If you act like a serf..then you're a serf...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lastly, how anyone can look at where we are today and not see that we are on a slide into something different is beyond me. Both technology and society are forcing a change in interaction between people and bureaucracy. It IS happening. Denying it won't stop it. And while we can't stop technology we are going to have to learn how to manage it. We are going to have to force the politicos who supposedly work for us to remember they do and not use such advances for "our own good". Unfortunately too many people today seem to believe they do need managed, micro-managed even, and this has to have both a source and a result.
Click to expand...

Well said. I have been in countries that have a solid police state in force. Were are partly there. ITS nice to say WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Its a nice thought as well, rose colored glasses and all, but its not that way. Our government has become an entity, on its own. It is no longer responsible to it people. The recent court decision about evidence seized from a questionable stop is a perfect example of this. Forced diversity, affirmative action are stepping stones toward a socialists police state. We have not crossed the gate to the police state, but we have pulled the key out to unlock it.
 
ITS nice to say WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Its a nice thought as well, rose colored glasses and all, but its not that way.
Click to expand...

Haha! :D Yes!

"The national debt doesn't matter because...we owe it to ourselves!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"We are the government" is a public-school-taught, propaganda lie.

Voting has no effect on the federal government's future actions. It is a big waste of time and implies that the voter will accept the outcome.

"Voters trust politicians! :)
 
2d Amendment said;
Police DO pay visits at odarkthirty on anonymous tips and take everything the victims have via Asset Forfeiture. Police do drop in for a talk on anonymous tips and people ARE very downtrodden regarding such things.
Click to expand...

This is another big problem I've got with the way things are going here at THR. The police in this country most assuredly do not do those things. While it has been weakened, the Bill of Rights is still in effect. Judges do not sign search warrants based on anonymous tips. The reality of police work is not like any show you've ever seen on TV. The Shield is not a true to life depiction of how police work is done.

Yes, there have been abuses. Men are in those positions and it's inevitable that some of them will not be suited to the job and will make mistakes or even perfom criminal acts. But those people are in the minority and they are dealt with when they are found out.

If you think I'm personally unceoncerned about all this, then you're misreading my intent. I just don't think that preaching to the true believers here on THR
is an effective way to effect change. We need to take action and get involved.

It's also very important to see things as they are. There is enough scare mongering going on out there. We'll win the battle for our freedom with facts...We just make ourselves look like tinfoil hat crazies when we spout off in anger and frustration.

My post was meant to be a call to action. And a wakeup call.

I personally am the republican precinct committee chair for where I live. I despise politics and much of what the republican party makes me sick. But I sure as heck am not going to change it from the outside.

Jeff
 
Judges do not sign search warrants based on anonymous tips.
Click to expand...

Some judges do. And lets not even discuss the no knock thing. The bill of rights is all we need to change things, that is what it is there for, to forbide what is going on now. The government keeps circumventing it. But, WE are the government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
 
Tin Hats and the Republican Party

HMMMMMM...

I'd trust most tin hat wearers before I would trust anyone in the political faction, Democrat or Republican.

Sad to day, I don't think you'll change the party from the inside either. The only thing that will make a difference is scrapping the whole thing and starting over....
 
Quote:
Judges do not sign search warrants based on anonymous tips.


Some judges do.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm referring to. I challenge you to come up with some documentation that a judge signed a warrant based on an anonymous tip. Get on Findlaw or another court site and come up with an verified instance of a judge signing a warrant based soley on an anonymous tip.

"My buddy in the states attorneys office told me" or "I read about it on the internet." don't count.

Jeff
 
Jeff, I never insinuated you don't see a problem. I am simply presenting the alternative view. As for your claim the police "don't do this", take a serious look at Asset Forfeiture. Not how it is supposed to work. not what its supposed intent was. Read the volumes of data available from congrssional testimony and actual police events. It's the most agressive method of controlling the population and it is the club that will be used to enforce each coming power grab. From drugs it is already moving to guns and land use. I absolutely guarantee you it will move to identification enforecement within a few years max.

Locally I personally know of a case where eight people lost everything they owned to Asset Forfeiture. Only two were charged with any crime and having been there through it all I know they were the only ones guilty of any crime and yet they possessed, and lost, only a tiny amount of the total assets siezed. Lives were destroyed for nothing, and that was relatively minor compared to any number of more recent cases. That event was what turned me off of police work and turned me from a budding lefty to a cynical opponent of government in general. It's what sent me digging into the cash-machine of AF.

