It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Constitutional Rights for Citizens: Police Contact

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:48 AM
TO PROTECT AND DEFEND : Practical ways of protecting individual Constitutional liberties in everyday situations.

The fact is that most contact that civilians have with governmental authority is thorough contacts with the police. Whether at a roadblock for ‘ drivers license checks ‘ or in a traffic stop or on a public street or in your home, you have well defined and absolute Rights that you should know and use to protect yourself and your family and friends from unwarranted and illegal police actions.

The police are allowed by law to lie to you. If you believe their lies, then you are presumed to be ignorant of the truth and fully culpable in Court. In other words, if a police officer tells you that you have to do something and you do it, then you have no recourse later even if the police officer was lying totally. You are advised never to believe what a police officer tells you; you must know the law yourself and your Rights or be at the mercy of the police, who can and do misadvise and lie to citizens routinely in order to get an arrest and conviction, regardless of the truth of the matter.

For example, if you are stopped by a police officer in your car, you must present a valid drivers license and other papers confirming insurance, registration, etc. You do NOT have to speak to the officer at all; you are NOT required to talk about the alleged offense, you do NOT have to allow any searches of your person or vehicle, and you do NOT have any obligation to stay there while the officers call for dog’s , etc. If the officers take longer than the usual amount of time to write a ticket, then you have a basis to have the charges dismissed for violating your Rights.

If an officer asks if you will give consent to search your person or car, and you do not wish to do so, just say NO. You have the Right to refuse all searches that do not have a warrant presented. The officers will normally threaten and bluster and lie; this is normal for them. They hope to intimidate you into allowing them to forget about your Rights and do what they want. There are only two things that need be said to the police: 1. I refuse to give consent to any searches, and 2. Am I free to leave ? That is all that you need to say.You are not required to tell the police where you are going or where you have been. It is none of their business. Record with vdieo or audio if possible all interactions with cops. If the police can ( and they do ) tape you then you can tape them, simple.

If an officer comes to your door, never open it. They will often just push their way in and lie and say that you opened the door and invited them in. Unless you have witnesses present, or a video camera, it is always best to stay inside, open a window slightly and ask them what they want. If they do not have a valid warrant and are willing to show it to you, then you need not open the door. Tell them to call your attorney if they want an interview. This will make them angry but that is not your concern. Your Rights are more important than some police officers’ emotions and manners. They act angry to intimidate the weak and unsure people.

They cannot break down your door and they cannot demand that you come outside to talk to them, although many will tell this lie. Stand your ground and refuse to open the door without a warrant. That way officers cannot enter your home, arrest you for items found by them or placed there by them, and you will have protected your Rights and the Rights of us all. Take the names of all officers that approach you, always. Always have a video camera ready to turn on in case you need evidence of police conduct. You can carry cameras and film the police in public; many will lie and claim that it is ‘ wiretapping’ but that is another lie. The police can and do tape the public in many ways and it is perfectly legal for us to film them as well. Next segment: Police dogs and the courts and you.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:19 PM
On the weekend we had a run in with the cops while in a bar.
we saw the cop giving someone a ticket so we decided to take a picture because we felt it wasn't right what the cop was doing.

5 minuts later the cop ran into the bar yelling at us demanding for us to delete the picture. we refued saying you have no right to make us delete this picuter. so the cop had a hissy fit and got the bouncers to kick us out of the bar.

i mean really what a cop. doesn't get her own way so she tells the bouncers to kick us out. we laughed in her face and told her that we were going to report her. she started turning red in the face.

i asked for her badge number and she refused to give it to me. my one friend proceded to remind her that we pay you bills and so on..

it was pretty interesting.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:06 PM
Cops HATE it when a citizen exposes their constant lying. If a person KNOWS the law, one can really get some redfaced liars on the edge by simply refuting what they say. MOST cops rely on the citizen not knowing their rights or being too shy and intimidated to question their nonsense.

The cops hate to be filmed and taped because they spend a great deal of their time violating the law and advising citizens totally wrongly as to what we can and cannot do. Just ask, " Please, Officer, can you tell me the statute that says that public filming of police officers is illegal when you can tape us?". Of course there is no such law and so they sputter and get angry..they have been exposed as liars and they hate that. We are just supposed to bow down, kiss their rings, follow their orders to the letter, and never question anything they say; that is the perfect world for a cop.

