Category Archives: Police Misconduct

Guilty For Not Conforming To …

I was doing a search this morning and came across this site which feeds the police stereotype about motorcycle clubs as “gang members. For those of us who have been to hundreds of motorcycle clubs events and have never witnessed any gang activity other than clubs selling t-shirts to raise money for their expenses and some great food, I am not sure what constitutes gang activity.

As long as site like this and others promote this type of profiling against motorcycle clubs law enforcement will use this excuse to go after motorcycle clubs and their members. So, here is what this site has posted about motorcycle clubs, sounds like they have been talking to gang task force which I personally feel are a bunch of morons and have no clue what or they are after.

Most Notorious Biker Gangs in the World
There are a number of motorcycle clubs in the world, which are known for their enthusiasm for motorcycling. However, there is a miniscule number of clubs, which is known for something more than just motorcycling. These gangs have gained notoriety for their antics, making law enforcement agencies view them with scorn and suspicion. In this Buzzle article, we will take a look at some of these notorious biker gangs.

Rock ‘n’ Murder
In 1969, a free rock concert was held at Altamont Speedway, California. Hells Angels, one of the most notorious biker gangs in the world, was managing the security of the event, for which they were paid $500 worth of beer. As both the crowd and Hells Angels members were high on drugs and alcohol, altercations ensued, resulting in a Hells Angels member fatally stabbing a 18-year-old guy, who had reportedly drawn a gun.

Motorcyclists around the world are met with awe and skepticism. While some appreciate the freedom and the adrenaline rush that one experiences on a motorcycle ride, others are of the opinion that bikers engage in rabble-rousing, and promote an alternate lifestyle, devious to the norms of the society. Most of the motorcycle clubs are located, or have originated in the United States of America. Majority of these biker clubs are law-abiding and are registered with the biggest motorcycling organization — American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). It has a total membership of 300,000 and is actively involved in promoting motorcycling in the US.

There is a minuscule percentage of bikers, who don’t conform to the rules and regulations of AMA and have their own code of conduct. These bikers are affiliated to numerous clubs, and are collectively known as Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs (OMC). These clubs are in a state of constant war with each other, and many of their members have been arrested over serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, and murder. These gangs have gained notoriety all around the world for their antics, but due to the constant media attention, they have also managed to achieve a cult status among some bike aficionados. Before we go ahead and introduce you to some of the most dreaded biker gangs around the world, we would like to revisit history to understand their origin.

Biker Clubs: The Origin
After the end of World War II, a lot of war veterans returned home and tried to settle into their new civilian lives. As they had been at war for such a long time, the chores of daily life seemed monotonous to them. They wanted to experience the thrill and excitement, which had become a part of their lives during the period of war. They were in search of the same level of camaraderie and togetherness, which war soldiers have for each other. The way they looked at it, civilian life was staid and unexciting. While looking for a substitute to fill their lives, motorcycling emerged as one of the brightest options, and soon, numerous war vets were on the streets with their cruiser bikes and choppers. This led to the creation of numerous biking clubs, with members donning similar outfits to show loyalty to their respective clubs. These clubs were known for their nomadic and rebellious lifestyle, but there was rarely any news of their engagement in any form of illegal activity. However, the benign nature of motorcycling took a beating in the Hollister riot of 1947.

Hollister Riot
Hollister, an agricultural town in California, hosted an annual bike rally, sanctioned by the AMA. The rally had become a spectacle and a source of revenue for many locals. Due to the increase in the number of motorcycle clubs after the World War II, Hollister witnessed the arrival of a large number of motorcyclists, which it could not accommodate. The sheer number of motorcyclists made it seem as if the whole town of Hollister was ‘overtaken’. After the bikers got high on alcohol, they stormed right into the city, doing wheelies, riding through restaurants, and littering the streets with broken beer bottles. The police arrested several of these drunk bikers for misdemeanor, but even the police noted that these men had done more harm to themselves than they did to the town. However, the story was blown out of proportion by the media, notably by Life magazine, which carried out a photograph of a wasted man sitting on a Harley Davidson motorcycle, while holding a beer in each hand. Below the motorcycle lay innumerable empty beer bottles. This photograph and the overall media reports created a perception among the people of America that motorcyclists were troublemakers and sociopaths. The Wild One (1953) starring Marlon Brando, which was based on the Hollister riot, further polarized the public opinion against the bikers. The negative publicity surrounding the motorcyclists and the misconception about them, appealed to criminal-minded individuals. They had been living their lives on the sidelines, but now they saw an opportunity of hogging the public limelight by becoming a biker.