It happened twenty years ago. It happens more today. If we stop the bellowing it will happen more tomorrow. Sadly, it will probably happen more, regardless, but at least nobody is going to say I didn't try.
 
Jeff, thanks for the kick in the pants. We can always do more, though your words tell me the oligarchs have already won.

That said, I try not to worry too much. Civilization has often prospered under tyrannical regimes.

~G. Fink
 
The relevant section of Vernal45's cite from a government web page.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/945764.P.pdf

Emphasis added.

OPINION
ERVIN, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Lauren Eric Wilhelm appeals the district court's denial
of his motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant.
State police obtained the warrant based only on a vague tip from an
anonymous, unproven informant. We conclude that the warrant was
not supported by probable cause and that the constitutionality of the
search may not be established by the good faith exception set forth
in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Therefore, we reverse
the district court decision and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The facts of this case, as set forth in the appellant's brief and "accept[
ed] and adopt[ed]" by the government, are as follows:
On March 7, 1994, Detective Sandy Proctor of the Iredell
County Sheriff's Office applied for a search warrant to
search the home of the Appellant, Lauren Eric Wilhelm. On
that same day, Proctor had received a telephone call from an
individual who stated that he or she had observed marijuana
in Wilhelm's home. In the affidavit for the warrant, Proctor
stated the following:
On 3-7-94 applicant received information from a
reliable source who is a concerned citizen, a resident
of Iredell County, a mature person with personal
connections with the suspects and has
projected a truthfull [sic] demeanor to this applicant.
Informant stated to applicant the directions to
this residence and the directions have been confirmed
to be true by the applicant through surveillance
on this date. The informant described the
substance he/she believed to be marijuana and the
informants [sic] description is consistent with the
applicants [sic] knowledge of marijuana. Informant
described transactions between residents and
2 patrons that purchase marijuana at this residence
and his/her descriptions of these actions are consistent
with applicants [sic] knowledge of how
marijuana is packaged and sold. Informant has personally
observed residents selling marijuana at this
residence within the last 48 hours. Informant also
observed a quanity [sic] of un-sold marijuana at
this residence within the last 48 hours.
On the basis of this information, the [state] magistrate
approved the application and issued a search warrant permitting
the search of Wilhelm's home and all outbuildings and
vehicles located on the property. The search resulted in the
discovery of the contraband which was the subject of the
indictment in this case.
At a hearing to consider a motion to suppress the evidence
seized pursuant to the search warrant, two significant
additional facts concerning the application for the warrant
were revealed. First, Proctor confirmed that no additional
information other than what appeared in the application was
given to the magistrate. Thus, the warrant was issued solely
on the basis of the material contained in Proctor's affidavit.
Second, Proctor admitted that the informant was a person
that she did not know and had never met prior to the telephone
call, and that she did not meet with the individual
after the call.
Click to expand...
 
You beat me to it Taipei. ;) Here is the other one.

http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-1456.htm

Standing alone, the evidence in the present case that Carter's electrical consumption was "very consistent with growing marijuana" does little more than say that growing marijuana is one possible explanation for the unusual consumption disclosed by the MEA records. Nothing in the MEA records or in Byvan Bogue's testimony interpreting those records rules out any of the multitude of other conceivable explanations for the same pattern of use or demonstrates that growing marijuana was a more likely explanation than others. Nor can the four anonymous tips in this case be deemed to shift the balance toward probable cause. As we have already observed, these tips, whether viewed collectively or individually, advanced no "extrinsic objective facts indicative of criminal activity," White, 720 P.2d at 875. If an anonymous and conclusory allegation of drug-related activity were sufficient to elevate evidence of unusual electrical consumption from the level of mere suspicion to that of probable cause, then the probable cause requirement might well be reduced to little more than a hollow exercise in self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, a meter reader who happened to notice high or unusual electrical consumption at a residence would be free to create probable cause by making an anonymous report that the homeowner was operating a "marijuana grow."10 Police following up on the tip would discover the high use or unusual consumption and have probable cause. Worse yet, virtually any would-be mischief-maker who knew of a homeowner pursuing a perfectly legitimate activity that consumed unusual amounts of electricity would have an open invitation to instigate a police search by calling in the same type of tip. We are fully cognizant that a magistrate's decision to issue a search warrant may be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Lewis, 862 P.2d at 185 (citing State v. Bianchi, 761 P.2d 127, 129-30 (Alaska App. 1988)). We are also aware that the magistrate's findings are entitled to great deference, and must be upheld in doubtful or marginal cases. Lewis, 862 P.2d at 185 (citing Metler v. State, 581 P.2d 669, 673 (Alaska 1978) and Kvasnikoff v. State, 804 P.2d 1302, 1306 (Alaska App. 1991)). In the present case, however, the record is not marginal and establishes clear error in the probable cause finding. We hold that the superior court erred in denying Carter's motion to suppress. Carter's conviction must therefore be REVERSED.
 