If the cops told the truth and obeyed the law strictly, as they demand from us, they would have far fewer cases and hardly any convictions; it is a lot harder to build a real case, it takes a lot of work and cops would much rather have it handed to them on a silver platter by some ignorant citizen who gives up their precious Rights because some cop was bullying, threatening, lying and demanding. Cops hate getting to court and facing a well prepared and agressive defense attorney; they twist and squirm and you can read their minds as they try and figure a way to lie without making it seem TOO outrageous, and salvage the case for the home team!!

Soon, the paper on dogs and rights in a traffic stop.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:32 PM
I have a little credt card sized piece of paper with a statement printed on it that I hand to officers when I am puled over or stopped in any way. It explains to the officer right up front that you are aware of your Rights and that you are reserving them. If you want this, just print it up on a business card sized piece of paper and laminate it and put it in your wallet or purse.

Statement of Constitutional Rights

Officer, I mean no disrespect, but I understand my rights. I have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. I have a right to refuse to consent to any search of my body, and personal effects. If I am under arrest I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights and be allowed the opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney. If I am to be taken into custody I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment of my property. If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:03 PM
EXCELLENT!! THAT is the kind of awareness that I love to see in a citizen. If everyone did this, we would see a lot less Rights abused by cops.

The police would learn that they are expected to show respect for the Constitution when they see it applied daily. But so few have any idea how empowering it is to know your rights and use them. It turns the entire encounter around and puts the ball in your court and not the cop's.

The " Flex Your Rights ' foundation gives out free cards like that so every motorist and citizen can learn how to reply to cops. Good job !

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:09 PM
Personally, I think the card is overkill, unless your memory is really bad.

If you know your rights and a cop stops you or knocks on your door, a card won't do you any good. Just insist that your rights be respected and call an attorney, if necessary.

The most important things are to be a law-abiding citizen and to know your constitutional rights.

Worry about the former and you will have to worry less about the latter.

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:42 PM
Most people under the scrutiny of overbearing and pushy cops who lie routinely experience extreme pressure and are nervous. Having a card handy is a great thing because it means that not only will the citizen make clear his refusal to give up any rights or allow any shenanigans by police, but also covers all apsects of such refusal.

Trying to recall all of that info while some cop is trying to interrupt you and badger you is hard enough without a card to read from. Also, having a card tells the cop that you are organized, and perhaps the same organization that gave you the card just might have an attorney that will sue him if he violates you rights.

Anything that makes the cops stop and think before pulling their typical bully and lie routine is a good thing. It tells the cop that he is being watched by someone who knows their rights, and it gives the citizen some comfort in that he is not expected or required to tell the cops anything or do anything the cops say unless it is legal.

I believe that every citizen should be given a rights card with every drivers license or ID card and they should be available in every police station in the nation. The cops should WELCOME such a card if they have no intention of violating our rights, correct?

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I believe that every citizen should be given a rights card with every drivers license or ID card and they should be available in every police station in the nation. The cops should WELCOME such a card if they have no intention of violating our rights, correct?

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I just said that I thought it was unnecessary for most people.

Certainly, anyone who has trouble thinking under pressure could benefit from having one, but if the cops are as bad as you say they are, then a little ol' card won't mean diddly squat.

They might even make you eat it.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:14 AM
I do not have a hard time seeing that people under pressure from being intimidated by armed and aggressive police could benefit from having a way to quickly and thoroughly state their desires to have their Rights respected. If that does not mean ' diddley ' to you, then you may be different than most people.

If they are likely to make a person eat the card. then of course that would be a felonious assault and the cops should be arrested and thrown in prison for 20 years to think about it, right? No civilzed human being with a brain would assume that a cop is more likely to assault a citizen by making him eat paper than he is to simply comprehend that the citizen knows his rights and will not be bullied and violated by the police.

While I agree with you that cops are unstabe for the most part and likley to lose their tempers and violate Rights, it usually will not be in the form of having a citizen eat a Rights card. Usually they just manhandle, cuff hard until the hands are damaged, strike with fists and sticks, Tazered, maced. throw around in a cage car( cops love to get a person handcuffed in the back of a cage car and then stop fast, accelerate fast, and laugh as the citizen bangs his head and body around on the matal cage..they LOVE hearing the screams!).

Your comments do not sound like those of someone with anything to contribute; you seem to think that simply speaking from memory is better than a prepared script; please tell me why, in an intelligent manner, why a card would be less effective than memory, especially when one is under the pressure of armed confrontation with an authority firgure that may very well be one of the 99% of all cops that routinely violate the law and citizens Constitutional Rights. I will be waiting for a succint and comprehensive response. Thank you for your helpful and cogent contributions.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:03 AM
If you want to carry a card, by all means carry a card.

