Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 101
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    208

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    You never answer questions as specifically asked, so I see no need to further waste my time in this thread!

  2. #52

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    False arrest acts as a legal defense and is an appropriate ground on which to base a California appeal. Here, the question before the court is precisely whether the officer's conduct was an objectively reasonable search.

    The attenuation inquiry is essentially a proximate cause analysis. It asks whether the fruit of the search is tainted by the initial, unlawful detention, or whether the taint is dissipated by an intervening circumstance. CA-EVID § 664 provides: "It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption does not apply on an issue as to the lawfulness of an arrest if it is found or otherwise established that the arrest was made without a warrant".

    The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual[s]. United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798, 807.

    If a detention turns into a de facto arrest, it becomes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment unless the officer has probable cause to arrest. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-03 (1981). Under California law, an investigatory detention is a "law enforcement action" pursuant to CA-PEN § 1463(a), which is defined as an "arrest", thus a pretextual, investigatory detention for the non-criminal "offense" should legally be deemed an "arrest", albeit an illegal arrest, especially when weighed in the context of attempted "fines and forfeitures" potentially being "imposed and collected".

    Whether a police detention is an arrest or an investigative stop is a fact-specific inquiry made "by evaluating not only how intrusive the stop was, but also whether the methods used [by police] were reasonable given the specific circumstances". Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original) quoted in Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2002).

    In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court noted, "It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person". A statement of the test as to whether a detention had occurred is: "the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts which, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity". People v. Conway, 25 Cal. App. 4Th 385, 388 (1994).

    Whether a seizure is "an arrest or an investigatory stop depends on what the officers did, not on how they characterize what they did". Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2002). This is an objective test based on what the officer said and did, and therefore, the officer and the person's subjective beliefs are irrelevant. To be objective, the test must be based on an unbiased attitude or opinion that is based on factual evidence, and the recognition and protection of individual rights. Non-verbal factors include the use of patrol car lights and blocking the person's path.

    A police officer is authorized to detain a person [only] when the officer has "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity". United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); People v. Souza, 9 Cal.4th 224, 231 (1991).

    An officer's "brief and cursory" holding and questioning someone is a detention. Investigatory stops (or "detentions") must be no longer than necessary and officers must investigate with the least intrusive means that are reasonably available. The police may ask people who have legitimately been stopped for identification without conducting a Fourth Amendment search or seizure. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 185, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004).

    In Hiibel, the Supreme Court held an officer may arrest a suspect for his refusing to orally identify himself during an investigative detention if a state statute requires the person to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004); at 178. 1However, California does not have such a law after Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Regardless, the Hiibel Court did not address the issue of whether an officer can 2require the detainee to produce written identification.

    In contrast, if the officer has a legal basis to issue a person a citation for any offense, that person must provide satisfactory evidence of identification. In Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) the Supreme Court unanimously held that where police have probable cause to stop traffic offenders, a pretextual motive cannot invalidate the stop.

    In United States v. McCraney, 674 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2012), the defendants were outside the car, surrounded by several law enforcement officers. A search of the car was not a valid search incident to arrest.

    In United States v. Gross, 662 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2011), the police stopped an automobile. The stop was found to be improper, because there was no articulable suspicion supporting the stop. The Sixth Circuit held that the exclusionary rule did apply and the evidence would be suppressed.

    In United States v. Hudson, 405 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2005), the Sixth Circuit held that because the stop was illegal, the search was the fruit of that illegality.

    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.

    In United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251 (3rd Cir. 2002), regarding probable cause, at most there was some indication that there had been a simple assault, but that had not occurred in the officer's presence and thus he could not arrest the defendant for that offense.

    In United States v. Johnson, 16 F.3d 69 (5th Cir. 1994), aff’d on rehearing, 18 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994), an object (briefcase) was not within the reach of the defendant at the time of the arrest; therefore it was not a valid search incident to arrest. The defendant was never handcuffed and the officer conceded that he did not fear that the defendant had a weapon, or that he would destroy evidence.

