As we (my Wife and I) were travelling through Tennessee, we were stopped by a Tennessee State Trooper (Officer Michael Loftis, Badge #331), because the tinting of the windows on our vehicle was too dark. After checking my license, registration and insurance and verifying that they were up to date, Officer Loftis then asked with no probable cause, if I had any drugs or weapons in the car. [More]And then guess what happened...
Friday, September 24, 2010
Naming Names...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Sounds like you were legal, here's a couple of links to research;
http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode
http://www.tfaonline.org/index.php/laws/index
Swine. MF, GD, Swine.
Where the hell is the ACLU and the NRA as this man's civil rights are mushed into nothingness from armed JBT?
Title 18 offenses come to my mind...
Another circumstance where answering a LEO's questions the LEO had no business asking led to theft of personal property. Conduct that was probably well within the agency's policy guidelines.
Trying to be a nice guy and answering the officer's questions with information other than, "Officer, that's really none of your business." cost this man his firearms and anything else the LEO could get his sticky fingers on.
What do you want to bet; The receipts showing Mr. Howley as the legal owner of the firearms have disappeared?
[W3]
Why in the world is it that that someone traveling from a "Restore the Constitution" rally - who also works for "Freedomizer" radio - doesn't understand his own rights?
First off, one ALWAYS says "I do not consent to any searches" in a situation like this.
Second, federal law is what regulates interstate transportation of guns. One is in compliance with federal transportation statutes - gun in locked case in different compartment - while traveling between the 50 states.
There are some exceptions.
I'm sorry, but in light of the police state tactics of many LEOs these days, I have little sympathy for someone who refuses to utilize their rights.
I wasn't there, be it appears that the "Restore the Constitution" rally must have alleged that we no longer have rights, and to submit to searches even if, and when, you don't have to.
Perhaps a search of YouTube regarding "how to speak to police" is in order:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIsSyP4Xq1M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmrbNLt7Om8&feature=related
If you consent to a search - which you did - you have little to complain about.
Now, for heaven's sake - please educate yourself.
And best of luck suing the JBTs.
Why is it that surly teenage school kids who have been in trouble with the law umpteen times know and understand how to manipulate the system, yet the average Joe won't utilize his 5th Amendment rights?
This is a perfect example of how believing a police officer - who can lie to you in order to arrest and convict you - is clearly much worse than invoking your right NOT to be searched.
P.S. I am not a lawyer, and the above is not legal advice.
They have you both ways, though, Ned--those open carriers in Madison asserted their rights and refused to ID themselves and got charged for it. They literally force the citizen into a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. They literally make peaceably exercising your rights and compliance with "law enforcement" mutually exclusive, knowing that something's gotta give, and banking on the superior intimidation and unlimited legal war chest factors being the deciders.
This is my issue with States Rights. As soon as you cross that line on the map you are now a criminal. Since each State is not a separate nation unto itself how can this be??? How many people sit down and read all of the laws for each state they will be traveling through??
Futhermore this story amplifies the point that we will be picked off one at a time.
The law is whatever the officer wants it to be right at that moment. The burden is placed upon you to prove the existence of such law. In the mean time your property and freedom have been stolen. The act of walking down the sidewalk in your own neighborhood is all that is needed to place you in prison for the rest of your life. Once you have been targeted by the police your are screwed!!!! Protest and you get beaten and tased. Once you've been beaten and tased the long list of charges can be filed against you. Once in prison and you defend yourself then your fate is sealed.
Police have the absolute ability to pass life or death judgement over you in an instant. Any infraction is punishable by instant death. Erik Scott is a perfect example.
The American citizen is the enemy in the eyes of LEO. American citizens have no standing when in the presence of the police. You are not equal to an officer of the law.
We are to be punished by the police because it has been drilled into their heads by their superiors.
How many women are molested yearly by these animals in state issued costumes?? How many are molested in the presence of their husbands under the guise of law?? How many are molested with the intent of daring their husbands to react????
Doug
Newark, Ohio
You know, I wrote this long post quoting the relevant parts of the TN Constitution, but screw it. You all know the drill.
Just about every voter in this country believes there is a contraband which will destroy civilization. So long as they pressure the government to violate search and seizure prohibitions, this will continue. "Guns" and "drugs" are just nouns. When the Fourth Amendment--or Tennessee's Sections 7 & 8--are violated, there's no restrictive clause that arbitrarily limits the violation based on the opinion of one person. That doesn't even make any sense anyway, because demanding the law be ignored is handing a blank, signed check to tyranny.