The 1%er Tag
Heckled by the media over the issue of motorcyclists engaging in hooliganism and criminal activities, AMA allegedly said that 99% of the bikers were law-abiding citizens, and it was the remaining 1%, which was bringing a bad name to motorcycling. The outlaws accepted the “1%” tag, and used it proudly with their club patches to associate themselves with everything that the society considered devious. These 1%er clubs spread to numerous states in America and around the world. Today, law enforcement agencies in every country consider these outlaw gangs to be actively involved in numerous illegal activities.

The Most Infamous Motorcycle Clubs

Hells Angels Motorcycle Club

Established: 1948
Chapters: Around 230 in 27 countries
Membership: 2000 – 3000

The Hells Angels is arguably the most well-known motorcycle club in the world. According to the official website of Hells Angels, the club was formed on March 17, 1948 in Fontana/San Bernardino area of California, US. During its inception, it was made up of war veterans who were earlier associated with the club, Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington (one of the clubs present at the Hollister riot). Although a lot of people believe that Oakland chapter of the Hells Angels is the club’s mother chapter, the official website denies the claim and states that after forming the club in Fontana, a lot of club members moved to Oakland. According to estimates, currently, the club has more than 100 chapters worldwide, with an estimated 2000 to 3000 members. The club has been accused of numerous serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, extortion, and prostitution.

Notorious Acts
In 2006, a series of raids in Ontario, Canada led to the arrest of 15 Hells Angels members. During the raids, the police seized drugs valued at $3 million in the international market.
In 2007, a full-time member of Hells Angels MC shot three people, including his girlfriend, in Melbourne. One person died, and the other two were seriously injured in the incident. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The sergeant at arms of the San Diego chapter of Hells Angels was sentenced to serve 21 years and 10 months in prison for drug trafficking charges in 2012.

They go on to name other clubs in this write-up, the only thing they get right is there are some clubs, people, bikers riders or whatever you what to be considered that don’t care for joining some bullshit rider/biker association and “who don’t conform to the rules and regulations” of anyone but their club. Last time I check that is not against law. You can read the full story by clicking the link below.
Read more at Buzzle:

What you should know about NSA phone data program

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government knows who you’re calling.

Every day. Every call.

Here’s what you need to know about the secret program and how it works:


Q: What happened and why is it a big deal?

A: The Guardian newspaper published a highly classified April U.S. court order that allows the government access to all of Verizon’sphone records on a daily basis, for both domestic and international calls. That doesn’t mean the government is listening in, and the National Security Agency did not receive the names and addresses of customers. But it did receive all phone numbers with outgoing or incoming calls, as well as the unique electronic numbers that identify cellphones. That means the government knows which phones are being used, even if customers change their numbers.

This is the first tangible evidence of the scope of a domestic surveillance program that has existed for years but has been discussed only in generalities. It proves that, in the name of national security, the government sweeps up the call records of Americans who have no known ties to terrorists or criminals.


Q: How is this different from the NSA wiretapping that was going on under President George W. Bush?

A: In 2005, The New York Times revealed that Bush had signed a secret order allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval, a seismic shift in policy for an agency that had previously been prohibited from spying domestically. The exact scope of that program has never been known, but it allowed the NSA to monitor phone calls and emails. After it became public, the Bush administration dubbed it the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and said it was a critical tool in protecting the United States from attack.

“The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al-Qaida and related groups,” the Justice Department said at the time.

But while wiretapping got all the attention, the government was also collecting call logs from American phone companies as part of that program, a U.S. official said Thursday. After the wiretapping controversy, the collection of call records continued, albeit with court approval. That’s what we’re seeing in the newly released court document: a judge’s authorization for something that began years ago with no court oversight.


Q: Why does the government even want my phone records?

A: They’re not interested in your records, in all likelihood, but your calls make up the background noise of the global phone system.

Look at your monthly phone bill, and you’ll see patterns: calls home as you leave work, food delivery orders on Friday nights, that once-a-week call to mom and dad.

It’s like that, except on a monumentally bigger scale.

