Were they “vagrants” or job seekers?

Papachristou et al. v. City of Jacksonville

92 S. Ct. 839, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

A presumption that people who walk or loaf or loiter or stroll or who look suspicious to the police are to become future criminals is too precarious for a rule of law.  The implicit presumption in these generalized vagrancy standards is that crime is being nipped in the bud is too extravagant to deserve extended treatment.

Jimmy Lee Smith was arrested, no weapon and no ID on vagrancy Charges by the Jacksonville police department.

The United States Supreme Court Reversed and Remanded the lower courts ruling.

Note: It is not illegal to not have an ID or present an ID to the police.

Vagrancy laws offends the 14th Amendment, Statues permit law enforcement and courts to abuse discretion.

Vagancy laws

1.Prevent crime

2.   Permit temporary preventive detention

3.   Arrests are on suspicion.

4.   Do not have probable cause, not to justify arrest under 14th Amendment and 4th Amendment.

5.   Vagrancy laws offends the 14th Amendment, Statues permit law enforcement and courts to abuse discretion.

Source:

Criminal Law, Second Edition, Joel Samaha, University of Minnesota, West Publishing,  1987

Selected First Amendment Law Case Citations

cfapa.org by James Wesley Rawles

The following list of case citations is not comprehensive.

Note: Be sure to check on “catch all” wiretapping laws and video surveillance laws in your own state, which might restrict recording voices–even in public–without consent that is given in advance.

Update, May, 2014:  First Circuit Appeals Court Upholds First Amendment Right to Film Police

American Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583 – Court of Appeals (7th Circuit 2012)

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984)

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991)

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)

First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978)

Food Lion Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)

Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436 – Court of Appeals (9th Circuit 1995)

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)

Grant v. Torstar Corp. (Canada)

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978)

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980)

JB Pictures Inc. v. Department of Defense, 86 F.3d 236 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998)

Jane Monell et al., Petitioners, v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York et al., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)

The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. (New Hampshire Supreme Court)

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)

Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983)

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (96-511) (1997)

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia
, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. Criminal Grand Jury of Santa Clara County
, 19 Cal. Reporter 3d (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)

Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974)

Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F. 3d 1332 – Court of Appeals (11th Circuit 2000)

Stack v. Killian, 96 F.3d 159 (6th Cir., 1996)

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969)

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)

The Baltimore Sun Company v. Ehrlich, No. 05-1297, 2006 WL 335900 (4th Cir., Feb. 15, 2006)

United States v. Grace, 103 S.Ct. 1702 (1983)

We The People, in the Internet Age, Are The Free Press!

Home

link468-60

Keeping Lawmen at Fishbowl Distance

 

In recent years, some members of American law enforcement have developed a knack for talking motorists into vehicle searches that would otherwise not be justifiable under the Plain View, Probable Cause, or Reasonable Suspicion doctrines. Their goal is often to smell your breath or to go on a “fishing expedition” looking for illicit drugs, in order to seize assets. My advice is to NOT talk with law enforcement officers, and NEVER consent to any searches. To simplify this, I prepared the following lines for you to print out in large bold type, on an 8-1/2″x11″ sheet of paper, that you should carry in your car:

I am exercising my right to remain silent. (See: Miranda v. Arizona)

Do not attempt to question me. I will not respond. (See: 5th Amendment)

I will show you my driver’s license and proof of insurance, upon demand.

However, I do not consent to any searches whatsoever. (See: 4th Amendment and Fruit of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine, in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.)

Do not detain or delay me when you lack Plain View, Probable Cause, or Reasonable Suspicion grounds. Let me know when I am free to go.

If you are pulled over for the ubiquitous “routine traffic stop” or roll into an INS inland checkpoint (now often up to 80 miles from the border), leave your windows up and simply hold this page up to your car window for the officer to read, and then do not say a word. If they ask you for your driver’s license and proof of insurance, then go ahead and provide them. (Just crack your window slightly to hand them out, if they are not willing to read them through the glass.)

If they issue you a traffic ticket, then sign it, and be on your way.

Again, there is no need for you to ever speak a word. If they persist in quizzing you, just keep pointing to the sheet of paper. If they lack Plain View, Probable Cause, or Reasonable Suspicion grounds for a search and if you do not consent, then any evidence that they might find in a subsequent unconstitutional search will not be admissible in court (under the Fruit of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine.)

Odds are, they will soon realize that these aren’t the droids they’re looking for, and say “You’re free to go.”
Addendum (on 29 January): One notable exception to the foregoing guidance is that if you are the holder of a CCW permit, some states require you to inform a law enforcement officer that you are carrying a gun immediately after you come into contact with them. And in many states CCW permit holders also give implied consent to be personally searched or have their vehicles searched, just because you have a permit. – JWR

Continue reading “Keeping Lawmen at Fishbowl Distance”

Constitutional Rights

As a newly Credentialed Reporter and Photographer, my intent is to shed light on the corrupt rulings by the Courts, Law enforcement and Congress.  Which clearly violate the intent and meaning of our founding fathers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution is meant to ensure our liberty, free from being molested by government intrusion, not for the Courts or Congress to restrict or impede our liberties.  All articles are not to be taken as legal advice, use at your own risk.  Conduct your own due diligence to verify articles are accurate and current.

post