I understand. But there's a difference between these cases, in my view. If the gentleman had not consented to a search he may have been on his way - but perhaps not. And of course I understand your, and his, point. We are living under tyranny, and when one finds the jackboot on his own neck, few will step up to the plate to help. Thus the "system" is self-propagating. Your "friends" just turn their heads to avoid learning the truth.
One also shouldn't rely on a jury. They wouldn't be there if they understood nullification. Voir dire questioning also pretty much assures that anyone qualified won't make it to a petit jury.
Prosecutorial misconduct is one reason I no longer work for an attorney in the legal system. The legal system is broke. Here's an example:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/09/23/20100923arizona-farmer-case-federal-lawyers-misconduct.html
So I understand.
The guys in the Madison matter had their charges dismissed, if I'm not mistaken. Dan Howley likely will incur huge legal fees, having to hire local and Tennessee pro hac vice counsel, and spend money he likely doesn't have in order to prevail.
Russ Howard's case is an illustration of how your "friends" turn their backs on you when you step up to the plate.
I have a friend who is an ex-cop who now drives a semi, and he trusts LEOs less than anyone I know. He tells me that almost every day he sees highway patrol officers literally stripping cars on the side of the interstate - most of the time because the driver "has nothing to hide" - and so consents to a search.
I suggest that people watch some of the video links in my first post and learn how to speak to our Only One Masters.
Dan can't now as strongly object to an unlawful search. He has to rely mostly on the matter of the illegal seizure. That cuts much of the legs out from under his case, although the AG may ultimately choose to dismiss the case. But it will cost Dan bux he likely doesn't have, or could use elsewhere.
I also suggest that people watch the "Cops" programs on TV to learn how most people convict themselves.
It's tough to be a belligerent claimant of one's rights, but in my view, it's necessary.
IMO, Dan could have asked how tinted windows had anything to do with guns or drugs and asked the officer to explain how that provides probable cause for a search. He could have also asked how much tinting was too much, and asked how the officer could tell.
Just my opinion.
[W3] said: What do you want to bet; The receipts showing Mr. Howley as the legal owner of the firearms have disappeared?
From the linked story: "... I was given a citation for Unlawful Possesion of a Firearm, a Reciept for the Property that was confiscated, the Store Reciepts for my firearms, My Rifle Case, and a warning for the tinted windows, and then I and my Wife were allowed to leave and resume our travel back to Colorado. ..."
While the cops _are_ thieves, they did return the receipt. Not that it matters much: getting the guns back could easily eat up more money and time than it would take to simply buy replacements.
The cop should have never been told a single thing about what was in the trunk _or_ about where Dan was coming from or going to. Even the "honest" cops are not your friend; don't tell any of them _anything_ -- chances are very good you didn't get an "honest" one.
Regs on window tint vary by state. But as his car is not registered in TN the tint is irrelevant.
Mr.HiWayCop didn't need a reason to stop this guy, and I see no further mention that he examined the too dark windows with a light transmission meter either.
Bogus pc, bogus confiscation, bogus charges...good luck citizen, I hope you get your property back.
Not disagreeing with your conclusions at all Ned. I've featured the Prof. James Duane "Don't Talk to Cops" video both at WOG and at GRE, and have also mentioned the ACLU Bust Card on a few occasions.
My only point is, committed fascists will find a way regardless--in this case claiming his drug dog alerted. But yes, you are 100% correct, keep the lips zipped.
As I understand the Madison outrage, initial charges were dropped but a disorderly conduct charge was fabricated after the fact.
Assuming the accounts are factual, it looks like more Us vs Them created entirely by Them...
Ned,
You're my kind of American, but were you a witness? None of us know the police officer's demeanor. He was probably the kind that broadcasted an intent to go from zero-to-homicide at the slightest provocation.
I'm probably too angry to comment. i'll just say "If the terrorists win, how will we tell the difference?"
If doing everything by THEIR book makes no difference, I predict a lot less of it.
I overheard two gun guys talking. One described how he used flechette rounds during his military career. The other said he had picked up some of them at a gun show years ago.
"You're not suppposed to have those!" What happened after that, I have no idea. I haven't seen any laws on flechette shells, but Person A was so upset it made me wonder about not the law, but about HIM. Awfully eager to tell an American that every terrible implement of war is NOT our birthright. Knows better than the authors of the codified rights he was supposedly defending during the war?
Living free involves risks. They seem to be increasing. useful idiots have children.
Usually in these cases I think about emailing the head of whatever agency, the governor and the tourism bureau about a boycott. Now I've thought about how little concern my opinions receive within my own state.
Odds are that someday in my next 30 years of driving, I'll come across an officer down. Car crash, shooting, whatever.
If I call 911 and report his position, that COULD be "illegal monitoring of a law enforcement officer" under wiretapping laws.
If gas is leaking and sparks are sparking and I pull him from the vehicle, that COULD be abducting an officer. If I open the car door to do it, that COULD be breaking and entering and trespassing on government property.
Maybe by even slowing down to look I've broken the "emergency stopping only" law. It's not MY emergency.
If I am a medical professional and administer first aid and painkillers, that COULD be illegal possession, transportation and distribution of drugs, maybe even COULD be battery on a police officer. How do they know -- how does the state even know -- my license is valid, that the pain meds aren't stolen, that I'm not trying to poison him? COULD be attempted murder, first degree premeditated.
If they can make it up as they go, so can I. It's just not worth the risk to get involved.
Is there a Good Samaritan law that requires at least offering aid? I'll roll down the window as I slow down a bit and yell "I am offering aid." Then I'll speed up again, careful not to exceed the posted speed limit.
I won't watch the news or read the paper to see how he made out. With all this stuff going on, Nightline, 20/20 and the others are using their weekly hour to report on bigamist scam artists and domestic murder cases 20 years cold.
Hold on a second folks.
IF the dog "alerts" to the presence of a narcotic, refusing a search is a moot point.
I'm not saying what happened was right, but all this wargarble over asserting your rights is moot.
You can yell and scream "I don't consent" but it doesn't matter if that K9 ... does whatever it's supposed to do.
Call your local congressman and have him make a phone call to the TNHP, then call GOA and NRA
K9's are trained to obey their handler's signals...and any movement or no movement on the dog's part will be an 'alert'.
In Texas we had a guy selling 'scent lineup' services well after the crimes to multiple police agencies. Numerous convictions later this charlatan has been discredited.
TJP - I understand your comments. I also understand that the demeanor of a terrorist LEO can have an effect on a person who has been stopped. I wasn't there, and I understand that it's possible that Dan and his wife would have been tasered or killed if he hadn't "complied."
I was stopped by an AZ "Department of Public Safety" officer in the boonies who appeared to want to shoot me. (I'm not kidding) Can't give all details here, but he even asked me if I was carrying bombs, bomb making equipment, missiles, missile launchers, etc.
Never saw the revolver on my pickup seat, but warned me not to "make a move" for the folding knife clipped in my pocket. (Like if I was going to harm him I'd of chosen a 3" folding knife instead of the gun...)
He wasn't given permission to search my vehicle, and I didn't leave the altercation with a ticket - I admitted to nothing, and politely debated the alleged reason for the stop with him.
The point I was making simply is know your rights and assert them. If you choose not to, you may be better off, but I think history bears out that politely asserting one's rights in the very least makes LEOs more cautious in what they do to you.
The_Chef said:
"IF the dog "alerts" to the presence of a narcotic, refusing a search is a moot point."
Tennessee's state constitution plainly lists the requirements of search and seizure in Article I, S.7 & S.8. Not only was there no evidence of a "crime" beyond dark window tint, but there was no warrant issued. Best case scenario for the state: the officer may "search" things in plain view, but seizure of persons or property--aside from arresting the person during the commission of a crime--requires a signed warrant.
Furthermore, you're asserting that an animal is empowered by established law to stand in for a judge. To the best of my understanding, such an animal has never passed a bar exam, and I am aware of no cases where a warrant was signed with a muddy paw print.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, congratulations, you're a sane and reasonable person. Belief in the Contraband Fairy creates legal chaos. It requires a belief that inanimate objects are capable of committing crime, and also the ludicrous assertion that a person can commit a crime against his own property. The above situation doesn't make any sense because no law is being followed. Arguing about legality and protected rights is irrelevant, because the electorate at large demands a tyranny free-for-all; it is impossible to argue one's case when one party is allowed to change the rules on the spot in order to negate incidental arguments.
It would seem that Gant should apply here.
Gant sharply limits vehicle searches.
I wonder if Gant should help in this case.
Why search the vehicle after the officer already cited for tinted glass?
Was this a consent request: "Officer Loftis then told me to exit the vehicle and open the trunk. After I complied ..."
Always refuse consent. If it were an order, was he the under arrest?
Here's another interesting take on not answering questions:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/lukacs1.1.1.html
Post a Comment