The classified court ruling doesn’t say what the NSA intends to do with your records. But armed with the nation’s phone logs, the agency’s computers have the ability to identify what normal call behavior looks like. And, with powerful computers, it would be possible to compare the entire database against computer models the government believes show what terrorist calling patterns look like.

Further analysis could identify what are known in intelligence circles as “communities of interest” — the networks of people who are in contact with targets or suspicious phone numbers.

Over time, the records also become a valuable archive. When officials discover a new phone numberlinked to a suspected terrorist, they can consult the records to see who called that number in the preceding months or years.

Once the government has narrowed its focus on phone numbers it believes are tied to terrorism or foreign governments, it can go back to the court with a wiretap request. That allows the government to monitor the calls in real time, record them and store them indefinitely.


Q: Why just Verizon?

A: It’s probably not. A former U.S. intelligence official familiar with the NSA program says that records from all U.S. phone companies would be seized, and that they would include business and residential numbers. Only the court order involving Verizon has been made public.

In 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA was secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. The newspaper identified phone companies that cooperated in that effort. The newspaper ultimately distanced itself from that report after some phone companies denied being part of such a government program.

The court document published by The Guardian, however, offers credence to the original USA Today story, which declared: “The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime.”


Q: But in this case, a judge approved it. Does that mean someone had to show probable cause that a crime was being committed?

A: No. The seizure was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which operates under very different rules from a typical court. Probable cause is not required.

The court was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and is known in intelligence circles as the FISA court. Judges appointed by the president hear secret evidence and authorize wiretapping, search warrants and other clandestine efforts to monitor suspected or known spies and terrorists.

For decades, the court was located in a secure area at Justice Department headquarters. While prosecutors in criminal cases must come to court seeking subpoenas, the FISA judges came to the Justice Department. That changed in 2008 with the construction of a new FISA court inside the U.S. District Court in Washington. The courtroom is essentially a vault, designed to prevent anyone from eavesdropping on what goes on inside.

In this instance, Judge Roger Vinson authorized the NSA to seize the phone records under a provision in the USA Patriot Act, which passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and vastly expanded the government’s ability to collect information on Americans.


Q: If not probable cause, what standard did the government use in this case?

A: The judge relied on one of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act: Section 215, which became known colloquially as the “library records provision” because it allowed the government to seize a wide range of documents, including library records. Under that provision, the government must show that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the records are relevant to an investigation intended to “protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

Exactly what “relevant” meant has been unclear. With the release of the classified court order, the public can see for the first time that everyone’s phone records are relevant.

The Justice Department has staunchly defended Section 215, saying it was narrowly written and has safeguarded liberties.

Some in Congress, however, have been sounding alarms about it for years. Though they are prohibited from revealing what they know about the surveillance programs, Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall or Colorado have said the government’s interpretation of the law has gone far beyond what the public believes.

“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act,” the senators wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder last year.


Q: Why don’t others in Congress seem that upset about all this?

A: Many members of Congress have known this was going on for years. While Americans might be surprised to see, in writing, an authorization to sweep up their phone records, that’s old news to many in Congress.

“Everyone should just calm down and understand that this isn’t anything that’s brand new,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday. “It’s been going on for some seven years.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss issued a similar statement:

“The executive branch’s use of this authority has been briefed extensively to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and detailed information has been made available to all members of Congress.”


Q: What does the Obama administration have to say about this?

A: So far, very little. Despite campaigning against Bush’s counterterrorism efforts, President Barack Obama has continued many of the most controversial ones including, it is now clear, widespread monitoring of American phone records.

The NSA is particularly reluctant to discuss its programs. Even as it has secretly collected millions of phone records, it has tried to cultivate an image that it was not in the domestic surveillance business.

In March, for instance, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines, emailed an Associated Press reporter about a story that described the NSA as a monitor of worldwide internet data and phone calls.

“NSA collects, monitors, and analyzes a variety of (asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)FOREIGN(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk) signals and communications for indications of threats to the United States and for information of value to the U.S. government,” she wrote. ” (asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)FOREIGN(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk) is the operative word. NSA is not an indiscriminate vacuum, collecting anything and everything.”


Q: Why hasn’t anyone sued over this? Can I?

A: People have sued. But challenging the legality of secret wiretaps is difficult because, in order to sue, you have to know you’ve been wiretapped. In 2006, for instance, a federal judge in Detroit declared the NSA warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. But the ruling was overturned when an appeals court that said the plaintiffs — civil rights groups, lawyers and scholars — didn’t have the authority to sue because they couldn’t prove they were wiretapped.

Court challenges have also run up against the government’s ability to torpedo lawsuits that could jeopardize state secrets.

The recent release of the classified court document is sure to trigger a new lawsuit in the name of Verizon customers whose records were seized. But now that the surveillance program is under the supervision of the FISA court and a warrant was issued, a court challenge is more difficult.

Suing Verizon would also be difficult. A lawsuit against AT&T failed because Congress granted telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for cooperating with warrantless surveillance. In this instance, Verizon was under a court order to provide the records to the government, making a lawsuit against the company challenging.


Q: Can the government read my emails?

A: Not under this court order, but it’s not clear whether the NSA is monitoring email content as part of this program.

In 2006, former AT&T technician Mark Klein described in federal court papers how a “splitter” device in San Francisco siphoned millions of Americans’ Internet traffic to the NSA. That probably included data sent to or from AT&T Internet subscribers, such as emails and the websites they visited.

Most email messages are sent through the Internet in “plain-text” form, meaning they aren’t encrypted and anyone with the right tools can view their contents. Similar to an old-fashioned envelope and letter, every email contains details about whom it’s from and where it’s supposed to go.

Unlike postal letters, those details can include information that can be linked to a subscriber’s billing account, even if he or she wants to remain anonymous.

In May 2012, Wyden and Udall asked the NSA how many people inside the United States had their communications “collected or reviewed.”

The intelligence community’s inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, told the senators that providing such an estimate “would likely impede the NSA’s mission” and “violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”



Associated Press writers Jack Gillum and Lara Jakes contributed to this report

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

In this day and age where we are seeing more incidents of police abuse of their power.  I think it is time for the citizens to exercise their right to resist an unlawful arrest.  Police have abused their rights and authority that are no longer protecting citizens, they are the reasons that citizens now need to make sure they bear arms to protect themselves.  Just because they wear uniforms carry badges and take it off, does not mean that they follow the law as we have seen repeatedly on the news cops are abusing their position and overstepping their bounds, killing citizens and then covering up their illegal acts and no one, not even the court system is stepping up to defend us, the citizens from backups.  Therefore, this task is left to the people, and I’m not saying go kill cops, but I am saying a cop becomes a normal citizen when he abuses the law in his position of power to bring harm to a citizen at that point, a citizen is within their rights to defend themselves from such actions at any cost. For information on this please below. 


“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)


Allen vs Adair

Restoring the right to resist unlawful arrest




Dirty Cops LAPD

Here is the question when does a citizen have the right to protect themselves against unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure and when does the police stop go from legal to illegal. If a police stop is determined to be illegal, and an officer is using force that is not legal, does a citizen have the right to protect themselves by fighting back?
For more information on your right of defense against unlawful arrests. Click here

It is easy to criticize this video because the guy insisted on holding the camera vertical, but it’s becoming obvious that smartphone companies need to build their phones to record horizontally even if you hold it vertically as we can do with the Flip.

After all, it’s easier to hold the phone with one hand when it’s in the vertical position.

In this video, which I am unable to tell where and when it took place, a cop has a motorcyclist pulled over, who insists on recording with his cell phone.

The cop, who appears to be waiting for another cop, can’t stand it anymore and finally pounces on the man. The last words we hear before the clip ends is, “You are being de …”

We can only imagine he was being detained.

I’m sure by morning, readers will have provided the rest of the story.

UPDATE: It has since been determined this is an LAPD cop.



Probation search leads to lawsuit

Probation search leads to lawsuit
December 27, 2012, 05:00 AM By Heather Murtagh Daily Journal Staff
Without being on probation, a South San Francisco man claims police detained him in his home while performing a probation search that led to an arrest and five-day stint in jail last year, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

Sean Joseph Penna is suing South San Francisco, San Mateo County, San Mateo Sheriff’s Office, San Mateo Gang Task Force, Sheriff Greg Munks, San Mateo Adult Probation Department, Chief Stuart Forrest, Officer Jason Pfarr, Officer Joshua Cabillo and South San Francisco Police Chief Mike Massoni in relation to a probation search of his South San Francisco home November 2011 that resulted in his arrest. The problem, according to Penna, is he was not on probation. He’s alleging violations of his civil rights, constitutional and statutory rights, negligence, false arrest/imprisonment, battery, conversion, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespassing, invasion of privacy and defamation, according to the 19-page lawsuit filed Monday.

County Counsel John Beiers said the county had yet to be served and has not been able to review the allegations. A request for comment from the South San Francisco city attorney was not returned.

On Nov. 17, 2011, officers Pfarr and Cabillo went to Penna’s house on Park Way in South San Francisco to perform a probation search, according to the lawsuit. Penna, who was not on probation, told officers he was not subject to such a search. Officers demanded entry into the home which Penna allowed. Penna was detained in his home while officers searched the home — including a safe within the bedroom from which officers took $1,000, a diamond ring, a diamond pendent, certificates of title for two vehicles, spare keys and several passports, according to the lawsuit. Penna gave officers the combination to the safe under duress, according to the lawsuit. That property is not included in a police report and is alleged to have been stolen by the officers, according to the lawsuit.

Penna’s home has security cameras which feed video to his bedroom. Film of the time officers were in the home was erased, according to the lawsuit. Officers returned to Penna’s home several minutes after leaving and arrested him for a bullet found in the safe, according to the lawsuit. The bullet was pulled from the shirt pocket of an officer to show Penna.

Penna spent five days in jail before the case was dropped, according to the lawsuit.

Penna is suing for unlimited damages and the cost of legal fees.


Heather Murtagh can be reached by email: or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 105.

Off The Beat – Dirty Cops

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


Tagged , , ,

Dallas Biker Allegedly Arrested for His Helmet Cam

One Dallas biker wasn’t looking for trouble, but he found it when he was pulled over by a Deputy Sheriff. The officer first claims that he is making the arrest to confiscate the biker’s helmet camera, but changes his mind mid-arrest. We spoke to the biker’s attorney to find out more details on this wild story.

Dallas Biker Allegedly Arrested for His Helmet Cam.

Tagged ,

As Passenger Do Cops Have A Right To Ask You For ID?

This is a question I have a lot “Do I have to show my ID on a traffic as a passenger?”

The officer can ASK, but no, the passengers don’t have to give him identification unless there is probable cause to suspect them of something. (The driver is another story — if he’s been pulled over for speeding or something, he does have to show his license.) If a police officer asks to see your ID, ask (politely!) if you are being accused of something, if so, what, and if you are free to go. If you are free to go, then you don’t have to show identification.

A lot of people have no idea what their legal rights are — and a lot of cops apparently either don’t know or don’t care. Just because cops “do it all the time” doesn’t make it either legal or right! Make sure you know your rights and protect them. Otherwise we’ll all be living under the Gestapo in pretty short order. The website below gives some useful tips. Hope it helps.

When do I have to show police my ID?

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state’s law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You could do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If you’re detained, you’ll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you’re on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state’s laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer’s decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer’s part. If you’re searched or arrested following an officer’s ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.


When Cops Are The Story

On May 22, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel featured a 3,500-word investigation of an apparent pattern of crime misreporting by that city’s police department.

Police reaction to the story by Ben Poston, a respected data expert on the paper’s investigative team, has bolstered Milwaukee’s emerging status as the Rubicon of police-press relations in the social media age. Weeks before, the police had taken an audacious step by creating its own news service, “The Source.”

The police chief and the paper are now slugging it out publicly over Poston’s story, much like competing newspapers or politicians might.

Poston’s reporting found that more than 500 violent incidents from 2009 to 2011 had been incorrectly categorized as minor assaults. The errors might mean that the city had a slight increase in violent crime in 2011, instead of the 2.3 percent decline touted by Police Chief Edward Flynn in February.

The story struck a chord in Milwaukee, with nearly 300 comments at the Journal Sentinel’s news website,, 900 mentions on Facebook and 200 on Twitter.

Poston did not overtly call the misreporting malicious, although his story included damning quotations—near the top of the article—from two sources.

Michael Maltz, a criminologist at Ohio State University, called it “cheating the public” and suggested the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) might have been “playing fast and loose”with the numbers.

Sam Walker, a criminologist at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, said the pattern of errors  “clearly indicates a systemic problem in the department” and charged, “There has to be a failure of leadership.”

That leader was Chief Flynn, and he was not pleased.

Age of Twitter

A year ago, Milwaukee was cited by The Crime Report in a case study for a roundtable conference on “Public Safety and Crimefighting in the Age of Twitter” as one of several large cities where police were increasingly assertive in their use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook.

Milwaukee police occasionally used its new voice to tweak the media—or even to hector journalists. One example: the peculiar May 2, 2011, Facebook post suggesting that the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was a “great teachable moment for media…on why law enforcement doesn’t always share what we know when we know it.”

On May 2 this year, three weeks before the Journal Sentinel crime stats story was published, Flynn and his staff formalized their standing as crime-journalism police by launching, nicknamed “The Source” by the police department.

Its mission statement reads, “We created The Source to give you the genuine, unfiltered information from us—from the latest crime stats to a hard hitting story about an officer’s work that you won’t see anywhere else. We’ll correct the news stories that got it wrong, and we’ll highlight the ones that got it right. Most importantly, we’ll create our own content so you can see what the Milwaukee Police Department is really accomplishing in the community.”

Old-school journalists are not happy about it. But as the tough-talking Chief Flynn put it, “Welcome to the 21st Century.”

Leonard Levitt, a New York crime journalist known for his antagonistic relationship with the New York Police Department, says the MPD is part of a broader trend of police agencies “emboldened” by what they see as a weakened media. They smell blood.

“There’s got to be a basic respect for what the media is supposed to do, and that doesn’t exist,” said Levitt. “(Police) have absolutely no regard for what the media is there for. The media is supposed to be a check on police abuses.”

Hour-long Interview

The MPD posted on its new website a video recording of the fairly cordial hour-long interview Flynn and several subordinates had with Poston and his editor, Greg Borowski.

But a provocative tease by The Source said, “Mr. Poston came not with sincere questions to be answered, but with a premise to be proven: the Milwaukee Police Department is lying about its crime numbers.”

At a press conference, the chief admitted “fairly consistent coding errors” in categorizing the assaults. In other words, he agreed with the story.

Flynn said he asked for audits by both his department and the FBI. Yet Flynn, a veteran police executive who also has worked in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia, seethed during the 18-minute press conference, also linked at The Source.

“I categorically reject any notion that the cops don’t count,” Flynn began. He called aspects of Poston’s reporting “disingenuous bordering on cynical,” and he said a number of people in Milwaukee were “playing political reindeer games” with crime figures.

The Source added this histrionic aside: “We are also suggesting that the worst kind of exploitative journalism would be that which uses children to persuade the public to draw false conclusions.”

This was a reference to an anecdotal example low in the story about one misreported assault, of a toddler by his mother’s boyfriend.

The Journal Sentinel responded with an editorial: “Building the walls higher around (Flynn’s) police bunker and lobbing grenades over it won’t help the public.”

Michael Juley, police and courts editor at the Journal Sentinel, said in an email that his paper has held three meetings with Milwaukee police in the past two years to try to hash out a better working relationship. He said a fourth meeting was being sought.

Juley said, “The department ended its decades-long practice of holding workweek daily news briefs and started its own news website to disseminate crime information. This effectively has shut us out of talking to a live person face to face. So I would say relations with the department, while not at an all-time low, are not great.”

His paper is not alone.

No Special Access

Nearly 2,000 U.S. police agencies now use Facebook, embraced as a direct-to-citizens link, after decades of complaining about the traditional media’s filter. By longstanding tradition, police departments have given crime beat reporters special access and fast-track information—a courtesy call when a newsworthy crime occurred, for example.

That is changing: many reporters now resort to monitoring a department’s Facebook and Twitter feed for news tips.

Lauri Stevens, who consults police agencies about social media through her Boston-based firm LAwS Communications, says some journalists are intimidated by the changing police-media landscape.

In some cases, she said in an email to The Crime Report, “the media feel threatened that perhaps they will become less relevant.”

She added: “For any media outlet to express displeasure at police departments generating and distributing ‘news’ only illustrates their own naïvete and lack of understanding of what is happening in the world we live in.”

Deputy Chief Randall Blankenbaker of the Dallas Police Department, regarded as a trendsetter in use of social media, says he is watching the Milwaukee police news-source initiative with interest.

“I don’t know that we’re in a position or have a desire to do something like this at this time,” he says.

According to Blakenbaker, the police and the media have “different business models that create some of the issues and differences between us.” The media, he added, want to be fast and first while police try to be “as accurate and concise as possible.”

Blankenbaker continues:  “I do think that what Milwaukee is doing is indicative of the way things are changing in the country and in the world with the proliferation of social media. Everybody wants to be able to tell their own story.”

But who verifies those stories?

The ‘Right to Spin’

Pat Gauen, an editor with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who has spent most of his 42-year career on criminal justice beats, says every police agency has a right to “spin its message and put it out there.”

“But I think it’s our obligation to keep doing what we do and make sure the public sees the peril of getting only a particular point of view from the police,” Gauen says.

While the Post-Dispatch has a reputation for tough coverage of police, Gauen says he would rue the incommunicative police-reporter relationships found in some cities.

“A cop can give us a lot of guidance and behind-the-scenes input on a story that he can’t necessarily tell the public,” he says. “So they do have influence in what appears in the paper. If they stop talking to us, they give up some of that, and that’s not good for them, either.”

Leonard Levitt, the New York City reporter, embodies that relationship.

Since 1994, Levitt has written an inside-information column about the New York Police Department (now published at He has become an infamous gadfly, uncovering stories that the NYPD would rather conceal. He is persona non grata at One Police Plaza and brags that the police public information office has refused to answer his questions for 10 years running.

Yet he manages to break stories by going around official channels through a network of sources inside the police department.

“What the police are trying in Milwaukee and other cities is really frightening, but it won’t work in the long run,” Levitt says. “People inside are going to talk. They can’t control the flow of information.”

Source: The Crime Report

Tagged , , ,

Preventing Police Abuse


  THE BAD NEWS… that police abuse is a serious problem. It has a long history, and it seems to defy all attempts at eradication.
 The problem is national — no police department in the country is known to be completely free of misconduct — but it must be fought locally. The nation’s 19,000 law enforcement agencies are essentially independent. While some federal statutes that specify criminal penalties for willful violations of civil rights and conspiracies to violate civil rights, the United States Department of Justice has been insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting cases of police abuse.
 There are shortcomings, too, in federal law itself, which does not permit “pattern and practice” lawsuits. The battle against police abuse must, therefore, be fought primarily on the local level.
 THE GOOD NEWS… that the situation is not hopeless. Policing has seen much progress. Some reforms do work, and some types of abuse have been reduced. Today, among both police officials and rank and file officers it is widely recognized that police brutality hinders good law enforcement.
This is why I have made this site, if we don’t start documenting police abuse we will never win this fight against dirty cops who stop bikers or motorcyclist, violate our rights, harassment of people who wear support clothing, profiling club members wearing their vest, beat us, search our bikes & person, arrest us on fake charges; this site is for you so lets make it work for us. All information is protect and will used to show that there are dirty cops, where they are, which departments are allowing profiling. I am prepared to fight, I will fight this fight by my self if I must, I welcome all who will stand with me and we can make a difference.
To fight police abuse effectively, you must have realistic expectations. You must not expect too much of any one remedy because no single remedy will cure the problem. A “mix” of reforms is required. And even after citizen action has won reforms, your community must keep the pressure on through monitoring and oversight to ensure that the reforms are actually implemented.
 Nonetheless, even one person, or a small group of persistent people, can make a big difference. Sometimes outmoded and abusive police practices prevail largely because no one has ever questioned them. In such cases, the simple act of spotlighting a problem can have a powerful effect that leads to reform. Just by raising questions, one person or a few people — who need not be experts — can open up some corner of the all-too-secretive and insular world of policing to public scrutiny. Depending on what is revealed, their inquiries can snowball into a full blown examination by the media, the public and politicians.
 You’ve got to address specific problems. The first step, then, is to identify exactly what the police problems are in your city. What’s wrong with your police department is not necessarily the same as what’s wrong in another city. Police departments are different in size, quality of management, local traditions and the severity of problems. Some departments are gravely corrupt; others are relatively “clean” but have poor relations with community residents. Also, a city’s political environment, which affects both how the police operate and the possibilities for achieving reform, is different in every city. For example, it is often easier to reform police procedures in cities that have a tradition of “good government,” or in cities where minorities are well organized politically.
The range of police problems includes:
Excessive use of deadly force.
Excessive use of physical force.
Discriminatory patterns of arrest.
Patterns of harassment of such “undesirables” as the homeless, youth, minorities and gays, including aggressive and discriminatory use of the “stop-and-frisk” and overly harsh enforcement of petty offenses.
Chronic verbal abuse of citizens, including racist, sexist and homophobic slurs.
Discriminatory non-enforcement of the law, such as the failure to respond quickly to calls in low-income areas, and half-hearted investigations of domestic violence, rape or hate crimes.
Spying on political activists.
Employment discrimination — in hiring, promotion and assignments, and internal harassment of minority, women and gay or lesbian police personnel.
The “code of silence” and retaliation against officers who report abuse and/or support reforms.
 Overreaction to “gang” problems, which is driven by the assumption that most or all associational activity is gang-related. This includes illegal mass stops and arrests, and demanding photo IDs from young men based on their race and dress instead of their criminal conduct.
 The “war on drugs,” with its overboard searches and other tactics that endanger innocent bystanders. This “war” wastes scarce resources on unproductive “buy and bust” operations to the neglect of more promising community-based approaches.
Lack of accountability, such as the failure to discipline or prosecute abusive officers, and the failure to deter abuse by denying promotions and/or particular assignments because of prior abusive behavior.
 Crowd control tactics that infringe on free expression rights and lead to unnecessary use of physical force.
 The first thing to bear in mind about the “homework” community residents have to do in order to build a strong case for reform is that obtaining the most relevant information on the activities of your police department can be a tough task. In answer to critics, police chiefs often cite various official data to support their claim that they are really doing a great job. “Look at the crime rate,” they say, “it’s lower than in other cities.” Or: “My department’s arrest rate is much higher than elsewhere.” The catch is that these data, though readily available to citizens, are deeply flawed, while the most telltale information is not always easy to get.
 FORGET The “Crime Rate.” The “crime rate” figures cited by government officials are based on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system, which has several serious flaws. To name only a few: First, the UCR only measures reported crime.
Complaint form, this the most powerful tool you can against police abuse. I have made this form for you so all the incidents of police abuse can be documented.
Second, since the system is not independently audited there are no meaningful controls over how police departments use their crime data. Police officers can and do “unfounded” crimes, meaning they decide that no crime occurred. They also “downgrade” crimes — for example, by officially classifying a rape as an assault. Third, reports can get “lost,” either deliberately or inadvertently.

