Monthly Archives: August 2012

Should Foreign Hells Angels Be Allowed in the United States?

How Much More Do We Have To Take?

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club has filed a lawsuit against several federal agency heads — including Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — claiming the group’s foreign members have been wrongfully banned from entering the United States.

The federal lawsuit contends that several foreign Hells Angels members applied for visas last year to attend one of the club’s major events in New Hampshire, and they were denied, based on their membership with the Hells Angels.

The lawsuit recognizes that Homeland Security and the Department of State made an agreement to define the Hells Angels as a “known criminal organization” in the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual — thus making them ineligible to obtain a visa.

But, according to the lawsuit, “[m]any members” of the Hells Angels don’t have criminal records, and the club says it’s not a “criminal organization.”

Well, they are a “street gang” in Maricopa County — at least, according to disbarred and disgraced ex-County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

The Hells Angels are ultimately seeking a permanent injunction against the rules that are keeping its members from getting visas — which would likely apply to other biker gangs listed by the State Department, like the Outlaws, Bandidos, and Mongols, as well as street gangs like MS 13 and the 18th Street gang.

That said, should the feds let the Angels in?

Cast your vote below:

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

Another Blant Act Of Profiling Motorcycle Club Members As Gang Members and Terroist

Should Foreign Hells Angels Be Allowed in the United States?

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club has filed a lawsuit against several federal agency heads, claiming the group’s foreign members have been wrongfully banned from entering the United States.

Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas are named as defendants in the lawsuit, as the lawsuit claims their executive rules could be violating the Hells Angels’ constitutional rights.

The federal lawsuit contends that several foreign Hells Angels members applied for visas last year to attend one of the club’s major events in New Hampshire, and they were denied, based on their membership with the Hells Angels.

According to the lawsuit, “[m]any members” of the Hells Angels don’t have criminal records, and the club says it’s not a “criminal organization.”

On the other hand, the lawsuit recognizes that Homeland Security and the Department of State made an agreement to define the Hells Angels as a “known criminal organization” in the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual — thus making them ineligible to obtain a visa.

But the Hells Angels’ lawsuit claims this rule flies in the face of the congressional immigration legislation that allows immigration officials to deny visas for security reasons.

“Defendants will deny visas to all aliens based solely on their membership in a Hells Angels charter without further analysis into whether or not that individual seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in unlawful activity,” the lawsuit states.

The Hells Angels are ultimately seeking a permanent injunction against the rules that are keeping its members from getting visas — which would likely apply to other biker gangs listed by the State Department, like the Outlaws, Bandidos, and Mongols, as well as street gangs like MS 13 and the 18th Street gang.

Source: Valley Fever
Hells Angels Napolitano

Tagged , , , , ,

Facedeals: New App Uses Facial Recognition To ID You

Facedeals: New app uses facial recognition to ID you for discounts

Red Pepper — an advertising agency specializing in marketing technologies — has announced that it is finalizing testing for Facedeals, a facial recognition-marketing app. Still in its preliminary stages, the software has generated criticism from those who think this technology crosses the line. For others, however, Facedeals represents the next exciting step in customizable marketing.

If you opt into this service, Facedeals cameras will recognize your face when you pass by a store. The service will simultaneously check you into that location on Facebook and offer you customized deals based upon your Facebook history, including products you “like.”

Samara Andreson, business director at Red Pepper, said the company is always looking for new ways to connect seamlessly with the lives of consumers. “At Red Pepper, we explore technologies that can create relevant ways for marketing to intersect with consumers and their lives, as provide some added values,” she told the Daily News.

Facedeal Facedeals is an app that uses facial recognition to offer personalized marketing at participating stores.

Red Pepper discovered that only six businesses in its home city of Nashville, Tenn., were using Facebook check-ins to create consumer loyalty. They see this as a missed opportunity to enhance the lives of consumers and businesses. By using facial recognition, the company hopes to increase Facebook check-ins. But for that to happen, the consumer will need to grant Red Pepper access.

“The idea is not to invade privacy, which is a big issue right now,” Anderson said. “Your face wouldn’t be in any sort of database unless you opt into it.”

To make use of Facedeals, users activate it on their Facebook accounts and verify their recent photographs for Facedeals to identify them. This allows the app to recognize them in each participating store to offer deals customized to fit their interests.

Facedeal Facedeals offers discounts to users through facial recognition. Once you sign up for the app, it uses your Facebook photos to identify you with cameras placed in participating stores.

Not everyone is so enthused about facial recognition spreading to the retail level — PolicyMic and The Globe and Mail likened the technology to that found in the movie “Minority Report.”

