for a search incident to a lawful arrest is that there be a lawful arrest. Obviously, an illegal seizure cannot be the basis for a search incident to that arrest. The search incident to arrest rule only applies to a lawful custodial arrest, not a pretextual field-citation release, or a proper field-citation release. A "lesser", or "diminished" expectation of privacy, is nevertheless a de facto reasonable expectation "of privacy". The Terry Court recognized in dictum that "not all personal intercourse between policemen and individuals involve 'seizures' of persons", and suggested that "[o]nly when the officer, by means of  show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a[n individual] may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred". 392 U.S. at 19, n.16. The outcome or status of any arrest charge is irrelevant to the issue of whether probable cause for the arrest existed. Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir. 1989).
Whren does not apply...Gant does not apply...Brown does not apply...Terry does not apply...etc., etc., primarily due to the pretext not being a "traffic stop", among others.
As recently as 2002, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Ninth Circuit held that the law of the Fourth Amendment is so clearly established on this point that any officer who arrests a detainee during an investigative detention for merely refusing to provide identifying information is personally liable for damages and cannot claim qualified immunity. The legitimacy of a search incident to arrest rests on the validity of the underlying arrest, because close "temporal proximity" between tainted "evidence" and illegal police conduct weighs in favor of suppression.
In United States v. Patzer, 277 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), absent probable cause to arrest the defendant, the ensuing search of his automobile could not be justified as a search incident to arrest. Similarly, the defendant’s consent was tainted by the unlawful arrest.
Reasonable suspicion ordinarily exists if officers can articulate one or more specific circumstances that reasonably indicate, based on common sense or the officers' training and experience, that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity.
Here is part of your problem: There is a process to understanding law that cannot be done unless you follow the right steps. You are starting at the back end (case law) therefore its never going to be possible for you to fully understand.
First, its important to read and understand what the Constitution of the United States means. Then you also need to read and understand what the constitution of the particular state involved means. Once you understand that part, then you need to have a clue as to the laws themselves that are involved, and then and only then case you read relevant case law and understand what it means.
Your "snippet" method of cherry picking from case law will never give you a real understanding of anything.
What I don't understand about these "sovereign citizen" wack-a-doos is their fixation on driver's licenses when there are things the government does that actually infringe on the rights of the people.
What I don't understand is how they equate driver's licenses with the right to travel. Last I heard, Amtrak was still in business. So was Greyhound. JetBlue, United, Southwest Airlines, Air Alaska. Even my little New England seacoast village has a bus that makes the rounds, picks people up by the side of the road anywhere on the bus route and drops them at the grocery store, the library, the post office, etc. The public transportation monster has many arms and appendages reaching far, far out into the suburbs and rural areas. And if all else fails there are bicycles, Uber, Lyft, taxis, feet. There are plenty of means of travel for which no drivers license is needed. Travel is not being impinged on.
@llworking...is it your position that statutory provisions such as CA-VEH §§ 12801.5(f); 14607.6(b), are case law?
"[I]ts important to read and understand what the Constitution of the United States means"...
To clarify...would my rescission of unilateral, quasi-contractual obligation to the DMV, be impaired by denying due process of California rescission law, in violation of Article 1 Section 10?
We can ascertain the unilateral agreement's contractual nature, to do or not to do a certain thing, by virtue of my consent being fraudulently implied via operation of CA-VEH §§ 17459; 17460, enabling the enforcement of Bills of Pains and Penalties, and my subscription being required, without full disclosure of the foregoing.
@cbg...You use the term "they"....who, are "they"? I would hope that false light defamation suggesting that arguments in opposition to the stealthful encroachment on civil liberties, somehow implies or infers that a person or persons similarly situated, expressing their First Amendment rights, are even remotely related to domestic terrorism, is not being employed here, because a Kleptocratic ruling class is most definitely, directly related to domestic terrorism.
How is requiring a driver's license and all that goes with it stealthful? Driver's licensing requirements have been around since the first half of the 20th century. I've not been able to find a single case where they have been found to be unconstitional.
As for 1st amendment rights, that is a protection from the government not private citizens or entities. The owners of this forum could boot you anytime they want.
They -= the sovereign citizen whack-a-doodles