Each of the 50 states has a freedom of information act or an open records law. Virtually all such laws were enacted post-Watergate, in the mid-1970’s. Under these laws, community groups can request and obtain access to police reports, investigations, policies and tape recordings regarding a controversial incident, such as a beating, shooting, or false arrest. If the police refuse to disclose information to representatives of your community, that refusal in itself should become the focus of organizing and public attention. Ultimately, your community can sue to compel disclosure, unless the records you seek are specifically exempted.

PROFILE: Police Practices Project, ACLU of Northern California The Police Practices Project conducts education programs to teach citizens about their constitutional rights. One aspect of the police abuse problem, the project believes, is that the police tend to abuse certain people partly because they think these individuals don’t know their rights, or don’t know how to assert their rights. The project also believes that its programs have the added advantage of recruiting groups and individuals to work in police reform campaigns.

The project also publishes wallet-size cards in English, Spanish and Chinese that inform citizens about what to do or say in encounters with the police. These cards have been widely distributed in the community. (One card-holder reported that he pulled out his card when confronted by a police officer, only to have the officer reach into his wallet and pull out his own copy of the same card!)

The project believes that individual citizens and community groups become informed about police policies just by participating in the preparation of educational materials and training sessions. That participation also fosters awareness about particular areas of police practice that need reform. Most important, education empowers even the most disenfranchised people and helps deter the police from treating them abusively.

If Your Are Stopped in Your Car

Show your driver’s license and registration upon request. You can in certain cases be searched without a warrant so long as the police have probable cause.
To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search.
If you are given a ticket, you should sign it, otherwise you can be arrested. You can always fight the case in court later.
If you are suspected of drunken driving and refuse a blood, urine or breath test, your driving license can be suspended.
If You Are Arrested or Taken to a Police Station You have the right to remain silent and talk to a lawyer before you talk to the police. Tell the police nothing except your name and address. Do not give explanations, excuses or stories. You can make your defense in court based on what you and your lawyer decide is best.
Ask to see a lawyer immediately. If you cannot pay for a lawyer, you have a right to a free one, and you should ask the police how the lawyer can be contacted. Do not talk without a lawyer.

Source: Bikers of America see full document.

Tagged ,