Anderson says that unlike such dystopian views, the app requires voluntary acceptence and is not forced on anyone. “We’ve been pleased with the response from people who really do their homework on both sides of the argument,” she said. “I think people are certainly giving it some good thought and it’s causing some good discussion.”

Facedeals is maintaining a bit of privacy, itself. The name is just a working name. The app will come to market with a different one.

Source: Daily News

Tagged , ,

Off The Beat – Dirty Cops

L.A.P.D. Beating A 20 Year

COPS BEAT UP XAVIER COLLEGE STUDENT IN VENICE, CA WHILE HE WAS HANDCUFFED & PINNED TO THE GROUND

Tagged , , ,

UPDATE – COPBLOCK

Cop Block Founder Guilty on Three Counts of Felony Wiretapping

It didn’t take long for a New Hampshire jury to find Adam “Ademo Freeman” Mueller guilty on three counts of felony wiretapping today, meaning he will spend three months in jail.

Mueller is already serving a 60-day sentence for an unrelated incident, so this sentence will likely be tacked on.

Although he could have been slapped with 21 years in prison, he ended up receiving a one-year sentence with nine months suspended, according to Twitter updates provided by fellow Cop Block members attending the trial.

He also received five years probation, which could land him in state prison for up to three years if violated.

Twitter updates also indicate it took about 30 minutes for the jury to reach its verdict.

While I wasn’t at the trial, it would probably have helped if he had retained an attorney instead of representing himself.

But Mueller has had success doing that in the past. However, even veteran lawyers would never risk representing themselves.

His crimes stem from phone calls he made to police and school officials which he recorded but did not inform them he was doing so. He then posted a video of the calls on the internet, which you can see above.

I called Cop Block co-founder Pete Eyre for more details but he did not answer because he is busy writing his own story on the verdict. I will try to update this when I get more information.

Tagged , , ,

Off The Path – Cop Block

Trial Starts Today for Cop Block Founder Facing 21 Years in Prison for Wiretapping Charges

In the age of citizen journalism where any citizen can pick up a camera and hold officials accountable, there are not many who have pushed the envelope are far as Adam “Ademo Freeman” Mueller.

The co-founder of Cop Block has found himself incarcerated numerous times over the years for his insistence on recording public officials in their public capacities.

He is incarcerated right now, serving 60 days on a resisting arrest charge, which actually is a result of a clerical screw-up.

But none of those stints in jail come close to his latest legal case in which he is facing up to 21 years in prison for felony wiretapping.

His trial, which begins today in Manchester, New Hampshire, has the potential to establish case law for years to come.

An acquittal will send the message that public officials do not have an expectation of privacy when they are speaking as public officials to a citizen on a telephone call.

A guilty verdict will send the message that police can record us without our consent but we can’t record them.

That, after all, is what law enforcement officials from all levels have been vying for all along.

We’ve seen so many wiretapping cases over the years, only for them to get thrown out of court because they usually consist of a citizen recording a cop in public where police have no expectation of privacy.

In fact, Mueller was acquitted on wiretapping charges last year in an incident where he was video recording cops in public in Massachusetts.

But this case is a little different in that he recorded a public official over the phone without specifically informing them that he was recording.

It wasn’t as if he recorded anything confidential, embarrassing or even that revealing. They basically gave him little or no comment and hung up the phone.

But in this age of citizen journalism, public officials will do all they can to keep citizens in check if it helps them from being kept in check.

The case stems from an incident at a New Hampshire high school where a student video recorded a police officer beating up another student.

School officials ordered the student to delete the footage and he acted as if he did, but kept the clip showing the beating and gave it Cop Block, who turned it into a national story.

Mueller than recorded a video of himself calling the Manchester Police Department and the West High School in the same city, seeking comment about the incident from officials.

He didn’t inform them that he was recording, but he did identify himself from Cop Block and it was clear that he was seeking official comment because he didn’t beat around the bush with informalities.

The cop hung up the phone on him in a matter of seconds and it is believed police record all incoming calls into the station.

And the school official answered a few questions in a manner that it was clear she was speaking on the record before hanging up the phone.

The New Hampshire wiretapping law, which specifically states that police can record citizens without their consent, states the following:

A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:

(a) Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;

To fully interpret the law, we must read the legal definitions of the terms used.

I. “Telecommunication” means the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier. “Telecommunication” does not include any communication made through a tone-only paging system or from a tracking device.

II. “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting in expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.

III. “Intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

In layman’s terms, a person is guilty of wiretapping if he records a conversation with a person who is under the impression that the call is not being recorded.

