NH liberty activists face warrantless search attempt

[bfieldscg63]

I just want to point out, that if you're stopped and happen to be recoding,then you do not need to inform the police that you're recording the conversation. Dashboard cameras are federally mandated for all police cruisers, and since they're already recording, the police don't have an 'expectation of privacy'.

[Stink808]

file a complaint

[SexySex50]

I lived in Marlow for a bit earlier this year. Avery is a jerk on a straight power trip. He likes to think he can do whatever he wants to do.

[BRAINSTORM555]

dont you do vids ???

[RidleyReport]

The officer said they were stopped for a "fogged back window," according to the call, not speeding.

[ANGLEBOOT]

@ 1:23 of the video, Dale says the cop told them to "get out of the car, he said it was for speeding."

[ed2276]

Ten seconds later he also says the cop had someone else stopped at the side of the road when he passed by and didn't have a radar gun pointed at his car. Since the cop was not in his moving cruiser there is no way the cop could have paced him either. And at 2:24 he says the cop gave two reasons for pulling him over...speeding and a fogged window.

Quite being an apologist, and a selective one at that, for the cop.

[ANGLEBOOT]

I take it you don't know how some radars work. some you don't have to point and aim. Some can tell how fast you are going coming,going crossing and standing still.

But he does keep changing his story as he goes.

[ed2276]

Yep, he does keep changing the story, or at least this is what the driver says happened. We don't have any audio/video to confirm his side of the story. In any case, if the cop already had someone stopped and had that vehicle's speed locked on the display there is no way that the cop could have got the passing motorist's speed on radar. He still could have made a visual estimate of the speed and made a stop on that basis.

[ANGLEBOOT]

As I said you don't know how the radars work. if he had the 1 car stopped for speeding at 5 miles over. then you pass them going 10 miles over it will reset to the next highest speed and set off an alarm. Even the cheap guns at the ball fields do that. That way will can tell if a pitchers fast balls are being thrown faster. Even if it's locked. Here's a wifes tale: "they have to show you the speed inwhich you were going over the limit". Being that, he don't have to lock anyway.

[ed2276]

Ummm, actually you said "...you don't know how SOME radars work..." Some radars will not continue in a tracking mode if they are locked. There are newer radars that can both lock on the speed and continue tracking, as well.

I never said they had to show you the speed, nor did I make the argument that the cop even had to use the radar to make the stop. As I wrote below: "He still could have made a visual estimate of the speed and made a stop on that basis."

[bobwatters]

@ANGLEBOOT we are the government and we are here to help. im sure that is about how u think they guy said he had no radar gun so how did he know they were speeding also he had no right to search the car no matter how mad he was! its called illegal search and seizuer meaning not legal as in a crime as in against the law which standard speeding is not meaning he is more of a criminal than the citizens yet u think of them as worse! so yes u deserve no rights since u would not fight for them!

[AwakenedByTyranny]

So... when are WE going to start issuing warnings to the cops?

[banemaler]

Whenever you are asked to get out of your car, always lock your doors. This should never happen.

[seanredsky]

@banemaler You're giving bad advice and you shouldn't follow your own advice either. If you make contact with law enforcement and probable cause exists to lead them to believe you've committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime, the police have every right to ask you to step out of your vehicle. If you refuse to do so at that point you're guilty of disobeying a police officer and depending on how far you go with it you may also be charged with resisting arrest. Use your head.

[thered702]

@seanredsky if there is no probable cause, he is a PIRATE impersonating a police officer. therefore, once again, no crime no witness no consent= no rule. period. the term "legal" or "illegal" are a farse. "LAW" is what matters. "legal" is a fiction. screw the pirates. lock your doors just say "no". very simle word. "no" and if he forces you out and takes you to jail instead of a magistrate office, he kidnapped you with a deadly weapon.

[seanredsky]

@thered702 My reply to banemaler was precisely due to the fact that he said 'whenever' you are asked to get out of your car, always lock your doors. If you lock your doors after an officer is attempting to lawfully detain and/or arrest you, you're breaking the law yet again.

If you're arrested, generally you'll be transported to the pd and bailed through a bail commissioner if the offense committed is bailable. Violation of a protection order for example is not a bailable offense.

[thered702]

@seanredsky agreed. yet, if you damand it, they have to take you to see a magistrate without delay. if he starts that car and points it at the jail, and does not take you to the magistrate, it is kidnapping or false arrest under color of law. ask the magistrate if he/she is in under oath(they have to produce it) when they deny and leave the court, they effectively abandon it, because you are then the highest athority in the room. your court. just have to stand your ground.

