I had my freedom taken away before. In fact, it was suspended. For 2 years. Over a bs charge in a state that has a law that conflicts with that charge. Took my gun, took my car. Put my brown-ass in jail. I got stripped down naked, had to bend over and cough. Had to sit in a dirty, cold cell with barely clean clothes issued by the county. Fed nasty food. And barely any water. And just this month in May, 2021. My case got thrown out. I spent over 3500 dollars to prove my innocence over this nasty bullshit and it turns out they were wrong. So I had to sit this one out and put my life on hold for them to change their minds and say they are not interested and dropping it before anything got done. And I still have to get it expunged and pay more money out of pocket to clear my stained record that was clean for over 7 years. Do you not know how amazing as a Mexican-American to grow up to be a man with no record, graduated highschool and not getting into any trouble? Most people expected me to fail. But I came out ahead and tried to walk down the path to success. But this legal circus threw me a hard monkey wrench into the situation and fucked me over. I wont forget their names. I know who they are. They hurt me bad and ruined my life. It made me depressed and suicidal. I felt like I was bullied in highschool all over again. Bullied in the hood, bullied in school, bullied by police; still being bullied by police. I should have gotten my LTC and it would have prevented all this. Now I know.
I feel your pain, I to was violated by police as a white man, they don't care about skin color, they just want your money no matter how they get it, it cost me well over $5k so far and several trips to jail, it has ruined my life and made me not wanting to be here as well, these public servants are all criminals living off the people like leeches, i was stopped by state trooper for my daytime running lights which are legal, i refused to give him i.d. until he gave probable cause to stop me, he arrested (kidnapped) me, impounded my private truck, he made up interfearing with government operations, resisting arrest, led violation and no d.l., the judge entered a plea for me (practice law from the bench), at trial i proved the trooper didn't have probable cause to stop me, the judge said by his opinion i am guilty of all the charges and sent me to jail 12 months interfearing 6 months resisting, my bondsman filed an appeal for me to get me out of jail, been over 2yrs since the illegal stop and arrest and i haven't had a jury trial yet, i lost all faith in this defacto government, Good luck to you and all who have been violated by this corrupt system calling themselves public servants.
Throughout my 24.7 years of law enforcement, consular affairs; and governmental service. Mr. Charlie Rose has a good understanding and he has the ability to teach his discussions in plain fashion.
Very informative. Thank you. The only thing that bothered me was that you essentially claimed that there is absolutely no expectation of privacy with respect to public transportation and your personal vehicle. You did say it was dependent on the facts and circumstances however regarding the containers within the vehicle, however that's not good enough for me and this encourages a natural inclination for inquiry on my end to solve this. I'm going to have to look at common law to confirm what you said. If there's absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever, then why do cops ask for consent when the traffic stop itself, according to you, is an exception to "reasonable expectation of privacy". If no other instrumentality presents itself with respect to the facilitation of any criminal activity except the traffic stop itself, that constitutes as an exception for probable cause? I believe there is a degree of protection and I'm going to have to read Katz myself and any subsequent case law that gives more insight to this. You're asking for a whole lot of cops to fabricate shit if that's the case, and my personal experience itself doesn't line up with that. The officer really does try hard to get you to admit. I can't accept that. That's not reasonable to a reasonable person, such as myself. I have a hard time wrapping my head around allowing any cop to search an ordinary person's car with no other reason than the traffic stop itself. The degree of Reasonable expectation of privacy is hindered to an extent, but it does not completely vanish, irrespective of whether or not you are on public roads. That's my inference, and I really do feel I can find something that validates this, because that's reasonable and in the Constitution, The Judiciary is bound to uphold it, "In Law & """In Equity""""""" in accordance to our Supreme Law of the land. Emphasis on the Equity part ( Impartial, Fairness) The judicial branch is supposed to prevent hardship from literal interpretation or exclusion of the Law.... And there is so much historical content out there in terms of case law in how Equity is used within the American jurisprudence. And look at Amendment 9 "The Constitution shall not be construed in a way that denies or disparages the rights retained by the people" According to you, that's construing the constitution by saying there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy. You are disparaging the rights of otherwise, law-abiding citizens. I truly believe you need some sort of reasonable suspicion before you can intrude without a warrant (Limitations apply and you enumerated them) Not everyone pulled over is involved in major criminal activity. The courts have to use reason with this. Again, why do cops ask for consent at a traffic stop frequently? This doesn't make sense, if that's the case. ....... Going off what you said, It wouldn't seem like Equity is being enforced at all. Just that one fact is questionable. Everything else you said is spot on. You might touch on the details of that in another presentation. This is the only one I watched so far. Thank you.
