Non-music discussion. Discuss things that are on your mind or things that don't have anything to do with music. Lets try to keep it clean people, there are little children present.
A former ACLU staffer has produced a great, 40-minute video on understanding your rights when you get pulled over by a cop. In this "flex your rights" video which uses dramatizations with actors to illustrate how you can protect yourself using 4th, 5th, and 6th ammendment rights during commonplace encounters with police.
The film is pretty cheezy, but the info in it is great. The info conveyed in the film is extremely useful to avoid nasty searches, seizures, and mishaps which could land a well-meaning person in jail or just ruin their day.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
Rant: Some Advice from Your Criminal Defense Attorney
1. When a cop says to you, "anything you say can and will be used against you", that's your cue to shut the f**k up.
Whatever you do, don't say something stupid like:
"I only had two beers". In Arizona, DUI is impaired to the SLIGHTEST degree. Two brews will impair a 280 pound linebacker to the slighest degree, and will probably do the same to you.
"Why don't you arrest the real drunk drivers?" Seriously, wtf?
"I shot Larry in the head four times because he said my myspace page was 'gay'. The gun is under the driver's seat of my car, and I dumped his body in a wash five miles west of milepost 268 off the I-10." In most criminal cases, the strongest piece of evidence against a defendant is his confession. Remember, without your confession, often the prosecution has no case.
2. Don't give the cops permission to search your car!
If Officer Friendly is asking you if he can search your car, that means he has no right to search your car unless you give him permission; otherwise, he wouldn't be asking you for permission. Officer Friendly is not your friend. If your sack/glock/bloody glove is in the car (1) he will find it, (2) he will arrest you, and (3) you will call me and I will tell you that you should have Just Said No.
3. I am an excellent attorney, and my boss is a friggen genious, but there is often very little we can do to help you by the time we receive your case, as far as winning a "not guilty" verdict goes.
Just to clear things up, the following are NOT defenses to criminal
charges:
"I thought the cop was a prostitute."
"That crank was bunk, anyway."
"I just put my junk a little bit of the way in."
"I just dropped my truck off in the desert for 15 minutes. By the time I came back, someone must have accidently loaded 250 kilos in it."
"I didn't know that Kara_AZ_13 was really Dectective Uhall of the Tucson Police Department.
"But it was my first time."
The following are probably not defenses to crimes, but MAY be defenses:
"The b*tch ain't even dead." If my file contains an autopsy report, I think the professional rules of conduct bar me from advancing The b*tch Ain't Dead defense.
"I take back what I said to Officer Friendly." Did the cop hold a gun to your head to make you talk? No. Did he forget to read you Miranda? No. Did you waive Miranda and talk to the cop? Yes. Then no take backs, sorry!!!
"I thought it was a regular brownie."
"It was just a butter knife."
"I can't believe it's not butter."
And now for the strong defenses:
"The cop had no reason to pull me over."
"I was asleep, and I've never sleep-walked before."
"The other guy was pointing a gun at me."
"I'm not Juan Rodriguez."
4. Thanks to a conservative Supreme Court and 25 years of tough on crime legislation (seriously, when have you heard of politician win on a 'soft on crime' platform?), the courts are no friends of criminal defendants. By the time you hire me as a lawyer the cards are stacked against you. Remember, 95 percent of the cases where the accused is charged with a crime will result in a criminal conviction.
My advice:
Don't commit crime!
If you choose to break the law, don't tell the cop about it, and don't let him search your car, okay?
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
Here's one where the motorist wasn't pulled over....
A motorist was unknowingly caught in an automated speed trap that measured his speed using radar and photographed his car. He later received in the mail a ticket for $40 and a photo of his car. Instead of payment, he sent the police department a photograph of $40. Several days later, he received a letter from the police that contained another picture... of handcuffs. The motorist promptly sent the money for the fine.
A former ACLU staffer has produced a great, 40-minute video on understanding your rights when you get pulled over by a cop. In this "flex your rights" video which uses dramatizations with actors to illustrate how you can protect yourself using 4th, 5th, and 6th ammendment rights during commonplace encounters with police.
The film is pretty cheezy, but the info in it is great. The info conveyed in the film is extremely useful to avoid nasty searches, seizures, and mishaps which could land a well-meaning person in jail or just ruin their day.
I believe the Supreme Court ruled that since a car/boat/plane is a movable object, it could be searched without a warrant –only probable cause was needed.
"Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer's proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me, & I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray." -Mark Twain
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Ayn Rand
". . .and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."
The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
A warrant is not necessary for a search or seizure under certain circumstances. Officers may search and seize objects that are in "plain view." Before the search and seizure, however, the officers must have probable cause to believe that the objects are contraband.
Similarly, "open fields"—pastures, open water, woods and other such areas—may be searched without warrant, on the basis that the individuals conducting activities therein had no reasonable expectations of privacy.
There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement-for instance, if an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may destroy evidence, he might be permitted to seize the evidence without a warrant.
The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.
Under common law, a police officer could arrest an individual (arrests constitute seizures, at least for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment) if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer's presence, or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. The Supreme Court has applied the common law rule in American jurisprudence. The officer in question must have had probable cause before making the arrest; evidence discovered after the arrest may not be retroactively used to justify the arrest.
The person must also be under arrest to allow a search to be relevant. A person merely detained, such as someone pulled over for a traffic stop, is not "under arrest"; once the traffic ticket is written there is no right to search without permission as no further search will provide any additional evidence regarding the stop could possibly be uncovered. A search without permission after a speeding ticket was written that discovered marijuana was determined to be unlawful under these conditions. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 US 113 (1998)
Another common law rule—that permitting searches incident to an arrest without warrant—has been applied in American law. The justification for such a search is that the arrested individual must be prevented from destroying evidence or using a weapon against the arresting officer. In Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948), the Supreme Court held that "a search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest." In United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), the Court reversed its previous ruling, holding that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest. The decision suggested that any area within the "immediate control" of the arrestee could be searched, but it did not define the term. In deciding Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions. It held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence. Similarly, it was held that it is reasonable for the officer to search the area within the arrestee's immediate control, that is, the area from which the defendant may gain access to a weapon or evidence. A search of the room in which the arrest is made is therefore permissible, but the same is not true of a search of other rooms, as the arrestee would not probably be able to access weapons or evidence in those rooms at the time of arrest.
"Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer's proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me, & I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray." -Mark Twain
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Ayn Rand
". . .and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."
look you can be a d*ck to cops cuz they tried to do it to me a month ago with a search of my car and i said no cuz it was my right and he had no cause to seach my car so he let me go!
No, you shouldn't be a d*ck to anybody - especially the Police, because doing so will give them a reason to FIND some probable cause - 'He was weaving, He appeared to be intoxicated, agitated,' etc.
A decent 'Yes sir, No sir,' approach is going to get you farther with the Police - and in life in general.
"Yesterday Mr. Hall wrote that the printer's proof-reader was improving my punctuation for me, & I telegraphed orders to have him shot without giving him time to pray." -Mark Twain
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
Ayn Rand
". . .and the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."
That does not apply to simple traffic violations, but for anything more serious than that it does. Don't be rude, but you don't have to be all that cooperative either.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