    In United States v. Strahan, 984 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1993), the defendant was arrested approximately thirty feet away from his car. The police searched his glove compartment. This was not a proper search incident to arrest. While Belton allows a search of the entire contents of the car, even after the defendant is removed, the initial stop must occur when the defendant is in the car.

    In United States v. Parr, 843 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1988), the defendant was stopped by a police officer who suspected that he was driving with a suspended license. The search of the automobile was improper and the Motion to Suppress should have been granted.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,647

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Yes
    Quote Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    https://www.google.com/search?biw=10...31.hEBTLcfgE8U



    Well sir, as previously stated, it is quite clear that: Municipal Code Sections 56.54 & 86.09(e) provide: "'Public park' means any property designated, dedicated or developed by or on behalf of the City [] for park [] use. 'Parking lot' means those parking lots contained within public parks. No person shall park or stand a vehicle in violation of any sign or curb marking limiting or regulating the parking or standing of a vehicle".

    Municipal Code Section 81.0102 provides: 'parking, park' or 'parked' means to stand or leave standing any unoccupied vehicle, other than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading materials". ("Definitions" added 8-5-2013 by O-20281 N.S.; effective 9-4-2013)...

    ...regardless of being there any time between 10 and 6 in parking lots contained within public parks...there are no "No Trespassing" signs posted in the public place...policy does not trump ordinance nor state statutory law....and the Fair Notice doctrine would apply under the assertion of a "trespassing" charge.

    What made the officers' legal determinations/conclusions to illegally detain me, reasonable? That is an honest, straight forward question, requiring factual evidence, and does not pertain to procedural advice. Thank you for being cordial, calm and collected. (cf. https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...=241502&page=3)

    IN RE:

    In the criminal law realm, 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to a law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest; and police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and place of business, to name a few examples. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...amendment.html
    , it’s quite humorous that you provided a definition of oxymoron that reinforces my statement and proves you wrong.


    your fallacy of arguing you being present in the parking lot is authorized as long as you weren’t parking is just precious. Your presence is the violation. It doesn’t matter what you were or weren’t doing.

    There is also a dffernce between trespassing as defined in the penal code and trespassing in the generic sense.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Yes
    , it’s quite humorous that you provided a definition of oxymoron that reinforces my....
    logical fallacy. "Sovereign Citizen" is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction...

    Case in point:

    sovˇerˇeign /ˈsäv(ə)rən/ noun: sovereign; plural noun: sovereigns 1. a supreme ruler, especially a monarch. adjective: sovereign 1. possessing supreme or ultimate power.

    citˇiˇzen
    /ˈsidizən,ˈsidisən/ noun: citizen; plural noun: citizens 1. a legally recognized subject; an inhabitant of a particular town or city.

    "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.

    A fundamental maxim, frequently stated, is that equity follows the law. Apparently, not to those who proclaim titles of nobility, like "esquire"...In the United Kingdom, Esquire historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank limited to those only who bear an office of trust under the Crown and who are styled esquires by the king in their commissions and appointments...

    RELEVANCY:
    https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/Awa...emple_Bar.aspx
    http://www.sacred-destinations.com/e...-temple-church

    https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/...35&context=clr

    Our concern is not with the exercise of the jurisdiction of a state outside its territory; we are concerned, rather,with the limitations derived from international-law concepts which restrict the intraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction by a State over persons and activities outside its territory, e.g. in the United Kingdom, @jk. King Jorje...or, "George"...Please attach the following items: 1. résumé 2. short personal statement explaining your interest in the program and what you hope to gain from the experience 3. letter of recommendation from the judge for whom you clerked...as an "officer of the court".

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...reamble_scope/

    While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude {a quality or attitude that is shown by people who behave honestly} of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process [e.g, the 4th AM]. These principles include the lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    23,963

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    I didn't say one word about you personally. But if the shoe fits, feel free to kick yourself with it.

    I, too, am out.