For those of you who are interested you can download the flowchart referenced in this presentation from dropbox at : dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22866757/Crimpro%20-%204th%20Flowchart.pdf
Hi thank u a lot for sharing this information and especially for free. I graduated from law school and still find I need to refresh my memory on these procedural laws...this video helps a lot with that.
You mean a cop can't just show up on your property, detain you, demand your ID, enter into your home, and then cite you for a crime you didn't commit, simply b/c he is doing a favor for his criminal friends??? That's common practice here in NM.
What happens when a cop violates our right's the constitution or the law ?? What happens when a judge violates our right's the constitution or the law ?? Is there a part of the government that we can turn to when these public servants violate us ?? Or does it cost us out of our pocket to take a corrupt public servant to court to get any justice ?? When a corrupt public servant violates us we could be kidnapped and cost us thousands upon thousands of dollars to deal with being violated, and upon those thousands, it would cost us thousands and thousands to sue for being violated, and in the meantime the corrupt police who violated you gets paid for violating you while he cost you thousands of dollars and even could spend many days to months in jail, sometimes you could spend a year or many years in jail over a corrupt police violating you, i say this with firsthand knowledge, i was violated by the police and prosecutor along with a judge, and i personally spent close to ten thousand on their corrupt acts and still cannot get any justice or compensation for being violated by our so called public servants, if this happens to you, just know your not alone and it's a very long costly road you will be traveling down.
Let me begin with the following caveat, anything I answer is not legal advice but an academic discussion. Now, as to your question, it depends upon the timeline and specific factual predicates involved. 4th amendment jurisprudence is generally the most fact intensive area of the law and it would also need to be read in light of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
I would personally be against the notion of a "good faith" exception for reasons of strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. The text of the fourth amendment doesn't appear to allow any "exceptions". Therefore, our exceptions to the fourth amendment in the classical sense that we've come to know them- is in my opinion- inappropriate judicial amendment of the constitutional text as opposed to mere interpretation of the text. Such is an offense to the separation of powers.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: A rule under which evidence that is the direct result of illegal conduct on the part of an official is inadmissible in a criminal trial against the victim of the conduct.
@21.00, if the "son" pleads the 5th and does not incriminate himself, wouldn't mom be left holding stolen property? Does the same apply to adults living with a parent or over a certain age is privacy expected in private living spaces (bedroom) even from a parent? Does it change if there is rent paid?
The federal courts have generally held that the right to consent is held by the person that controls the space. (What is known in landlord/tenant law as "possession of the premises"). Therefore, if I have someone staying in a room in my house that locks that room, only that person has the right to consent to a search, because even though I own the house, I have transferred "possession" of the room to the other person. Application of this doctrine in juvenile law has gone both ways- it depends upon which federal circuit you live in. The courts most often tends to consider the age of the child in attaching an autonomous privacy right distinct from the right of the parent, but this has not been the only determining factor. If rent is paid, it will always fall as a "landlord/tenant" transaction and as such would be no different than a landlord consenting to a search of a house (which has been rejected by the courts). Because the law is so murky in this area, it is best that law enforcement have the consent of the child or a warrant (as the Supreme court of the United States hasn't yet taken up the issue directly).
What if a person calls for help in a mental health crisis and they allow police in, tell them they are not armed, others tell them they are not armed, they immediately handcuff the person who called for help,commence the Pat down and find an “indistinguishable”object in their pocket (a can of dip),remove it from their pocket and then ask the person while handcuffed for consent to open the container? Consent given under duress in a mental health crisis, and while obviously detained in cuffs, there were drugs in the container and the person was then arrested. Is that a violation? This is a case happening in my county court. I’m very curious. Seems like a violation to me. But I’m not a lawyer
There is no such thing as "Reasonable" when used in conjunction with the term "Probable Cause". There is absolutely no definition of any standing for the term "Reasonable". That is just more political slight of hand. As far as I am concerned there are no reasonable humans. "Reasonable, or Unreasonable" are terms used to justify what one person wants to do to another, justifying their self righteousness at the point of a gun @! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW OR WHY A PERSON IS CONSIDERED UNREASONABLE WHEN THEY ARE PROTECTING THEMSELVES AND PROPERTY? WHEN PROTECTING YOURSELF AND YOUR PROPERTY YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE , (IN THEIR EYES) REASONABLE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT OFFENDING BULLY WANTS TO PORTRAY YOU AS Of course they, (public servants) and the police will attribute your supposed unreasonableness for your being shot when refusing them entry to your property. This is what it has come down to my friends. it is now 2015 and a lone officer does not come to your house or property. They come as a pack of wolves to make sure you do not keep them from invading your space, property or affects. This will be the lead-up to civil war, and all those public servants will become targets when they step out of line. Believe me cops know this, and when public servants want to supersede their authority by forcing cops to accompany them on fishing expeditions on your property, those cops have been duped into also breaking the law. If the coming Constitutional Convention rewrites our constitution they need to take out all terminology such as "Reasonable" and put in place wording which is explicit and which cannot also be twisted to favor bullies in government !!!