[seanredsky]

@thered702 Precisely where in the NH constitution and/or the RSA's does it state without exception, that every individual who is lawfully taken into custody by law enforcement must be transported to see a magistrate without delay if they so request?

I'd like to see it in black and white print. Please provide the chapter and the section of the NH constitution or the RSA number so I can reference it.

[thered702]

@seanredsky every state is different. in nevada, it's nevada revised statute 171.177 i would advise you to look it up. ill look too. if i get it, ill give it to you.

[eluminated]

The "what's that smell" remark is to establish probable cause so that he can then search your vehicle without your consent.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. There was no smell. It was completely pulled out of his ass and the moment I heard it, I knew he was making up shit to justify a search. The problem with that, it seems to me, is it's like bluffing when you have no cards to back it up, because then if he doesn't find anything, obviously there was no smell to justify the search to begin with (and in fact, there was nothing). I think he just said it to gauge our reaction.

[eluminated]

I think it was really more to satisfy a formality. His recording device was on in his cruiser no doubt and so he has to actually say the words before initiating a search. Therefor he has his "evidence" of probable cause. If he finds nothing then "who cares" but if he finds something the recording will back up his reason for doing the search, and what he finds can be used against you. Until they equip cruisers with smellometers his words are all he needs.

[Buckman82]

Police in nh are very corrupt and brass. they do not care because who is there to watch how they act.

[accityfolk]

he's a freestater?

[fczwartek]

I agree with you guys on this. Police should have to obtain a warrant before searching private property, including cars.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has disagreed with that since 1925. Instead of needing a warrant to legally search your car, police only need "probably cause."

The SC and Circuit Courts have upheld and expanded this exception many times.

I believe the SC will be coming out with a decision on another similar case this year.

Don't expect a pro-liberty result.

[AnarchyInYourHead]

I'm familiar with probable cause and he had none. I'm sorry, but speeding (which even that is vague) and a foggy window on a chilly autumn night are not probable cause to search a car! He said a foggy window can be an indication of drinking. He said that, somehow keeping a straight face, just before he gave the speeding warning and let us go. How can they behave like this and then wonder why people lose respect for them?

[JoelMatton]

Foggy windows can be an indication of drinking? Never heard that one before. Unless you have a huge bucket of steaming hot irish coffee in the car, I'm pretty sure alcohol does not fog up a cars windows.

[fczwartek]

I'm sure cops have a thousand different reasons for executing a probable cause search.

What I understand from your phone call is that he didn't actually search your car, but seemed to be touching on the edge of enabling probable cause for a search. Maybe he wanted to elicit a reaction from you to gauge your demeanor, or nervousness?

I would say 9 out of 10 times (or so) I have been pulled over the police have been respectful, polite, even helpful. But there is always that 1 dink...

[AnarchyInYourHead]

He opened doors without asking and squatted down and felt around the floorboards. This was what elicited the driver to say "I don't consent to a search!" only to be ignored as he continued to do this.

[fczwartek]

Well ok, that does sound like at least a partial search.

I guess it must have been another slow night in Marlow. I didn't even know they had a cop.

[JSenator06]

Agreed, especially where I live, small town Indiana ;)!

[txballoonman]

Another example of why Porcupines should always take video cameras with them.

[LumpyRevolution]

Officer Avery (thug)

Community Contact, Town of Marlow

Jacqui Fay, Executive Administrator

Tel 6034462245 Fax 6034463806

townofmarlow at netryders * com

[LumpyRevolution]

- Radar gun or ANY way to measure speed? ... no, they were driving right by where he had someone else he was attempting extortion on pulled over.

- Search with no consent? NO CONSENT!!!

- Whats that smell? (typical cop lie)

- Telling him not to be a "roadside lawyer"? Who does he think we are or who HE is???

- Foggy window? (Ignoramus, another excuse).

I called and I hope you will too. The toun may want to know what kind of jerk they have in their "employ".

[LumpyRevolution]

"toun"?

sorry.  Bad edit of another typo :p

[intrepgun]

the sad part is that it's "technically" ok for cops to lie. they're encouraged to. it's a way of grasping at the invisible strands of power they're told exist. all you really have to do is picture them wearing a silly outfit [the uniform plays heavily into the role] and remember what it is they can and can't lawfully do to you.

oh, and try to ask the first question. otherwise you'll be stuck on defense the whoooole encounter. "good evening, sir, is there a particular reason you've stopped me?'

[LumpyRevolution]

... and answer all questions with ONLY questions. ONLY questions. It isn't as hard to do if you know you are (we are) the one in the right... and any traffic stop, we ARE in the right. There is no "cause of action" so they truly are going against their oaths, even at that level. I know, I know, that is extreme, but think about how far THEY have come... THEY are the extreme ones.