Vernal45,

In Carter vs. State (your first link) the warrant was not issued based soley on an anonymous tip. There was a second affidiavit filed on the electrical company records of use of electricity in the Carter home:

Santora's second affidavit summarized MEA records of electrical consumption at Carter's Cheri Lake Road residence. The records themselves were introduced at the October 6, 1993, search warrant hearing. Those records indicated that Julie Carter first occupied the residence in August of 1992, when the utility account was placed in her name. Due to nonpayment of bills by the Carters, the utility account was relisted to the name of the Carters' landlord on February 1, 1993. A service order dated March 1 restored the account to Julie Carter's name; a handwritten remark on the service order indicated that "Julie paid her bill of $2,192.86 on March 23, 1993[.]" In order to supplement and interpret the MEA records described in Santora's second affidavit, the state called MEA employee Byvan Bogue to testify at the October 6 search warrant hearing. Bogue testified that he found nothing remarkable in the Carters' electrical consumption from shortly after the beginning of Julie Carter's listing on the account in August 1992 through February 1993.4 But beginning in March 1993, Bogue thought he detected "the first clues that something else is . . . happening." What Bogue detected was that, in the March, April, and May billings,5 the Carters' electrical consumption remained relatively constant -- approximating their winter consumption -- even though average outdoor temperatures rose significantly. Although June, July, and August consumption decreased significantly, September and October consumption increased sharply -- to winter levels -- even though the fall temperatures remained relatively mild. Bogue interpreted this type of electrical usage pattern to show that "something else other than normal household usage is taking place." In Bogue's view, the pattern was "very consistent with growing marijuana."
Click to expand...

And the Alaska State Supreme Court rightfully reversed the Superior Courts ruling that the warrant was valid and legally issued based on probable cause not having been established.

We are fully cognizant that a magistrate's decision to issue a search warrant may be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Lewis, 862 P.2d at 185 (citing State v. Bianchi, 761 P.2d 127, 129-30 (Alaska App. 1988)). We are also aware that the magistrate's findings are entitled to great deference, and must be upheld in doubtful or marginal cases. Lewis, 862 P.2d at 185 (citing Metler v. State, 581 P.2d 669, 673 (Alaska 1978) and Kvasnikoff v. State, 804 P.2d 1302, 1306 (Alaska App. 1991)). In the present case, however, the record is not marginal and establishes clear error in the probable cause finding. We hold that the superior court erred in denying Carter's motion to suppress. Carter's conviction must therefore be REVERSED.
Click to expand...

It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The Carters conviction was reversed. This happened in 1993 and now the standards of what kind of anonymous tip can be used as probable cause has been established. Do you think there we any more warrants issued based on anonymous tips in Alaska after that decision?

The information at your second link also is a case that was rightfully overturned. It dates back to 1994 and references an Illinois Supreme Court decision (among others) that established standards for the reliabilty of information when it's used for the purposes of granting permission for a lawful intrusion onto someone's property to seize evidence of a crime.

I think your link proves my point. Every time warrants are issued based on anonymous tips, the evidence is suppressed. So tell me, how many warrants based soley on anonymous tips do you think have been issued since these decisions?

2nd Amendment,
Someday we will get the US Supreme Court to relook asset forfieture and hopefully it will get a well deserved burial in the scap heap of illegal laws. The system is rife with abuse and instead of taking the property of drug kingpins and other master criminals, it's mostly used to mess with little fish who can't afford to fight it or sign away their property to avoid prosecution.