  6. #56

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    The American Inns of Court Professional Creed

    Whereas, the Rule of Law is essential to preserving and protecting the rights and liberties of a free people; and

    Whereas, throughout history, lawyers and judges have preserved, protected and defended the Rule of Law in order to ensure justice for all; and

    Whereas, preservation and promulgation of the highest standards of excellence in professionalism, ethics, civility, and legal skills are essential to achieving justice under the Rule of Law;

    Now therefore, as a member of an American Inn of Court, I hereby adopt this professional creed with a pledge to honor its principles and practices:

    I will treat the practice of law as a learned profession and will uphold the standards of the profession with dignity, civility and courtesy.
    I will value my integrity above all. My word is my bond.
    I will develop my practice with dignity and will be mindful in my communications with the public that what is constitutionally permissible may not be professionally appropriate.
    I will serve as an officer of the court, encouraging respect for the law in all that I do and avoiding abuse or misuse of the law, its procedures, its participants and its processes.
    I will represent the interests of my client with vigor and will seek the most expeditious and least costly solutions to problems, resolving disputes through negotiation whenever possible.
    I will work continuously to attain the highest level of knowledge and skill in the areas of the law in which I practice.
    I will contribute time and resources to public service, charitable activities and pro bono work.
    I will work to make the legal system more accessible, responsive and effective.
    I will honor the requirements, the spirit and the intent of the applicable rules or codes of professional conduct for my jurisdiction, and will encourage others to do the same.

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    I didn't say one word about you personally. But if the shoe fits, feel free to kick yourself with it. I, too, am out.
    imˇply/imˈplī/verb: imply; 3rd person present: implies; past tense: implied; past participle: implied; gerund or present participle: implying strongly suggest the existence of (something not expressly stated).

    inˇfer/inˈfər/verb: infer; 3rd person present: infers; past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred; gerund or present participle: inferring: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

    Don't let the door hit ya, where the Good Lord split ya.

    RELEVANT "CHERRY PICKING" REGARDING MY EXPERIENCE HERE:
    The legal profession is largely self-governing. Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect because of the close relationship between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement. This connection is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the legal profession is vested largely in the courts. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. The Rules of Professional Conduct presuppose a larger legal context shaping the lawyer's role. That context includes court rules and statutes relating to matters of licensure, laws defining specific obligations of lawyers and substantive and procedural law in general.

    Compared with armed struggle, whose romanticized allure obscures its staggering costs, nonviolent resistance has actually been the quickest, least costly, and safest way to struggle. Moreover, civil resistance is recognized as a fundamental human right under international law. Although nonviolent campaigns often begin with a committed and experienced core, successful ones enlarge the diversity of participants, maintain nonviolent discipline and expand the types of nonviolent actions they use. They constantly increase their base of supporters, build coalitions, leverage social networks, and generate connections with those in the opponent’s network who may be ambivalent about cooperating with oppressive policies. Crucially, nonviolent resistance works not by melting the heart of the opponent but by constraining their options.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,647

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Quote Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    logical fallacy. "Sovereign Citizen" is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction...

    Case in point:

    sovˇerˇeign /ˈsäv(ə)rən/ noun: sovereign; plural noun: sovereigns 1. a supreme ruler, especially a monarch. adjective: sovereign 1. possessing supreme or ultimate power.

    citˇiˇzen
    /ˈsidizən,ˈsidisən/ noun: citizen; plural noun: citizens 1. a legally recognized subject; an inhabitant of a particular town or city.

    "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.

    A fundamental maxim, frequently stated, is that equity follows the law. Apparently, not to those who proclaim titles of nobility, like "esquire"...In the United Kingdom, Esquire historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank limited to those only who bear an office of trust under the Crown and who are styled esquires by the king in their commissions and appointments...

    RELEVANCY:
    https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/Awa...emple_Bar.aspx
    http://www.sacred-destinations.com/e...-temple-church

    https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/...35&context=clr

    Our concern is not with the exercise of the jurisdiction of a state outside its territory; we are concerned, rather,with the limitations derived from international-law concepts which restrict the intraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction by a State over persons and activities outside its territory, e.g. in the United Kingdom, @jk. King Jorje...or, "George"...Please attach the following items: 1. résumé 2. short personal statement explaining your interest in the program and what you hope to gain from the experience 3. letter of recommendation from the judge for whom you clerked...as an "officer of the court".