It was clear from the conversation that Mueller was seeking on-the-record comments and it was clear from the responses of both police and the school official that they were well aware of that.

We’ve seen how cops act when they don’t believe they are being recorded and when they are aware they are being recorded. It’s the difference between night and day.

Furthermore, these are all tax-funded public officials who were called at their tax-funded public institutions while working for their tax-funded salaries.

It may have been a little different if Mueller had called them at home after hours.

Mueller, who is representing himself, plans to use the Glik vs Boston landmark decision as one of his arguments, even though that stemmed from a case in which a man was openly video recording cops in a public park.

But if you read through the decision, you can see where it can apply in his case.

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).

Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties.

It was obvious from Mueller’s questions that he was seeking information to disseminate to the public.

And while some may argue that he conducted himself unethically by not informing them he was recording, the fact that he publicized his conversations shows that he was acting as transparent as possible. Nobody can accuse him of twisting their statements to his advantage.

Perhaps prosecutors are aware of this, which is why have already offered him several plea deals, which he has refused.

In fact, prosecutor Michael Valentine visited Mueller in jail and told him that if the jury found him guilty, he would ask the judge for a six-month sentence to be following by a two-year probationary “good behavior” period that could land Mueller in prison for up to two years if violated, the same conditions that he offered in the plea deal which shows Mueller had nothing to lose by rejecting the plea deals.

Don’t be surprised if they offer him even a better deal before the trial even starts.

Another fact that could possibly work in Mueller’s favor is the fact that New Hampshire passed a jury nullification law in June, which would allow defense attorneys to inform juries that they have the right to acquit citizens who violate laws that they find objectionable.

This would be a perfect case for jury nullification, especially in a libertarian-minded state like New Hampshire.

The only problem is that the law doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2013.

But that didn’t stop Mueller’s supporters from standing outside the courthouse last week to hand out jury nullification pamphlets to potential jurors.

And court officials didn’t seem to have a problem with that, according to the Union Leader.

The pamphlets provided information about jury nullification, and a hung jury, which is when a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict and the defendant is either retried, or the case is dropped.

Clerk of Court John Safford said some of the people called for jury duty had been handed the pamphlets, but nothing was made of it by court officials.

The Union Leader, which is Manchester’s main newspaper, also reported on the new law last month, which means there is a decent chance the jurors will already know about their right to acquit a defendant of a law that allows public officials to remain unaccountable.

And that’s what this case is all about. There was no invasion of privacy, which is what the wiretapping laws were created to protect.

This was simply a journalist seeking statements from public officials at a public institution on the public’s dime.

That is not only protected by recent case law. It is protected by the First Amendment.

Read more>

Tagged , ,

Guidelines for Saying No to Police Searches

One of the main powers that law enforcement officers carry is the power to intimidate citizens into voluntarily giving up their rights. Police are trained to believe in their authority and trained to perform their interactions with private citizens with confidence. It is their job to deal with problems and they learn to manage uncomfortable situations through strength. Most people, when confronted by police get a mild panic reaction, become anxious, and try to do whatever they can to minimize the time spent with the officer. Because of the imbalance of power between citizen and officer, when a law enforcement officer makes a strongly worded request, most people consent without realizing that they are giving up constitutional protections against improper meddling by the State in the private affairs of citizens.

A common situation is that of the traffic stop. A person is pulled over for a real or perceived vehicle violation and, after checking the driver’s license and registration, the officer asks the driver if they have any weapons or illegal drugs in their car. When the citizen answers “no”, the police officer asks (in the strongest language he can without demanding) to check that for himself. “Then you wouldn’t mind if I took a look in your trunk.” or “Why don’t you step out of your car.” Most people acquiesce to the ‘requests’ because they don’t realize they have the right to say no.

WHY YOU HAVE TO SAY “NO” CLEARLY

The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. (see Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are ‘voluntarily’ complying with their ‘requests’.

Unfortunately police will often try to push citizens to accept a search, to the point of ignoring when you say “no”. Its important to say very clearly “I do not consent to a warrantless search.” Or “This is a private event/home/place, you may not enter without a warrant.” Don’t simply answer questions about searches with a simple “yes” or “no”. See this case where drug police asked a confusing question and claimed they misunderstand the answer “yes” to mean they could search (October 24, 2000. Gregg County CODE officers, defendant Dockens, judge Steger, federal court, east district Texas).