Suggest that people copy and paste the script from your post and print their own from their word processor.

Do it yourself and pass them out on the street corner or sell them if that suits your tastes.

I don't know what else to say. You haven't understood anything I've said, yet.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:22 PM
In a terrible blow to the 4th Amendment , the Supreme Court , having gone far right under the Bush regime , decided in Illinois vs Caballes that the police could walk a police dog around the outside of a stopped vehicle during a traffic stop. If the image of citizens being constantly and randomly confronted by snarling dogs and armed agents of the government in everyday and routine contacts with the police gives you pause, you are not alone. The dissenting opinions of the Justices that see the real picture spell out clearly what is likely to happen, as the police ALWAYS push the limits of their authority to the very edges of the law and reason.

Justice Ginsburg dissenting:

In my view, the Court diminishes the Fourth Amendment’s force by abandoning the second Terry inquiry (was the police action “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances [justifiying] the [initial] interference”). 392 U.S., at 20. A drug-detection dog is an intimidating animal. Cf. United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1268, 1276 (CA10 2004) (McKay, J., dissenting) (“drug dogs are not lap dogs”). Injecting such an animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial, and (in at least some cases) longer. Caballes–who, as far as Troopers Gillette and Graham knew, was guilty solely of driving six miles per hour over the speed limit–was exposed to the embarrassment and intimidation of being investigated, on a public thoroughfare, for drugs. Even if the drug sniff is not characterized as a Fourth Amendment “search,” cf. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983), the sniff surely broadened the scope of the traffic-violation-related seizure.

AND: The Illinois Supreme Court, it seems to me, correctly apprehended the danger in allowing the police to search for contraband despite the absence of cause to suspect its presence. Today’s decision, in contrast, clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots. Compare, e.g., United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1526—1527 (CA10 1993) (upholding a search based on a canine drug sniff of a parked car in a motel parking lot conducted without particular suspicion), with United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (CA1 1987) (officers must have reasonable suspicion that a car contains narcotics at the moment a dog sniff is performed), and Place, 462 U.S., at 706—707 (Fourth Amendment not violated by a dog sniff of a piece of luggage that was seized, pre-sniff, based on suspicion of drugs). Nor would motorists have constitutional grounds for complaint should police with dogs, stationed at long traffic lights, circle cars waiting for the red signal to turn green.

For the reasons stated, I would hold that the police violated Caballes’ Fourth Amendment rights when, without cause to suspect wrongdoing, they conducted a dog sniff of his vehicle. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court.(end)

In any event, the police may walk a dog around a stopped car. The really interesting aspects of all this come into play when we examine the laws concerning the DOGS THEMSELVES. In a groundbreaking case, MATHESON vs Florida , a federal Court decided that the police must prove that their dogs are worthy of the vast powers that they possess in the hands of a human to support finding ‘ probable cause’ in so many cases.

Many. If not most police departments, especially before this ruling, kept no records that mattered documenting the dog’s training, failure rate ( false positives ), specific items they are certified to detect, certification from a RECOGNIZED and accredited agency, etc. Police would appear in Court, simply state that good old Sarge scratched and whined when he got near the car, and BOOM!! Probable cause !
(More on this topic soon)

Mod Edit: to apply external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 3-7-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:28 PM
By the way, I understand what you have said just fine, it just does not make any sense or make any contribution that can be taken seriously in my opinion.

You never of course address the main point: An easy reference that can give all of the desired information while under pressure MUST be btter, for the majority, than simply trying to recall all aspects of the stated aspects of the rights card from memory while being badgered by a cop who hates your mentioning the Constitution at all.

I believe that the majority of thinking people would agree with me; I may be wrong but I think not.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:35 PM
DOG -Cont.

It did not get to be a factor until the case of Matheson, litigated by Rex Curry, a prolific civil rights and police misconduct attorney , who challenged the police to prove that the dog in fact could be proved reliable. The police position was so weak and barren of evidence that now the police must show certain paperwork and training records to defense attorneys when a dog is used to establish probable cause in a case. The dog can be put on trial to see if he is qualified for his alleged status as sole determiner of probable cause.

The biggest and most foul issue is of course the common practice of ‘ false alerts’. This happens when your local protector and servant decides that your refusal to allow a warrantless search is no longer a barrier for him; he just gives the dog a signal, often with a hand gesture or barely discernable noise, and the dog reacts to gets his reward. Dogs do not care about drugs, they want a reward, and they do not get one unless they perform a feat, such as sitting down, scratching, barking, etc. The fact that these are all normal actions for dogs does not give one much comfort, I know. The dogs are itching to get their reward and all too happy to ‘ perform ‘ at the slightest encouragement from the handler. This is epidemic in this nation. The cops hate it when citizens use their rights; it shows them that they are not all powerful and the only persons with authority. “ That takes care of those smart asses who think that the Constitution means anything on the side of the road! “ As long as the police are willing to subvert the Constitution with total disregard, this will be the norm.

It is critical that if a dog is ever used with you, to observe the officer handling the dog as closely as possible. Make notes of any gestures, motions or words spoken while the dog is being ‘ lead ‘ around the car. Every driver should have a video and audio camera ready to turn on if stopped; it can be invaluable later in Court ;when the officers story is contradicted by hard evidence, the DA will dismiss the charges in order to keep from embarrassing the officers and exposing them to perjury charges. If you think that Prosecutors are neutral and only seeking justice, you are living in a dream world.

More coming on homes and street rights!

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
You never of course address the main point: An easy reference that can give all of the desired information while under pressure MUST be btter, for the majority, than simply trying to recall all aspects of the stated aspects of the rights card from memory while being badgered by a cop who hates your mentioning the Constitution at all

I addressed the main point.

In fact here is my original post:

Personally, I think the card is overkill, unless your memory is really bad.

If you know your rights and a cop stops you or knocks on your door, a card won't do you any good. Just insist that your rights be respected and call an attorney, if necessary.

The most important things are to be a law-abiding citizen and to know your constitutional rights.

Worry about the former and you will have to worry less about the latter.

I'm not even disagreeing with you. I just think that your emphasis on the card is unnecessary for most people.

I've acknowledged that if people want to carry a card, I have no objection, as if my objection would matter.

I don't know what your problem is.

[edit on 2007/7/3 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:36 PM
I want to add that if you're asked to step out of Your car shut the car door. Leaving it opens is called 'implied consent' and the officer may search Your vehicle because of such.

Peace. K*

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:39 PM
I put that up for that readon Eye. I have told my friends about all this over and over and I have had at least 4 of them call meup and say what was I suppossed to say when that cop wanted to search the car? Or can they do this? So I agree that the nervousness associated with a police contact under a traffic stop does tend to lead to people not remembering, articulating, or being afraid to tell them. If you hand them this card and they do it anyways, any evidence gotten by them would be innadmissable and your lawyer could get it thrown out. Now I see Grady's point, I no longer use that cardmyself, although I do carry it with me still. I do not even have a state drivers license so I am well versed in the laws and how to handle a cop in a stop. I have been given 7 or 8 driving without a license tickets in the last decade, surprisingly when they pull you over for say speeding and find you have no license they never wrte the original ticket, which is great cause I only have to defeat the driving then. Which I do rather handidly and all of those tickets were Dismissed With Prejudice. This means they cna never bring it up again in the Court.

So you both have points, some won't need the cards, some will know the info but will forget under pressure and need the cards. The main point is do whatever YOU need to do to portect yourself and your property from envasive police state actions.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:46 PM
theindependentjournal- Do You really drive without a license? What about car insurance? How are You insured?

Peace. K*

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:10 PM
The Home

The Rabb Decision:

The Rabb decision says that the police may NOT walk a dog around your property or to your front door to sniff and get cause for a warrant. Neither can they fly overhead and use thermal detection devices to look for heat signatures. The Courts, so far, have held that the home is a far different place than the public, a motel or any other area. More rights are expected in a home than elsewhere; the right to privacy , the right to be left alone barring well founded reasons to disturb your tranquility.

This brings us to the home as a fortress; the police must have probable cause of a definite nature before they can, or rather should, attempt to enter a private home. You have many rights that pertain to the home.

If a police officer approaches your home, and you are inside, the very best thing to do is bolt the door and open a window enough to speak to them. A system with an intercom with video is best ; that way you control the conversation and are unseen but can see the cops and what they have in their hands. You do NOT have to open your door to talk to them , although most will demand that you do so under dire threat of some nonsense like “ interfering with an officer ‘ or “ failure to follow instructions “. This is all a lie and meant to intimidate and control the event. Ignore them. If they present a valid warrant, open up immediately and present no resistance at all. Cooperate fully; do your fighting in Court.

If they do not have a warrant, then you can tell them to go away and there is nothing they can do about it. The best thing to do is tell them that if they want an interview with you to contact your attorney. They know that no attorney is going to give them anything except a ‘ sorry, no way ‘ comment so they hate it when you do that. Tough. What they hate does not matter, what matters is your rights. Unless you open your door the cops cannot barge in or break in without a warrant; if they do they can be sued and charged criminally as well. If you do desire to speak with them, remember that ANYTHING that you say can and WILL be used against you. Your words will be twisted, your meaning confused, your truthful replies doubted and scorned..that is the game they play, and if you are not a professional game player, like a lawyer, then you are better off being silent when the police try and question you.

If you open your door, even a crack, that gives the cops all they need to say that they thought they saw’ paraphernalia ‘ in your home and use that as a reason to barge in. They can say that they ‘ smell ‘ something and use that as a reason to barge in. Anytime a citizen demands that the police respect their rights, the police see this as evidence of guilt and a reason to do anything they can, no matter how dishonest or devious, to accomplish their goal. The cops see civil rights as a nuisance that can be gotten around by creative lying and pressuring the uninformed. We see them as the only thing that stands between us and a gulag.
More soon.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:15 PM
I've dealt with police a lot in my life living in NYC. I think there's one aspect to this that no one has mentioned, that is the fact that many cops themselves are ignorant of both the laws and your rights. Many will assume that they are allowed to do things like search your bags, hold you for a time, or demand to be able to search your car lest it be impounded.

I think a lot of police officers are generally well meaning individuals with the rare exception of some real A holes but they're all somewhat ignorant of rights and laws. I still believe that many people become cops to help uphold the law and make this a better place and I don't believe they would support anything that went against the law or constitution if they knew any better.

The general rule of thumb with a cop is that the cop is going to do what he wants to do. If he thinks you were selling drugs then he is going to make sure he finds something that says you're selling drugs.

Cops aren't really motivated by "furthering the power of the NWO" so much as they like to get paid and in order to do so many cops must meet a qouta for arrests and tickets. I've gotten busted when it was close to quota day, I was drinking a beer in the park and ended up paying a $50 ticket. I got off easy because I know how to stay calm and how to talk to police.

The best rule to follow if you are stopped for whatever reason is to stay calm. DO NOT immediatly start spouting your rights and NEVER go fumbling into your pocket. It's easy, just stay calm, listen to the officer and reply clearly. Let them know, through your voice and mannerisms, that you are not breaking any laws and are not here to cause any trouble.

If you've been legitimately caught for something, like speeding or drinking in public, then accept the punishment. "Ok, you got me" is usually my stance when that happens.

Cops are people too and are generally under A LOT of stress so don't do anything to aggravate them because they do have a breaking point just like anyone of us.

The last thing I'd say is that, however dim this sounds, in this day and age our governments are doing many things they "aren't allowed to" and if you are stopped at say a Subway Bag Check you will probably have to consent to it or face a bunch of trouble. Things aren't always so black and white and sometimes you will be forced to do something you don't feel is right simply because they have the guns and the ASSUMED authority to treat you as they do. If you make a big scene at a Checkpoint you will likely be arrested and later charged with something like "Suspicion of Mischief" so just be careful and choose your battles.

Stay calm
Listen and speak clearly
Give no more information than is needed
Ask questions i.e "So, where do I go to pay this ticket?"
Treat the cop as another person
Admit when you're wrong
Pay tickets on time and show up for a Summons on time
If you're arrested then shut up until your lawyer gets there

Never give them anything to use against you

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:47 PM
Well you don't actually need insrance or license plates or any of it for your personal vehicle. In Colorado where I live its a so called MUST have insurance state, and we carry insurance on it because the kids ride in it, and we have 20,000,000 illegals driving without insurance drunk so it is good thing to have. So in answer to your question.

The Right to travel is a Constitutional Right and therefore a drivers license is NOT needed to drive. I have many Courts that prove this fact. So I notified the Insurance company that if I was denied insurance for not having a license, I would need them to put that in writing for me. I told them I would need their refusal to insure me so that if I got pulled over and got a ticket, I would have a defense to the charge. The defense of course being that the insurance industry refused me a insurance based on the fact I didn't have a License. NO Insurance company will put that in writing and they will insure you.

Ifyour interested in more info on this there are many excelent sites on the web about it. I will give you a few good site, the rest you will have to find yourself..


The Lawful Path

Driving a Right?

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in