Gangsters in Blue

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

The police are not there to protect you.

Now, at first glance, the notion seems preposterous.  These fine men and women put their lives on the line to protect us, right?  Certainly one would think so if you follow the principles of Bastiat that says; law is a common force and a substitution of individual force, and the common force can only do what the individual force can naturally and lawfully do (meaning no one is above the law and no one can legally do what another cannot, regardless of position). Is it not noble for one to take on the thankless job of being the “mediator” of disputes and defender of liberties?

Many of those who say the police provide a role in protecting the people, are those who are either living off the government paycheck. There are also those who have yet come to realize that this formerly noble profession, is now no longer required to do the job we entrust and fund them to do.  The blind ignorance can be equally attributed to Hollywood and prime-time TV, who glamorize those in uniform and yet turn a blind eye to the fundamental errors of the modern-day law enforcement as compared to their role not too long ago.

If we look at a few court opinions, we can see that the premise of what we know as the police’s function in society has seriously eroded from what it was originally intended for.  For example, the recent SCOTUS case, Kentucky vs. King, ruling allows police to break into your home if they “think” you are destroying or hiding evidence, of course, without a warrant.  The vague, looseness of this ruling sets the legal precedence for police to gain entry to your home by force, violate your Fourth Amendment right, and search your premises and detain you with no warrant.

Question: If the police can circumvent your Constitutional right because they “think” something might be happening, then what is the point of the Fourth Amendment? What is the point of the Constitution if your rights are easily trampled on by the police at their whim?

A quick look into Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), we see that the Appeals Court stated that, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.”  This calls into question a few general points.

If the police are not liable or can not be held responsible for a lack of duty or not providing protection, then who is responsible to provide protection?

If it is their job to “serve and protect”, why are the courts saying that they are not responsible for protection of the citizenry, in as much as not being held responsible for failing to provide protection?

It is with this ruling, the argument, “to serve and protect”, is made null and void.  In the real world if a doctor fails to render aid to someone in need of care, they can be charged with criminal neglect and loose their license and career; however, in law enforcement there is no level of repercussions that come from a failure to do one’s job or uphold an oath once taken.  Nice work if this makes sense to you.

Another look into another court opinion, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968), brings forth a major question in regards to the police and their ability to be held responsible for neglectful actions.

“Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection? ”

Of course, the courts stated “No” and upheld the appeals court ruling on the matter.  Here we can see, that again the courts affirmed, that the people have no “right” to be protected.  The dissenting opinion on this case brought up a very valid point that, “…officials can either improve public administration or accept the cost of paying damages to injured people”.  However, the courts ruled against this concept, thus allowing ineptitude of public officials to be able to exist unchecked in a court of law.  In essence, the police can fail to protect you and continue to fail with no repercussions.

It is also fair to note that both the Warren and Riss cases took place in municipalities that prohibit or restrict handgun ownership.  So this then draws into question another point, made by the dissenting justice in the Riss v. NYC case:

“What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her. “

Here we see that even the judge noticed the fallacy and breakdown of a government responsibility that prevents her from possessing a weapon for self-defense, yet isn’t responsible to provide her protection.  This only provides more proof that there is a massive misappropriation of power the “state” has taken from the individual.

Lastly, we look at the horrendous case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).  I end on this because the case involved a law abiding citizen doing as the court ordered her to do; call the police when there was a violation of a restraining order by her abusive ex-husband.  Because of police lack of action and refusal to uphold the court order for protection, the ex-husband kidnapped their three children, murdered them, and commenced to have a shoot out with police when he walked into the police station. (If there has ever been a more tragic case involving police neglect and apathy, I have not seen it.)

Here, the SCOTUS upheld the original dismissal of the case, thus overturning the appeals court ruling. In this event, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect your right to due process (Fifth Amendment) by enforcing existing restraining orders and that the court order did not provide her special treatment under the law.  This premises states that only people in custody of the government or in mental institutions are afforded unquestionable protection from law enforcement personnel.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that the police officers that did not provide her court ordered protection were protected from prosecution for violating her Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine that removes personal liability of government officials for violations of other’s Constitutional rights.

Let me state this again.

The police officers could not be individually prosecuted under civil or criminal law because police officers are given immunity from acts that violate one’s Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine.