Maybe I'm just trying to look at the glass as half full, but we can change the direction we're going. But to do that we have to be involved in the process. Dick Durbin, one of our greatest enemies in the US Senate was a nobody 12 years ago. A Springfield Illinois lawyer involved in the local democratic party jumped in and ran for Congress when redistricting opened up a normally republican district. He won two terms, not because he was the best candidate, but because the republicans weren't able to mount a good candidate to run against him. He barely held onto his seat for his second term in 1994 against a candidate they were able to paint as a John Birch Society member. He stepped into Paul Simon's shoes when he retired from politics and now he's one of the most powerful men on Capitol Hill. He got involved and now he steers the country the way he wants it to go. All it takes is for good people to get involved and we can change things.

Jeff
 
Okay, Jeff, maybe I'm missing something here. You stated, "Judges do not sign search warrants based on anonymous tips." Vernal45 proved you wrong. Not only did a judge issue a warrant based solely on an anonymous tip, a conviction was gained on that warrant. The fact that the conviction was later overturned has no affect on the fact that the judge issued a warrant based solely on an anonymous tip.

As to whether or not the practice continues, the only way he could prove it, as you will only accept government sources, is to find another successful appeal, which you now state does not prove the point.

Am I missing anything?
 
Not to mention, conviction reversed. Can the guy have his life reversed? Compensated for the time and trouble. Yea, the system worked, for everyone but the citizen.
 
Yes you miss my entire point. First off as I stated in my last post, neither warrant was issued soley based on an anonymous tip Both warrants had other factors that went into the issuing judges ruling that probably cause existed. Yet both were ruled invalid in the higher courts and the evidence was suppressed.

You might also note that both of those cases are more then 10 years old. Do you think that police officers, prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys don't pay any attention to those previous rulings? The criminal justice system costs enough money as it is. No one has the time and resources, even if they had the inclination, to pursue cases based on methods that had been previously ruled to be unconstitutional.

There are sufficient precedents to just about ensure that no one wither applies for a warrant based on an anonymous tip alone and no judge or magistrate signs one. The system worked.

Search and seizure law changes almost daily. Every agency I know of subscribes to at least one service that publishes synopsis of relevant cases so that we can stay up on how the courts are ruling. This kind of care is hardly the sign of a police state.

I said I'd only accept court documents as proof because you can't trust the news media to get the date on the top of the page right, why should we trust them when it comes to facts.

Vernal45 said;

Not to mention, conviction reversed. Can the guy have his life reversed? Compensated for the time and trouble. Yea, the system worked, for everyone but the citizen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the state should have done something to make Carter whole?

The troopers executed the search warrant the next day. At Carter's house, they found and seized 248 marijuana plants (199 starter plants and 49 more mature plants), growing equipment, lights, scales, and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia
Click to expand...

Perhaps giving him back his contraband and maybe a nice fat check for the lost income because he couldn't have grown his usual crop while his equipment was in the evidence room? :what:

The thing is, there are legal options one can use to make the government pay. Civil suits are filed all the time. They are also won all the time. Of course to win punitive damages they'd probably have to prove that the government acted knowing that it was improper. It didn't. Now if it was today, after all those precedents you might have a case.

Jeff
 
The enemy, the political class is working pretty hard to take our voice from us.
Click to expand...

The enemy, or anyone else for that matter, cannot take your voice. You must surrender it in order to lose it. And every time you make an excuse for not voting, or don't get involved because some other people will take care of things, you surrender a part of your voice.

I wish people would stop blaming everyone and everything else for their loss of liberty. Everytime your government does something wrong, and you sit and wring your hands, you enable them to take the next step. Before you whine in this forum, write your congressman.

Had a primary election in Pa. today. Last November we had 700 of 850 registered voters turn out. Today we had 56! THIS is why the political class runs amok!

Good thread Jeff.
 
Cropcirclewalker makes an excellent point. I've seen the "well, you've never been in "x" situation so you cant comment how bad this situation is" argument used many times here and elsewhere and it has always gotten on my nerves. It's completely invalid.
 
Jeff said:
First off as I stated in my last post, neither warrant was issued soley based on an anonymous tip
Click to expand...

Please read, once again, the bolded portion of the opinion from US v. WILHELM:
OPINION
ERVIN, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Lauren Eric Wilhelm appeals the district court's denial
of his motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant.
State police obtained the warrant based only on a vague tip from an
anonymous, unproven informant. We conclude that the warrant was
not supported by probable cause and that the constitutionality of the
search may not be established by the good faith exception set forth
in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Therefore, we reverse
the district court decision and remand for further proceedings.
Click to expand...