Until you say “No, I don’t think I’d like to do that.” you are cooperating as a peer with the law enforcement officer who is trying to make the world safer. When you say “no” to a request by a police officer, you are asserting your lawful rights as a private citizen. If the officer demands you comply, then in most cases you have little choice. Usually, however, the officer is likely to try to convince you to comply voluntarily. Until and unless you say “no” and stick to it, the police don’t even need any real authority to tell you what to do.

WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN MAKE YOU DO

What a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) can demand of a citizen depends heavily on the context of the order. Most generally, police are allowed by the courts to act as any reasonable private citizen would. They may ask questions, look through windows that they happen to be near, walk or drive in public areas, etc. Without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity, they are allowed to interact with other citizens, but they have a limited amount of authority to demand compliance, search, or detain people or things.

In highly volatile or dangerous situations, a LEO’s authority to require compliance is much higher than in non-threatening contexts. The Supreme Court has ruled (with Terry v. Ohio being one of the primary cases) that the police are allowed to protect themselves from potentially dangerous people or situations. Under the umbrella of “concern for safety” or “search for weapons” the police have wide latitude to do what they want and to order citizens to comply with their demands.

The Terry v. Ohio case created the “weapons search”, “terry search”, or “terry pat” exception to the 4th Amendment ‘probable cause requirement’ for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer “[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed” they can require they submit to a quick patdown. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.

Many police use weapons pats as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a LEO will find something during their patdown which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority ( see below ).

Also under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella, police are given wide latitude by courts to ask individuals to comply with simple non-intrusive commands such as “stand over there” or “wait here for a moment”, but the line between order and request becomes very fuzzy when an officer starts telling people where to go unless the situation is volatile / dangerous. There are many stories of two (or more) individuals confronted by police ( one example ) whom the police intentionally separate to try to intimidate or to compare stories. This is generally a ‘fishing’ maneuver which would not fall under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella. ( see below )

During a stop for a traffic violation, police have the power to demand a proper driver’s license and other state-required documentation (registration, insurance). In most [ed-all?] states they also have the power to demand sobriety tests [ed – do they need reasonable suspicion of intoxication ?]. The courts have also given police the power to frisk a driver based on the Terry v. Ohio decision (the police should have some reason to think there is danger) and some decisions have even allowed an officer (with no suspicion or cause) to search the area around the driver’s seat. [ed-citation for this?]

When a private, law abiding citizen encounters police, the amount of intrusion a Law Enforcement Officer is allowed to demand is limited. Some areas have laws against “disobeying a police officer” or “obstructing an officer from their duties”, but the bounds of what officers can reasonably require someone not suspected of any other criminal activity in a peaceful situation have not been clearly drawn by the courts. If someone interferes with a police officer engaged in an arrest or investigation, police tend to have very little patience and will quickly threaten or implement detainment or arrest. Generally, courts give police wide latitude in executing their duties and disobeying a “reasonable” direct order from an officer could be prosecuted in most jurisdictions.

As an encounter proceeds, the police gather data that they can use to formulate ‘reasonable, articulable suspicion’ or (stronger) ‘probable cause’ that the individual has contraband or is involved in a crime. As the level of suspicion rises, so does the LEO’s authority to intrude into a person’s affairs. Once the level rises to ‘probable cause’ to believe that there is contraband in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has made some very disturbing decisions allowing the police broad power to search in certain cases, including the power to search closed containers without a warrant. (see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) )

In a recent decision (Wyoming v. Houghton, April 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even passengers’ belongings, if left in the car, may be searched thoroughly if the driver is suspected of a crime.

In most states, you are not required to identify yourself or show the police your ID (unless you are in a vehicle). We have been unable to confirm that in Nevada that police try to charge people with obstruction of justice for people who refuse to identify themselves to police. However, if you choose to identify yourself, you are required to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie to federal police agents and it is a crime to give false identification to police in many areas [ed- find a cite for this?].

The Supreme Court has said: “A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).

If you want to avoid long and unpleasant interactions with police, do not give them any reasons to suspect you of criminal activity. Courteously decline to participate in ‘fishing expeditions’ or any other actions you do not wish to perform.

Police may search you ‘incident to arrest’: after or while arresting someone, police are allowed to search the body of the person being arrested. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have also allowed the police to do exhaustive searches of any vehicle the arrestee was in and any containers therein. The Supreme Court held “that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, ‘for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.'” 453 U.S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702 (1981).

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court “held that police Officers may order persons out of [463 U.S. 1032, 1048] an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous.”

WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN NOT MAKE YOU DO

  • Police are not allowed to frisk for anything except weapons. If, during a weapons pat, an officer discovers something ‘suspicious’ you don’t have to show it to them.Although the police have been given a lot of leeway to ‘check for weapons’, the Supreme Court has ruled (in the key decision Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993) that a weapons search may not be used as a pretext for a more general search. In Minnesota v Dickerson, a man was stopped coming out of a ‘notorious crack house’ and was patted down in a ‘Terry Stop’. The officer noticed something in the man’s pocket which he said ‘felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane’. He reached in the defendant’s pocket and found some crack-cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to determine whether the item was crack or not required a further, unwarranted search was necessary which was not acceptable by 4th Amendment standards.
  • Police are not allowed to search everyone (see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979).In Ybarra v. Illinois, a man was patted down in a bar where the police were arresting a bar owner for selling heroin. An officer identified “a cigarette pack with objects in it” in the man’s pocket during the pat down and decided to search Ybarra. The High Court ruled that the officer overstepped his authority by searching everyone in the bar, even though they had a warrant to arrest the bartender and search the bar for evidence of drug sales.A common situation where police attempt to search many individuals without probable cause is a raided party. Sometimes police tell people to ’empty your pockets’ or they pat everyone down as they are leaving or they target a few people based on appearance for a full blown search. Most raids on parties are done without a judge-issued warrant and are based on noise complaints, city ordainances about event sizes, etc. In these cases, most searches will be citizens ‘voluntarily’ complying with requests except in the case of violence, extreme intoxication, or obvious criminal activity. Be polite and considerate of the difficult job the LEO’s have, but do not consent to any warrantless search and do not offer information to the police regarding any criminal activity they suspect you of.

HOW TO SAY NO

So, when a policeman says “Empty your pockets for me?” or “Why don’t you step over here for a moment?” What does a reasonable, law abiding citizen say if s/he doesn’t want to? Unfortunately there may be no simple answer to this. Because of the nature of most police-citizen interactions, tensions can be high and LEO’s may interpret any dissent as hostility or ‘suspicious behaviour’.

  1. Stay Calm. Speak calmly and slowly and don’t be surprised if the officer becomes irritated, angry, or belligerent. Move slowly.
  2. Ask Questions. One way to Say No is to ask questions in return: “Is that a request or an order?” “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Why do you want me to *whatever*?” “Am I a suspect in a crime?”
  3. Say No. Another way to Say No is to very clearly say no: “No, I would like to leave.” “No, I do not consent to any warrantless searches.” “You do not have my permission to search me / my car / my belongings.”
  4. Defuse Tensions. Do everything you can to defuse the tensions and seem peaceful. If an LEO thinks you might be dangerous, the courts have ruled that they have a greater authority to force you to comply.
  5. Do not Resist. Do not Argue with a Cop. Do not Touch a cop. Don’t Run. Don’t complain or threaten an officer legally.
  6. Comply when Required. Knowing when you are required to comply can be difficult (see What You Must Do and What You Don’t Have to Do ) The moment an LEO pulls a gun, do what they say. If they make you do something through force, your Constitutional Rights are not as important as staying healthy and alive. You can challenge the arrest in court if your rights are violated.
  7. Give the Cop a Break. Remember that police have a very difficult job to do and most cops are doing their best to try to keep their communities safe. When it comes to dealing with unusual or strange individuals or confronting drug issues, officers (and many people in the world) make some bad snap judgements. But most cops think of themselves as the Good Guys, so try to let em know you’re on their side.
  8. Ask for a Lawyer. As soon as its clear you will be arrested, ask for a lawyer and then keep quiet. Police will try to get you to talk. Don’t.

CAN SAYING NO GET ME IN MORE TROUBLE?

The short answer to this is, of course, yes and no. A lot is dependent on your rapport with the individual officer(s). Saying No to a police officer should be done gently to avoid enraging them so you don’t get beaten up. Saying No to a warrantless search may cause a police officer to harass you further to try to get you to comply. Saying No, however, is always the best idea when it gets to the point of arrest and prosecution. It is never in your interest to cooperate with the police in helping them collect evidence against you. If you do say No and a policeman searches anyway, evidence can sometimes be suppressed (thrown out). If you agree to a search, you have no grounds to dispute the evidence.

It is common to have an officer ‘ask’ forcefully first and if the suspect gives any indication of saying No, they threaten to arrest them and take them to the station. They say things like “if you don’t open your trunk/pocket/whatever for me, I can arrest you and we can open it up down at the station”. Often officers will imply that if the suspect cooperates, the cop will go easier on them. While it is true that a police officer controls whether you are arrested or not, very few police officers will overlook anything illegal they find in a search (including very small amounts of cannabis).

Tagged , , , ,