Time after time, the state and federal courts have ruled in favor of the police and have allowed law enforcement agencies a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when it comes to being responsible for the protection of the citizenry.  Be it the badge, or the car, or the trite oaths taken “To Serve And Protect”, we see that these are just words with no apparent legal meaning.

So, if the police, that we entrust for our protection of body and property, are no longer responsible for protecting us, we must question their purpose and role in our society.  What purpose do they serve on the backs of the tax payer? What has once be heralded as a truly selfless calling, has been trivialized to simple thuggery protected by the legislation and the courts.  Now we have seen an evolution from selfless service to what they are now; a revenue stream for local, state, and federal governments. It is now safe to dispose of, “To Serve and Protect”, and call it what it really is.

“To Enforce and Collect” seems much more fitting.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php/116-Riss-v.-City-of-New-York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

Luke K

To “Protect and Serve” or “Enforce and Collect”? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

In an opinion released on August 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a private citizen’s right to videotape police officers performing their duties in a public space is “unambiguously” protected by the First Amendment. Glik v. Cunniffe, et al., No. 10-1764 (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2011).

In 2007, Simon Glik encountered three police officers making an arrest in the Boston Common. Concerned that the officers were using excessive force,  he began to record video footage of the arrest with his cell phone. One of the officers told Glik, “I think you have taken enough pictures,” and Glik replied that he was videotaping the arrest. When Glik affirmed that his cell phone recorded audio, he was arrested and subsequently charged with violation of Massachusetts’ wiretap statute, disturbing the peace and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. The latter charge was voluntarily dismissed for lack of probable cause and, in 2008, the Boston Municipal Court granted Glik’s motion to dismiss the remaining two charges. Thereafter, Glik filed a civil rights action against the officers and the City of Boston in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, in addition to various state law claims. The district court denied the police officers’ motion to dismiss Glik’s complaint on qualified immunity grounds, and the defendants immediately appealed the ruling to the First Circuit on interlocutory review.

To determine whether public officials are entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation. With regard to Glik’s First Amendment claim, the First Circuit unequivocally concluded that there is a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public, explaining that “[i]t is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.”

The court cited precedent firmly establishing that videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties and observed that gathering information on government officials protects free discussion of government affairs, aids in the uncovering of abuses, and promotes effective functioning of government. Although the right to film is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, the court opined that the peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with police duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.

The First Amendment right to gather news does not only inure to the benefit of the news media, but also to the benefit of private individuals, the court further noted. Recognizing that evolving technology has allowed private citizens to increasingly contribute to news gathering and dissemination, the First Circuit stated:

Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

In addition, the First Circuit concluded that Glik’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause, relying on the fact that his recording in plain view was not “secret” within the meaning of the state wiretap statute. Even if the officers did not actually know that Glik was recording audio on his cell phone, the court found that the conspicuous use of a cell phone commonly known to record audio is sufficient evidence from which to infer actual knowledge of the recording.

Rodman Gomez

Breaking Down the Police Videotaping Decision is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

A Guest submission from a Cop Block supporter describing their police encounter and arrest.

On Tuesday August 23rd, 2011, at approximately 12:38 Eastern Standard time, I was pulled over for speeding in Monroe County Michigan, about 30 miles south of Detroit. I was only doing 74 mph in a 70 mph zone. I had California license plates as I was on a road trip from California across the country.
An illegal search performed by Officer Thomas Murphy (Sergeant) resulted in my arrest under a concealed weapon charge.

A drug dog was used to sniff the outside of my car. Officer Murphy said the K9 alerted, to which I did not hear a bark or see the dog do anything. The police report states it alerted on my trunk, which I have never had drugs in. Later my lawyer notified me that the dash cam video was NOT WORKING so the only footage and audio was what I took, which helped me to get the plea bargain I took. I was also reported to Homeland Security.

In jail the 2nd day, I was brought into an office and questioned by a Homeland Security employee and one from the Secret Service.

I had some “The Obama Deception” burnt DVDs inside my car and other items the police and Homeland Security deemed “suspicious.”

In the police report the “unknown liquid” found in my trunk was olive oil used for cooking that I had in my survival kit along with zip ties, rope and other such items you may need for example to build a home in the wilderness.
I was asked my whole life story including my family, career, mental health, views on Obama and our country. I was entirely cooperative, in part, because as an Innocent man I don’t want to be shipped off to Guantanamo or something of that nature.
After giving my whole life information to these two men and the next day showing footage of my travels such as filming in Washington D.C., they seemed satisfied. They left and it seemed I was only left with my concealed weapon charge.
The conditions at the Monroe County jail were in some ways inhumane to me but I will not get into these details unless asked.

Because the officer used a canine to say he sniffed drugs on my car it was a case that could not be easily dismissed and instead of having to fly back and forth from California to Michigan I decided to take a plea bargain for a Misdemeanor of “Improper possession of firearm in motor vehicle.”

The whole incident which is in violation of my rights (specifically those stated in the 2nd and 4th amendment) cost my family and I over $15,000 for legal defense, bail and travel expenses.

A copy of the police report Here

RIGHTS VIOLATED; Monroe County, Michigan is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

My brother has been calling me the past two months about traffic stops from the Wilmington Police Department. He calls me every time he is stopped, which has been about 6 times up to this date.

The main problem is the officer’s continuous unconstitutional searches of his vehicle and his person. The first starting with an officer pulling him over for running a stop sign, in which he attempted to dig his hands into my brother’s pants to search for drugs. When my brother refused, he contacted a K-9 unit to search his vehicle and found nothing. They then escorted him downtown to the police station to strip search him (Yes for the running of a stop sign). I must admit that my brother has had a few run-ins with LEOs but this is too much!! They then let him go with just a warning ticket.

He has filed plenty complaints with WPD and none have been investigated at all. The is some serious ethics violations here!!

Another time he was pulled over for the same thing, this time having a friend with him. The officers demanded the two step out of the car, without notifying them of their violations. They began to search his friend, digging their hands into the back of his pants, discovering a bag of weed he was hiding. My brother was taken to be searched again due to this discovery. When my brother advised them of wanting to have his lawyer present, they forced him into the search. Thy found nothing and found out later that his car had been towed.

On another occasion, they pulled him for no reason, held him downtown claiming he was drunk, yet failed to give him a breathalyzer. Luckily he called me and I told him to demand a breathalyzer before they decided to write him up for a will refusal without notifying him of his rights.

They have detained him numerous times without reading any rights or informing him of his alleged crimes. They are using their power to terrorize and harass him. He has come a long way in the 2 years since he did 4 months for a petty drug charge. It seems police have a new tactic of provoking people into fits of anger by degrading them to make them feel less than human. I have overheard outrageous statements by an officer over the phone, so I have advised my brother to make sure he records everything. There has been little effort by WPD to keep the peace. Even while there have been 6 murders in the city, they spend most of their time harassing citizens…

Wilmington NC PD is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

A videographer capturing news footage became the news, when he filmed part of his own arrest while trying to capture video of a police crime scene.

Suffolk County Police sergeant Michael Milton did not want the videographer there telling him to just “GO AWAY”. Confused he respectfully tried to reason with the officer, but that didn’t work so he moved a block away, and resumed shooting.

He sergeant then got in his car and drove towards the videographer almost running him over. Despite being a credentialed member of the press and standing in a public area around other people, he was arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration. His video was taken “for evidence,”

The cameraman was then taken into custody and his video was taken “for evidence,” The video of the arrest, which was later returned to him, was later posted on YouTube.

The charges were later dropped against the cameraman.

Cameraman Arrested by Suffolk County Police is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Disclaimer: Some states do require that you identify yourself and show your concealed weapons permit, check your local laws to be certain.

From the YouTube description.

This video shows how the police have no concept of your rights or your civil rights under the constitution.This is an excellent example of how to invoke your rights when confronted by the police. Rights that you do not use or are unaware of, do not exist. Protecting your rights is never the job of the police, only you can claim what is yours. This cop has no concept of the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendments. Notice how the intended victim invokes his rights not to identify himself and to carry a gun, which stymies the cop sending him back to his car with his tail between his legs.

The people in this video are exercising their rights to Freedom of, expression, religion (This was an abortion clinic), to peaceably assemble, to bear arms, to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects. And the right not to be deprived of their life, liberty, or property, and the right to stand up to tyranny. You also have the right to observe the government, its employees and agents. There is no enforceable law against videoing the police and your interactions with them.

There is nothing more American than what you see in this video. I wish I had been there. Folks, we live in dangerous times, a government that does not trust its citizens to bear arms, is a government not to be trusted by its citizens.

The right to keep and bear arms should be of great importance to all Americans , if we are to remain a free country we MUST NOT let this right be taken from us

Please keep your comments limited to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I, The Dancerooster, am not in the video, so don’t waste you time attacking me.

Remember, freedom isn’t free, and no cop is going to protect it for you, that’s your job, so flex your rights.

How To invoke your rights with The Police is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

There’s been a back and forth going on in the Keene court system. The state pushes activists (with aggression)  and the activists push back (peacefully). The activists were doing rather well until the courts BANNED cameras from the buildings/courtrooms. Since then several acts of violence haven’t made YouTube but I thought that changed when the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled on Gilk v. Commonwealth of MA.

That ruling states that ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS can be filmed while in the course of their duties, in public space. So I decided to head down to Superior Court in Keene, NH to notify the bailiff’s there of the ruling. My goal was to get them to understand that taking people’s cameras at the gate is now illegal, no matter what the judge’s ruling on the wall says (the 1st district court of appeals overrides it).

This is how it went…

After the video ended I went back into the building gave the ruling to a sheriff and said, “the next time I come here you’ll have a choice to make and I will sue you if you arrest me. The choice is yours.” I’m not sure when I’ll be back in Keene but when I am, I’ll be stopping by the courthouse with several cameras.

*It should be noted that the whole building seen in this video is under surveillance and all those inside are already being recorded*

Keene Bailiff Doesn’t Care About Your Rights is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

On August 4th I went to Robert Fords office in Leetsdale Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, to start payment on a fine. They told me that I could not pay $10 a month and said it was state law to pay $25 a month. I called her bluff and asked to see the statute that specifically says what I can or can not pay at the magistrates office. She could not provide that and it clearly irritated her.

That very moment, another secretary saw the camera in my hand and started screaming about me not being able to record in a public place and got on the phone. What do they have to hide? I was not recording anyway, I simply wanted to show them proof that I was not guilty in the first place.

She went and spoke with the Judge , then came back with a payment evaluation form. I filled it out and handed it back to her. She took it to the judge and then returned to schedule a date for the payment evaluation hearing. I signed the extortion contract and waited for the paperwork to be printed. Without my knowledge,they called the police and told them to arrest me for recording them.

The cop showed up and realized that I had not broken any laws. He let me go. The judge told me, weeks later at my payment evaluation hearing, that the secretaries told me to leave the office. Now, would you continue to process the paperwork and complete the business at hand with someone who was being so “combative” that you had to tell them to leave? Why was I not arrested for defiant trespassing on the spot? Why did the “Honorable” Judge Robert Ford not process the defiant trespassing charges til after the F.B.I. refused to file felony wiretapping charges against me? OVER A MONTH LATER!

I will tell you why. The local court system is so frightened by the fact that I record everything I do for transparency reasons , that they conjured up defiant trespassing charges against me, which means I will be sitting in a cage until my next hearing. By the way, I tried to use the freedom of information act and obtain the video recording from the office where this happened and the judge lied and told me that there was a power outage days before the alleged trespassing and that the cameras were not functioning. Duquesne Light told me that there was no such outage in the weeks prior to August 4th anywhere in the borough of Leetsdale.  Judge Robert Ford is denying me my right to view the video tape that proves the secretaries in his office are either lying out of their own anger or cooperating with Chief Santucci in order to have me put in jail. Since I am already on bond, I guess I will be sitting in a cage for a little while until I can prove that these cowards are abusing the power given to them by US just to ensure that they can continue to abuse their power.

I went to the Leetsdale Police Department  to get a few questions answered and file a statement about what happened. Officer William Dreyer asked to see all my paper work. He filed a report on my behalf, took my statement, and returned what I believed to be my paperwork. I got down the street and realized he did not give back the official affidavit or the formal charges issued by Robert Fords office. The other cop on duty told me that I have to go to Fords office and get new paperwork, which means I have to talk to the very people who filed the charges against me? How does that work? Best part is, my bail hearing is at ROBERT FORDS OFFICE!!! Conflict of interest? hhhhmmmm.

Where do you turn when the system has set itself up over time to protect its self from any accountability and to be able to push innocent people around for asking difficult questions? There is no where to turn, there is no valid answer to these questions. We, the people, are at a point where we either have to stand up and fight for our freedoms,especially 1st and 4th amendments, or just give up and be the dormant, servile, obedient worker bees that they have counted on time and time again to perpetuate the fear instilled obedience that keeps the wheels of “justice” turning. I will not stand for this train wreck called justice. It is unacceptable behavior and it WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

A.J. Bruno

Never Question My Secretaries is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Beau Davis, whom I’ve spoken with a few times in the past, recently announced that police in Greenfield, Massachusetts have charged him with “wiretapping” for reasons that are currently unknown to him.

Beau has worked with my friends Ademo (aka Adam Mueller) and Pete Eyre on their project Liberty On Tour. Last year, prior to starting Liberty On Tour, Adam and Pete were arrested by the Greenfield police and charged with wiretapping for recording themselves trying to bail a friend out of the Franklin County Jail. They thoroughly documented their arrest, court hearings, and other interactions with the Greenfield police at Cop Block and Liberty On Tour with blog posts, legal documents, and, most importantly, videos, some of which were made with Beau’s assistance.

It seems likely that Beau’s wiretapping charge has something to do with the work he did with Ademo and Pete during their wiretapping ordeal.

Here’s how Beau described the charges on his new blog which he just launched to raise awareness about his case:

A few days ago, my parents in FL received a letter in the mail from the Trial Court of Massachusetts District Court Department, stating that I needed to be present in court in Greenfield, MA, alleging that I unlawfully wiretapped a member of the Greenfield Police Department on May 20, 2011.  The charge is, as it is written in the letter, “WIRETAP, UNLAWFUL c272 §99(C)(1)”, which is a felony in Massachusetts.  The charge was filed on August 11, 2011.  It is August 21, 2011 and I am just now receiving the letter today from my parents.  The date of the arraignment is September 7, 2011.

I still do not know how Greenfield acquired my parents address back home; I can only speculate at this point.

The court has not stated how I have allegedly committed this offense, so I have nothing to go on at the moment, other than speculation.  Now, why Greenfield, MA is trying this again after they failed to convict my friends Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman for the same “offense”, I do not know.  This could be to save face or to try and further make an example of one who tries to hold public officials accountable for their actions.  I do not understand their motives as I do not yet know who I’ve apparently hurt in the matter.

– Beau Davis, “The Letter That Came In The Mail,” 5 Years For Filming a Cop, August 21, 2011

As I’ve discussed on this blog numerous times before, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute only prohibits the creation of “secret” audio-recordings. Unless a prosecutor can show that Beau “secretly” recorded the police, (by, for instance, hiding a recording device in his pocket), then it’s unlikely that he will be convicted of wiretapping.

But even if Beau did openly record the police, it’s still likely that his charge will go to trial. When Ademo and Pete were arrested for wiretapping, they held their cameras in plain sight and made it clear that they intended to record the police, but that didn’t stop Northwestern Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Bengston from prosecuting them nor did it stop Judge William F. Mazanec III from refusing to dismiss their bogus charges.

As soon as more information about Beau’s case becomes available, I’ll post an update.

Originally posted at Massachusetts Cop Block

Greenfield police charge LOT’s Beau Davis with “wiretapping” is a post from Cop Block - "Something must be done about vengeance, a badge, and a gun"

I was walking through a parking lot going back to the my friends vehicle when I was about 25 feet from the car a COP confronted me. He said I looked “EuPhOriC”….. To make a long story short. I ended up with a Felony and Misdemeanor charges for stuff found in my friends car. I thought I had a chance to fight it since a few things where wrong on the file….. 1. Wrong birthday 2. Wrong age 3. Wrong social security 4. Wrong vial number on my blood test …… I figured that a forced blood draw violated my 5th amendment rights ,as well as, a whole bunch of other areas that I felt violated.

I felt good, felt confident, felt angry! So I take it to the BOX. Just needed one of my peers to side with me……. VERDICT?

GUILTY…………….. GUILTY……………….GUILTY

WTF… RIGHT? …. WELL FACING SENTENCING TODAY WISH ME LUCK!

Dr. J

Another Person Heads to Jail for a Crime without A Victim is a post from Cop Block - "Something must be done about vengeance, a badge, and a gun"