Is it your contention that Judge Ervin lied in his opinion?
 
You might also note that both of those cases are more then 10 years old. Do you think that police officers, prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys don't pay any attention to those previous rulings? The criminal justice system costs enough money as it is. No one has the time and resources, even if they had the inclination, to pursue cases based on methods that had been previously ruled to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Of course they pay attention. But what they pay attention to is the fact that the people who use these methods so rarely get caught. The ones we hear about are the ones who have the money to hire a good lawyer to appeal. How about all of the folks who cop a plea just to get the government to go away?

And why, you ask, would police officers and prosecutors engage in these practices? Because the payoff is large compared to the risk of being caught. The police officer gets a bad guy off the street, enhances his or her arrest record, and makes captain. The prosecutor looks tough on crime, enhances his or her conviction rate, and get re-elected. We have created a Machiavellian criminal justice system in which the loser is the American people. Sure, the folks who were illegally convicted were guilty anyway, of something even if it wasn't what they were arrested for. But, look at the cost to society; corruption, cynicism, and distrust of the judicial system.

We recently had a case here in NC where a person, Alan Gell, was released from death row after 8 years. He had been convicted by two prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, evidence that eventually cleared him. These prosecutors knew at the time of his conviction that he was innocent and were willing to kill him to enhance their careers. But, hey, the system worked, right?

Not exactly. There were no charges brought against the prosecutors. They were not held accountable for their actions.
 
Getting off topic with the court briefs and what not. Maybe you guys should prove each other wrong via pm at this point.

I think Jeff's ORIGINAL point as it relates to us here at THR, is that there are many among us who are content letting the most vocal of us carry on the fight for our gun rights (This is mostly a GUN board, right? :neener: ) If everybody (ok not everybody - I know there are many here who run at full throttle 100% of the time) could step up their activism a notch or two, stupid legislation like AWB's and (not so) smart gun bills wouldn't stand a chance of being passed.
 
Had a primary election in Pa. today. Last November we had 700 of 850 registered voters turn out. Today we had 56! THIS is why the political class runs amok! - MikeIsaj
Click to expand...

Cause or effect? Maybe many felt powerless to make a difference. Even we, supposedly astute politically, hardly know where to start when confronted with a monolithic sense of government. We bite ankles or try to flank the opposition instead of confront the real issues directly. It is a never ending game instead of a confrontation. Tuning out and enjoying a relatively pleasant and prosperous, blissninny life is very common. It is easy to become complacent, because the issues are typically of the creeping variety.

One has to be aware of history and have some ability to project how precedents will affect the future. Some have that ability and some don't. Some will carry the message and some will be the listeners. Contempt for each other's ignorance is not constructive. One must be persuasive, and starting out by being disrespectful is not very persuasive.

If we are so smart, I think we need to recognize that we should share our ideas with others in a convincing manner. It will be a wasted effort if trying to beat people over the head with our ideas or convince them at gun point. Yet it goes without saying that some don't want to hear it and are not about to be persuaded. The door is closed. Political bigotry is a hard nut to crack. It is also difficult to persuade some people to disrupt their status quo, risk the unknown. They are also disinclined to be convinced that their ideas are wrong. One trick of persuasion is to allow a person to embrace an idea as one of their own. 'Something to consider.
 
Getting off topic with the court briefs and what not. Maybe you guys should prove each other wrong via pm at this point.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Jeff's original point was that the talk of living in a police state was overblown and that we should work within the system to effect change. While I agree that we are not yet a police state, I believe it's important to point out that the judicial system, while not broken, is severely bent and that folks are playing footloose and fancy-free with the Constitution which, if allowed to continue, will most certainly lead to said police state. The dialogue to this point has been in direct support of this contention. Disagreement does not equal off-topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
40% Voted
Replies
23
Views
782
noresttill
N
S
  • Locked
Maryland - New website dedicated to CCW Reform
Replies
21
Views
746
P95Carry
P
J
  • Locked
The Election is over! November 4th Happened! Get Over it!!
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Beren
Beren
X
  • Locked
Is it just me . . .
Replies
5
Views
536
illspirit
I
H
  • Locked
If you're in the MD area, you need to be in Annapolis tonight!
Replies
4
Views
587
Helmetcase
H
Back
Top