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...reamble_scope/

    While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude {a quality or attitude that is shown by people who behave honestly} of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process [e.g, the 4th AM]. These principles include the lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system.
    you can’t even admit when you’re just plain wrong.

    Have great night. Don’t expect a judge to put up with all of this crap. If you tried this with a judge already, it’s no surprise you were convicted.

  8. #58

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Compliance with the Rules, as with all law in an open society, depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance...

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    you can’t even admit when you’re just plain wrong.
    You inferred to be looking in the mirror when you made that statement. You have a great night too.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,647

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Sure dude, whatever you say

  10. #60

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    https://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/prot...-criminal-law/

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Sure dude, whatever you say
    Well...you haven't effectively responded to even the most rudimentary bases of ANY of your assertions.

    A lawyer should bear in mind that ad hominem comments frequently are unpersuasive, increase the level of personal antagonism, and tend to diminish public respect for lawyers and the courts.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Don’t expect a judge to put up with all of this crap. If you tried this with a judge already, it’s no surprise you were convicted.
    Argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

    It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Under color of law" means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

    34 U.S.C. § 12601 makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    your fallacy of arguing you being present in the parking lot is authorized as long as you weren’t parking is just precious. Your presence is the violation. It doesn’t matter what you were or weren’t doing. There is also a dffernce between trespassing as defined in the penal code and trespassing in the generic sense.
    Of course there is...trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery"; battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it"; and false imprisonment, the "unlawful obstruction or deprivation of freedom from restraint of movement".

    Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse.

    What is PUBLIC?
    Pertaining to a whole community; proceeding from, relating to the whole body of people or an entire community.

    Open to all;

    Common to all; open to common use. Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am. Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters (C. C.) 10 Fed. 621; Austin v. Soule, 36 Vt. 650; Appeal of Eliot, 74 Coun. 586, 51 Atl. 558; 0’IIara v. Miller, 1 Kulp (Pa.) 295.
    (https://thelawdictionary.org/public/)

    "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser"; however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.

    Not very reasonable to "suspect" non-criminal activity, nor tortious conduct for that matter, that involves the lawful excuse of a reasonably forseeable purpose.

    Besides, a person can still make a claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause even if the officer was found to have had probable cause for the stop under the Fourth Amendment. Which he factually did not.

    The notion that common law offenses could be enforced in federal courts was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). At the state level, the situation varies.

    "When signs are used in place of a red curb, the prohibition is in effect on the days and times specified on the sign...No person shall park or stand a vehicle in violation of any sign limiting or regulating the parking or standing of a vehicle"...That means, one would have to be "parked" or had left "standing" to be in "violation" of the sign "limiting or regulating" the act of "parking or standing of a vehicle"...You know...standing...something you wouldn't have as a prosecutor.

    Plaintiff predicts that Defendant CITY's legal strategy will be designed to prevent any public or judicial scrutiny of its practices, and to prevent its practices and their implications from ever becoming visible, thus undermining the reformatory purpose and effect of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation....Plaintiff also predicts that Defendant CITY will attempt to move to block discovery and trial of its practices, ensuring that its policies will remain unexamined, thus undermining the reformatory purpose and effect of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation....Thereby, Plaintiff pre-opposes any motion to bifurcate trial on any and all relevant and relative issues concerning Defendant CITY's unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices....By bringing claims under Monell, Plaintiff wishes to encourage those in a policymaking position, to institute internal rules and programs designed to minimize the likelihood of unintentional infringements on constitutional rights, and to deter the intentional infringements thereof.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. McCain At New Hampshire Liberty Forum
    By blueeagle in forum Banter
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 06:51 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket In Liberty New York
    By beach34957 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-21-2008, 07:03 AM
  3. Liberty Dollar redux
    By jk in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 08:40 PM
  4. Couple Arrested for Using Liberty Dollars
    By Madmanmike1972 in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-20-2007, 06:16 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources