Million Dollar Legal Advice

A lot of time LEO's(Law Enforcement Officers) are criticized for the tactics they use in order to apprehend criminals. Sometimes it is legit, and sometimes it isn't.

However, sometimes, we the people are at fault for not knowing what rights we have.

Many of us are aware of the term "ignorance of the law excuses no one," but how can we not be ignorant when there are so many laws on the books?

We really need to get informed about what our true rights are. Are they really being eroded or are we being tricked into self incriminating ourselves?

Either way here is a Million Dollar Legal Advice in case you ever get into trouble with the law. Please read the entire page. I am merely posting a portion of it here. Please feel free to pass this advice along.

IMO, many law enforcement members won't agree with this advice because it looks like the advice is painting cops in a negative way. However, even LEO's have to realize that there are bad apples within their ranks. The average person may not be aware who those bad apples are. Better to be on the safe side.

Million Dollar Legal Advice

by Mark Bennett, Texas Criminal Defense Attorney

The following advice is worth millions of dollars, countless years in prison, and many saved lives.

If everyone followed this advice:

Many fewer people would be charged with crimes. They would, collectively, be saved millions of dollars in attorneys fees (not to mention lower taxes from needing fewer prosecutors and judges). Of those charged with crimes, many fewer would be convicted. They would, collectively, be saved countless years in prison. Of those who avoided prosecution or conviction, many would also avoid the death penalty. Their lives would be saved.

I give you this advice for free:

Don't talk to the police.

Almost everyone in prison is there because they talked to the police. They thought they could explain; they thought they could help themselves.

www.attorneyforfreedom.com...

Furthermore, I am posting some cases from the Supreme Court concerning the 4th Amendment. Once again, I am only posting a few. Visit the LINK to view more cases.

Pro Privacy Decisions

Arizona v. Gant, 07-542 April 21, 2009

[5-4 : Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Scalia (majority) / Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer (minority)] Police arrest a man for driving on a suspended license after he pulls into his own driveway. He is handcuffed and locked into the back of the patrol car and then his car is searched. The officers find a gun and coc aine in the car. The Supreme Court, rejecting the previous "Belton" precedent, ruled that the search was not reasonable because it could not be justified as either related to the traffic offense or related to officer safety.

Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102 June 23, 2003

[6-3 : Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens (majority) / Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist (minority)] After a police officer finds two men having sex together in their home, they are charged with violating Texas's laws against homosexual sex. The Court ruled that the Texas laws were invalid because they violated the Equal Protection Clause by criminalizing conduct among disapproved sub-populations (the same act would have been legal for a heterosexual couple) and most of the majority (exclusing O'Connor) found that there was a 4th Amendment privacy protection for intimate, private, consensual, adult acts.

Minnesota State ONLY: Minnesota State vs Fort, May 1, 2003.

Minnesota Supreme Court rules that "consent searches" during traffic stops are unconstitutional because they violate the requirement that searches be reasonable. Searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity are banned.

Anti Privacy Decisions

ILLINOIS v. CABBALES (03-923) : Jan 24, 2005 (6-2) A man stopped for speeding had his car sniffed by a drug dog while he was being issued a ticket, was not detained for longer than he normally would have to wait for the dog. Dog alerted on the car, the car was searched and cannabis was found in the trunk. The U.S. Court overturned the Illinois Supreme Court and found: "A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY v. EARLS (01-332) : June 27, 2002 (5-4) Supreme Court ruled that any extracurricular activity is cause for drug testing in public schools.

ATWATER v. LAGO VISTA (99-1408) : April 24, 2001 (5-4) A woman was stopped for not wearing her seatbelt while driving with her children. The police officers "pulled Atwater over, verbally berated her, handcuffed her, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where she was made to remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took her 'mug shot' and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on bond." Atwater sued, arguing that this type of treatment as unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Souter, writing for the 5-4 majority said that the police may arrest and mistreat them at any time, so long as they have reasonable suspicion that even the smallest infraction has been committed.

www.erowid.org...


If in wrong forum, please move.

If you get arrested, not only should you assert your 5th amendment right to remain silent, you should also demand to have a lawyer present with you. Once you assert your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney you will be as insulated as the law allows.

Thanks hotpinkurinalmint.

I really hope people follow that advice.

What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?

Courts have recognized numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, including:

* exigent circumstances, or the need to engage in a search or seizure immediately due to an emergency situation where life and/or safety is at risk;

* search incident to a lawful arrest to locate and seize weapons and thereby protect the arresting officer and prevent the destruction of evidence;

* the automobile exception to seize and search an automobile based upon the exigency present due to the mobility of a vehicle before a warrant can be obtained;

* the container exception to search a container in an automobile based upon the same exigency present with the automobile exception, but if the container is not in an automobile, the police may seize (based on exigency due to mobility of container), but may not search, the container;

* consent when the police have a reasonable assumption that the party granting consent has lawful authority to do so and the consent is voluntary; and

* the plain view/plain feel doctrine, which allows the seizure of evidence when there has been a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, an item is spotted in plain view or is within “plain feel,” and there is probable cause to believe the item is evidence

www.house.leg.state.mn.us...