i want you to think about that "the coming constitutional convention rewrites" pollution's and top public servants (governed by the 1%ile) rewriting the constitutional protections of the general public the 1 percentile just pay their way out of things even to have no record of those things so what protections are they going to remove those people are the ones making laws to justify the removal legally of those protections those people doing the reviews will be the same people pushing for lessened protections. how can anyone believe constitutional changes are a good thing???? the "reasonable" will weakened to become something like suspicion if they get their hands on the constitution no one should be allowing change to the constitution if i was american i would be fighting constitutional rewrites
J may right! What may be considered “reasonable” to me may not be “reasonable” to you. I remember being pulled over for a failed inspection sticker traffic stop; then immediately being told that because of me having that failed inspection card (even though it was just given to me that day and therefore in my state I had 30 days to make my repairs) the police offer so called had “probable cause” to search my vehicle because he received a phone call that my passenger and I were distributing narcotics. So he had to search my vehicle. Now #1: in my opinion, people are legally allowed to drive with a failed inspection as long as the date on that card is within the time frame repairs need to be made to pass. I had no other reasons to be pulled over besides that LEGAL pink card in my window. I know SMELLS LIKE CACA. Then after that fool seen my passenger, not me the owner and operator of the vehicle my passenger, who was convicted of cds charges in the past, he lies to me and says that he has to search me warrant less cuz he got a call we were riding around selling drugs. The stop was illegal from the start! Unless he knew that inspection card was expired; having a feeling iS NOT PROBABLY CAUSE! That’s just like me saying just because someone is tall they must be good at basketball! People drive around with regular inspection stickers EXPIRED AF! You can’t pull over EVERYBODY! They are using the US constitution which is supposed to protect WE THE PEOPLE, to cover their asses! If I ran into this cop; I would SUE THE MUSTACHE off his psychic ass! Phone calls and rumors from anonymous people are not probable cause either! If some stranger randomly called you and said it was raining donuts && coffee, you cannot say well: it rains sometimes; plus I like donuts && coffee so it MUST be true! Random people could just call the police and say ANYTHING! Especially a person that doesn’t like the person or is a “rival” as you said. Honestly I see why they have police offers who regularly give tickets out and then they have detectives. If every cop was a detective we would be in trouble! Plus just like that fool that illegally searched plus arrested me && my passenger THERE WAS NO FLOW OR ORDER OF OPERATIONS To the search. Hell I wasn’t even asked consent to search I was told that he had the authority to! He found nothing && then called dogs! Yet he didn’t see anyone doing nor selling drugs! There were no physical drugs or paraphernalia in sight even! Next if his ass didn’t find anything; he would be calling a female cop to strip me naked && that’s exactly what he did after still finding nothing. Yeah I had a convicted ex repeat offender. Yeah he still was paying his probationary fine. But what did ANY of that have to do with me? I never had any drug charges! Conveniently they found an empty tiny weed bag. The dog sniffs it out in a place not even in plain view && not near my passenger nor I... (hmmm interesting. Much have been another one of these “feelings” for probable cause!) I don’t even believe it had residue in it! I don’t even remember any tests done to prove it was even paraphernalia! No finger prints or DNA samples taken from the bag to prove it was even mine! No drug tests taken from me to prove I was even under the influence! But because it was in my car and someone called and said we were up to no good; it had to be mine! Like someone couldn’t have planted it in there to frame me while I had my back windows down and was in the store??? Could’ve been this “callers” paraphernalia. But did they care to investigate it??? No my stupid stupid self didn’t even stop them while I was ahead. I could’ve went to jail for 3 to 5 years for this CACA. THE BEST PART IS I CANT EVEN GET A JOB AT MY LOCAL MCDONALDS OR MOVE INTO AN APARTMENT THANKS TO THESE CRIME THIRSTY ROOKIE NEW JERSEY HONKEES! Everybody thinks I get High now! Thanks to these idiots! I cried cuz I’m trying not to be an exotic dancer anymore which was my job. Tryina take care of my 4 year old son && thanks to these ugly human beings; I cannot even get a job in my state! Can’t even dance cuz of the corona virus now. Got denied 5 good state job positions; got my background check back and BOOM! I’ve got a possession charge...I was so happy to not go to jail my naive ass didn’t even get a laywer. Ohh noooo. I’m not gonna let these Cracker Jacks be the reason my son goes hungry && homeless! I mean seriously! This is people’s lives these cops are fucking with! And no, not every cop is bad or stupid but damn it if this is not taking advantage I don’t know what is! PLEASE LETS TRY TO DO MORE PROTECTING AND LESS SERVING IF WE WANNA BE HEROES! GOOD PEOPLE DONT GIVE FIRST TIME OFFENDERS WITH NO RECORD FELONY CHARGES! That’s only something a sadist would do. They know the law and we don’t! I’ll never let a police offer or anyone for that manner make a fool out of me again! Or block me from reaching my goals! Boy this is a long ass rant but I had to say something because this WHOLE ENTIRE BS OF A VIDEO gives these sadists the permission to ruin lives && make false accusations with little or no proof. Unless a car commits an accident or runs a red light (not yellow) you people shouldn’t even have the right to pull us over! I don’t care that you wanna prove to your boss that you’re working so you’re giving out as many tickets and arrest as you can! People are losing their jobs; licenses and whole lives because of power tripping self entitled no warning on a first offense giving ego maniacs like you so called police men! To hell with the government and these judges && prosecutors in these racist towns that back up this non sense too! It’s not our fault that there is no crime in your area! That doesn’t give you the right to make up crimes! Just because you know the wording of the law and we don’t!
When you say that the 6 exceptions to the warrant requirement are not mutually exclusive, can you provide cases and or examples wherein there were numerous exceptions present in a case?
remember if only one thing... Custodian of Records.. they hold the keys. If you wanna read a shit load more please read my informative guide above if it hadnt been removed already. I'm hear to help straighten some things out.
After going off in my previous post I want to put this presentation into two sentences. The cops can search you and your stuff whenever they want as there is no recourse. The only issue is if they can use it against you in court, and they will try like hell as they have all the money.
I live in nj . Can a confidential informant identity be revealed ? Are there any known cases used as a example on the request for a informant to be identified?
At some point, it has to be under the discovery rules- However, the identity of an informant doesn't root in search and seizure law- it roots in the right to confront witnesses and in the fourteenth amendment due process of law.
Probable cause is the fact or the evidence of a crime, not a fact or evidence of a suspicion...we wouldn't need the fourth amendment if they can just search you for mere suspicion. Nor can a case be based on suspicion so in order to stop frisk or seize which are all forms of seizing police must first have a fact or an evidence of a crime, it's as simple as that.
Dear Mr Operator if you follow that flow chart you too will be flowing in line at criminal court. Please read my long ass informative guide above. You can thank me later. Good day sir
Probable cause entails felonies... unless it is domestic violence is the only time that probable cause may entail misdemeanor charges. Here is probable cause in Alaska. AS 12.25.030. Grounds For Arrest By Private Person or Peace Officer Without Warrant. (a) A private person or a peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person (1) for a crime committed or attempted in the presence of the person making the arrest; (2) when the person has committed a felony, although not in the presence of the person making the arrest; (3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the person making the arrest has reasonable cause for believing the person to have committed it. (b) In addition to the authority granted by (a) of this section, a peace officer (1) shall make an arrest under the circumstances described in AS 18.65.530; (2) without a warrant may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has, either in or outside the presence of the officer, (A) committed a crime involving domestic violence, whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor; in this subparagraph, "crime involving domestic violence" has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990 ; (B) committed the crime of violating a protective order in violation of AS 11.56.740 ; or (C) violated a condition of release imposed under AS 12.30.025 or 12.30.027; (3) without a warrant may arrest a person when the peace officer has reasonable cause for believing that the person has (A) committed a crime under or violated conditions imposed as part of the person's release before trial on misdemeanor charges brought under AS 11.41.270 ; (B) violated AS 04.16.050 or an ordinance with similar elements; however, unless there is a lawful reason for further detention, a person who is under the age of 18 and who has been arrested for violating AS 04.16.050 or an ordinance with similar elements shall be cited for the offense and released to the person's parent, guardian, or legal custodian; or (C) violated conditions imposed as part of the person's release before trial on felony charges brought under AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.458.
What if when you crossed the county line you were surrounded and they said they pulled you because the tags were dead on the car you were driving. The informant supplied the car (probably belonged to the sheriff's department) like two days before. They pull you, arrest you, put you and the passenger is separate cars and proceed to search the car and get angry when they don't find what they thought they would. They come back to one patrol car and cut the camera off and then proceed to finish the search. There was a locked compartment that the riders had no access to and they found baggies and scales... Scales and bags that belonged to the informant... Any rights violated. Did not consent to search because car was not the drivers. Dogs hit on nothing
Not engaged in commerce? Not carrying passengers and or freight for hire? No plates tags needed....no subject matter jurisdiction because no underlying statutory enactment. Sure, you can find the "law" that says "we can bust you if you got no plates". but that is a penalty statute...where is the underlying legislative enactment compelling you (not engaged in commerce) to present yourself to the dmv to get signed up? they are prosecuting with a penalty statute. Presumptive jurisdiction. Huge due process problem
No legal lawful search warrant then they are guilty of illegal unconstitutional search and seizure and kidnapping. They should be sued and charged personally and officially under title 18 U.S.C. sections 241,242. And title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918 in a federal court of law.
Here's the question.... Where can we find the rules for Statutory Law? We have the Rules for all 3 Jurisdictions in the Constitution. Law: Common Law, there must be damage/injury, does not compel action, a conviction under Common Law is a Criminal conviction. Equity: Contract Law, there is a dispute in contract between parties, Does compel action. Admiralty/Maritime: Law of Banking, both Compelling and Criminal There must be an international contract in dispute for the court to have Jurisdiction. I can't discover the rules for Statutory...unless it's Admiralty without a contract.
You have this all wrong. Common law is actually that part of law which is judicial-made as opposed to legislature-made. Statutory law is that part of law which is made by the legislature. Both may involve criminal and civil - where criminal law involves what are considered transgressions against the public in the name of the government and civil law generally encompasses those wrongs against individual private persons. Things like Admiralty/Maritime, etc. are actually specific practice areas of law. Some practice areas may be one or the other, or some can overlap criminal and civil. This is largely dependent upon statutory law.
I like your presentation, but I don't agree with your presentation regarding reasonable suspicion, particularly, "the cops have got a hunch." That characterization would be more appropriately apply to mere suspicion. Reasonable Suspicion is articulable suspicion: " the suspect kept reaching into his right front pocket after being told to keep his hands out of his pockets," is articulable suspicion that he might have weapons or contraband in his pocket, thus justifying a pat-down under Terry v Ohio. "I just had a hunch he might be carrying" does NOT rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.
GeckoProductions the whole point of the fourth amendment is to protect us from the whole reasonable suspicion b.s that's the very point of the fourth amendment, if all they needed is reasonable suspicion then we would not have a fourth amendment because there would be no need for it.
GeckoProductions The real truth is, and he’s subversively explaining it, the 4th amendment is a facade. It was a barricade and the authoritarians broke it down long ago....
Actually, The actual facts litigated in Terry v. Ohio make it more of a "hunch" that was at issue in that case as opposed to "articulable" reasons specific to the person per se. In Terry, the issue was whether or not the officer had a right to search for weapons where there was no reason to believe that the specific individual had a weapon but from officer experience there was the knowledge that weapons are frequently encountered on traffic stops. It was the court in it's opinion that took things a step farther from there and slightly expanded the doctrine to include articulable as well as semi-articulable suspicions.
So does the 4th amendment only apply to cops stopping a car or person? Is probable cause necessary if say, your landlord comes into your house and takes your stuff?
I was pulled over twice in an hr in two separate vehicles. The 1st time I was in my vehicle and was pulled over for not using blinker. When officer came to window he asked if he could take his K9 around my vehicle, I consented and passed with flying colors. I was given a warning and was let go. 30 minutes or so I was in a friends vehicle and got pulled over again but this time was because of tinted windows. This time I did not have my license on me because it was in my vehicle, it was the same officer with the K9 dog that previously went around my vehicle. I informed the officer I had left it in my car and he said ok. When he came back he told me that he to was giving me warming for not having license on me. As I was about to pull off he grabbed the door and asked if he could ask a couple questions and I said yes. He continued to say he was training his K9 and if I would let him take the dog around the vehicle, I denied because it wasn't my vehicle. He then asked to do a search inside vehicle I once again declined. At that time he informed me he was changing his mind and asked me to step out of vehicle because he was placing me under arrest for not having my license. As he was placing me in vehicle he took my phone and I stated I wanted to erase some personal pictures that I had on there that I didn't want prying eyes to see. He told me I'd get my phone back when I bonded out. When I bonded out I was told they were keeping my phone and getting a search warrant for it. I wasn't given a strait answer as to reason behind them keeping it till recently and it has been 3 weeks already
So o had court for the no license last week and I took my license to prove I had it and they dropped that charge. I went to see if I could get my phone back and was told they're holding it for evidence and was waiting for judge to sign warrant. What gets me is if the judge thought there was some major things that could bring some serious charges against me he would've signed a warrant already.
@@6StimuL84 I like your attitude Mr. Bond If you have some time next visit to the lu please read my informative guide that will no doubt sharpen everyone's mind. Its long but so is waiting on PO officer. Good Day Sir
I am searching for an answer.....I can't seen to find it. If police come to my home and say, "open the door, we have a warrant !" Then never show it (because they never had one) ...is that consent to enter and search?
Any law enforcement officials searching anyone's person, papers,houses, effects (vehicle) without a legal lawful search warrant are guilty of crimes in violation of title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5), title 18 U.S.C. section 1918.
No law enforcement does not have legal lawful authority to search any American citizens vehicle,a citizens vehicle is their effects as is everything in their pockets, therefore protected under the warrant clause.
No he cannot go and look at or in anything,he can go and get a legal lawful search warrant and uphold his oath of office, instead of commiting treason illegally unconstitutionally searching the house.
Its funny i keep watch videos about what exactly probable cause is and No one can explain. I feel like basically cops can get a search warrant for a house just off of reasonable suspicion
the fourth amendment would have kept authority from having too much power however probable cause can be anything even an officers feeling fuck this! there is no 4th amendment anymore theyll find every and any way to take our rights!!
Stephanie Zemblidge probable cause is the fact or the evidence of a crime, not the suspicion of a crime, if it we're the suspicion of a crime we wouldn't need the fourth amendment. It would be pointless. Lol
Mr Rose thank you, i have a question about a new technology that most americans are not aware of it existing and you may not. This technology has been used most recently at our embassy in Cuba and CIA agents that suffered life changing injurys. This technology is lead by the usa, russia, china, canada.uk cuba all racing to be the best and at doing so they need people to test this technology its usually the poor and people of color and prisons. This technology has many uses and all invasive the same technology can be used for surveillance 24/7 no matter where you are in the world and see every thing that person can see and hear then its used to blackmail & make arrest. This is the advanced stages of mkultra and this technology is connect to the target/victims without there consent they feel its ok since no one can see it or connect a person to it it went from hands on to no touchtechnology using electromagneic making illegal arrest for search warrant
? can I apply to the red light camera scam? the camera company starts the motion? in my county, if the owner doesn't pay the voluntary payment, they order a suspension of the owner-driver license without a court hearing! there no notice to the owner if their license is suspended. if the owner get stop by the police the owner go straight to jail
What if the victim didn’t sign the statement and 100% without doubt as its on video for an hour prior to the false report to police can be heard harassing and discussing violent acts towards me. I really need help. The police are involved violating my civil rights, they set me up and I can prove misconduct and misappropriation of law. I was illegally detained on my private property with no crime stated or RAS showing authority by detainment for “respect” on camera. I would rather be dead than in jail for a crime I didn’t commit and the false accusations are not even a crime to begin with. Filming on private property is my inalienable right and these people alongside the police have stripped me of those rights, molesting me of the security to my own home.
I know this question is not pertaining to the is video. It just an inquiry. What about challenging a prosecutors standing in a criminal case, is that possible?
standing is a theory of law that states the person bringing a case must have suffered personal injury in fact. NO prosecutors have it, locus standi is the latin look into and get back to me.@@mrsoul680
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 101 - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS What are “SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS”? TO: All County Sheriffs and All U.S. Marshals FROM: cc: All Federal and State Elected and Appointed Servants RE: Your Duty to Know and Enforce the Law Many court decisions are made by judges. These are called “SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS”. These are un-constitutional. Most People in jail are there without a trial by jury; that is to say, without “DUE PROCESS”. People are losing their homes, life’s savings and other property without due process. Courts serve corporations and the BAR; not the People. Sheriffs and Marshals are derelict of their DUTY because of ignorance of their DUTY. Many educated, sometimes frustrated, misguided people are imprisoned for contempt of court; and, labeled as sovereign citizens, a/k/a terrorists; a ploy of the controlling powers to destroy the sovereignty of “We the People”; all because We the People challenge unconstitutional court practices. Unfortunately, our elected Constitutional Officers, a/k/a Sheriffs and Marshalls, are ignorant of the Constitution, a/k/a the “LAW OF THE LAND”; and, thereby participate in these crimes when they jail the People. If we are going to save the Constitution for the United States of America, it is imperative that Sheriffs, Marshals and the People educate themselves. SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS: [Black’s 4th] “Any proceeding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a prompt and simple manner, WITHOUT THE AID OF A JURY, WITHOUT INDICTMENT, or in other respects OUT OF THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE COMMON LAW. In procedure, proceedings are said to be summary ‘when they are short and simple in comparison with regular proceedings’.” Phillips v. Phillips, 8 N.J.L. 122. CONSTITUTIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REFERENCE THE COMMON LAW. SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID: “As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, AN IMPORTANT CANON OF CONSTRUCTION IS THAT CONSTITUTIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REFERENCE TO THE COMMON LAW.” The Common Law so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances [pains] by summary proceedings; and, it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle [even] though there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, RECOURSE MAY STILL BE HAD TO THE AID OF THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND. It has been said that WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE COMMON LAW, THE LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION COULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD.” 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114: “DUE COURSE OF LAW”: This phrase is synonymous with “DUE PROCESS OF LAW” or “LAW OF THE LAND” and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KA 542. Property Seizure requires: FIRST: A trial by jury with sworn Affidavits from an injured party; NOT summary proceedings. SECOND: A Warrant with a wet-ink signature of a Judge; NOT a stamp or clerk’s signature. THIRD: A sworn Affidavit by an injured party and/or witness to a crime. Without these THREE (3) steps, property cannot be legally seized; and, when the Sheriff or Marshal executes a Warrant without ALL of the aforementioned prerequisites, the Sheriff or Marshal becomes liable; and, a conspirator in a crime. “AMENDMENT V of the Constitution of the United States provides: ‘No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.’ A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases ‘DUE COURSE OF LAW’ and the ‘LAW OF THE LAND’ are sometimes used; but, all three (3) of these phrases have the same meaning; and, that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.” Davidson v. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616. “...no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense.” Kinney v. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA). AMENDMENT IV: 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 persons or THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
my son was murdered by someone incredibly mentally ill I'm hearing although I've never met the gentleman with from what I'm hearing little motive but what are the Fourth amendment rights when they apply to homeless people? what is considered their property? could a shopping cart that they've been using for 2 weeks be considered their property?
He's mistaken about searching a car just for a valid stop. A cop cannot search a car just because they stopped them for spreding or a failed light. Any evidence found in that kinds of search, not seen from plain view, will be thrown out.
If you have a warrant with their name and what you are searching for and seizing then yes you do. But if you don't have a legal lawful search warrant then you have no legal lawful authority or right to search anyone or anything.
Interesting...i watched this after watching people giving checkpoint cops a hard time and you did say that it it's a normal procedure to happen then it's OK... These peope are of the opinion that these checkpoints for fruit checks are not acceptable under 4th amendment and I guess a judge would be deciding that... It seems like If cop asks their questions and don't have probable cause because the person is refusing to answer then they'd only be able to proceed If it's a normal procedure to happen but in the video what the cops do is just continue to ask the same question over and over... Isn't that a little bit Inefficient for these cops to waste time asking questions repeatedly? Let them go or break their Window in is the decision to be made right? Shouldn't take long right? Shouldnt be allowing these people to make these 15 to 30 minute videos because it shouldn't take that much time
Fourth amendment text explicitly states probable cause is only to get a legal lawful search warrant. The justice department and law enforcement have been operating illegally unconstitutionally for the past 100 years.
You can't create your laws then give another human a badge and tell him he can run around and strip other people of their freedoms and the more you do it the more you move up and rank and promotions... Don't get me wrong we need law enforcement to protect and serve keyword serve instead of what we have now is revenue officers legal extortionist and an army that you're tax dollars pay to extort you with tickets and say that if you don't pay them then you can't drive and exercise your constitutional right to travel freely
Sorry to be obtuse in your comments and actions, if a person asks for their rights to be regarded .ie saying no to a search because the persons rights are being Violated this gives a cop a probable cause??
no sir he's a professional liar that will say what ever the hell he needs for you to incriminate yourself. If asked you been to jail before, sorry sir I CAN NOT ASSIST YOU in your investigation. that whole part of the what ever you say can and will be...blah blah is a trick... as it should be read is, every word that come from your mouth will likely lead to your imprisonment... You too may want to read my guide above...
Probable cause is an incorrectly determined action as probability ( probable )can be any where from certainty to impossibility ( 1 to o ). Who and what is "REASONABLE PERSON " . Y ou are speaking in a circle to justify your actions and not ( like all "legalese " )defining the question .
Dear Charles: You would have charged me $250 to go through this flow chart in your office and then you would have charged me $1000 to write a motion to suppress and then an appeal of the denial. All the while knowing that I would lose. How does the reasonable prudent man know the flow chart that the cops are trained to use when they confront you. The Jurisprudence lets these police officers wear official uniforms and drive official vehicles and then lie to the citizen's face and all the while manipulating the citizen to allow them to fulfill their flow chart. You need to watch this presentation. You must be brainwashed. You have become so analytical that you have lost sense of reality. Any prudent and reasonable man would come to the conclusion there is no 4th Amendment in your world or ours. The flow chart lets Judges not be responsible for their actions as they can blame the flow chart. It looks like Judges are a good occupation to be taken over by AI. For some reason Jurisprudence lets the police push and push the bar of our rights until they are now gone. Is the arrest that important? Does that person have to be taken into custody today. Maybe the suspected criminal, knowing he is being watched, will turn themselves around. The police want blood when their adrenaline starts flowing and today we see it like you said. Dead men don't talk.
The flow chart essentially breaks down what the law is- The phrase "reasonable person" essentially means that one considers the experience of the world as might be told by an average person on the street. Fourth amendment law is very much still alive. All we have to do is look at the recent U.S. supreme court term to see this.
@@Harlem55 the supreme court isn't what is taking you to jail. After violating your 4th amendment. That's totally different Than written in the constitution. The cops being allowed to lie they're not manufacturing let's be real. They lie as the integrity and honor of a police officer is nowhere near what it once was.
@@wethepeoples6349 The thing is that the constitution says NOTHING about lying. However- lying about certain things affects substantial due process of law- which IS mentioned in the constitution. That is where the distinguishment comes in.
Well none of it matters anywsy we have no rights any more courts are about money or commerce theres no such thing as justice accept maybe thru the supreme courts the police do what they want and the judicial systems allow it because all they see is dollars. You cant evan get a commonlaw court now its all admeraltyand commerce give them your trust and you may walk or fight it believing in your rights and in justice they win both ways they get your trust and you get locked up, thats how living in a country based on lies and ran by a secret satanic society the only rights we have is to try and give them equity for our freedom, and all of the people especially the cops will lie out there ass to get what they want satan has no concience thats how these evil people can go to sleep at night they are satanic and they have no concience the c.p.s are the most evil and the cops.
@@gwencooksey2091 Don't blame the devil or Satan or any other evil you may conjure up. Man was given the knowledge and has taken full advantage to be as bad as he wants to be. Every story in the Bible, where the idea of evil comes from, does not show or have a story of evil except for what God allowed to happen to Job and his family. Man is evil period. Don't blame it on the Satanic forces. They know and don't do it but watch man do it to their brothers and sisters. It is hilarious. If not sad. Hope for a second chance.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights. If two or more person's conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.
@UCuAfEOeiJpBj70bzlNiPcwQ, How do I contact you about a search warrant? It was for my house, not my garage or basement. For a camera lens that I own and have owned for 7 years with a receipt. This was a trumped-up warrant just to get to my Son, who has nothing to do with my Son. My name and only my name is on this warrant. They never gave me the warrant or an inventory list of what they took. I need an attorney I need help this is in the State of Wisconsin.
