Thread: Flag/Banner Waving Americans Attacked On Freeway Overpass

Unfortunately, many people get fooled by some version of this commonly used police officer's line: Everything will be easier if you cooperate. That might be true sometimes, but when it comes to consenting to searches and answering incriminating questions, it couldn't be further from the truth.

The sad fact is that most people believe that they are under some kind of obligation to acquiesce when an officer contacts them and asks permission to search them or their belongings.

The truth is the exact opposite -- you have a right to associate with, and speak to, whomever you please. In this respect, there is nothing special about a police officer. Assuming you would not let a complete stranger look through your purse or search your pockets, why would you allow a police officer to do so -- especially if you’re doing nothing illegal? Just say "NO" to police searches!

History of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today, the Fourth Amendment has lost its preferred status among our cherished Bill of Rights Protections. In recent decades, growing concerns regarding crime and public safety in America have forced our Courts to balance the privacy rights contained in the Constitution with the ever-expanding needs of law-enforcement officers whose duty it is to investigate and arrest dangerous criminals. The Supreme Court's rulings in Fourth Amendment cases demonstrate the challenge involved in reconciling these competing ideals.

Ultimately, the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been trimmed-down in recent years and tailored to suit the needs of modern law enforcement as we wage war against drugs and terrorism. For this reason, it is important for conscientious citizens to be familiar with the lawful parameters of police authority to conduct searches, as well as the legal doctrines by which that authority is limited.

The Fifth Amendment Self-incrimination Clause

"...No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law..."

The right against self-incrimination has ancient roots in common law dating back to biblical times. While most provisions of the Fifth Amendment, such as the right to a jury trial and the right against double jeopardy, impose restrictions upon our courthouses, the right against self-incrimination has a profound effect upon the behavior of law-enforcement officers as they investigate crimes. For this reason, the meaning of the self-incrimination clause has remained one of the most controversial issues in criminal procedure since the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

At this time, it is required by the Supreme Court that police inform all criminal suspects of their right to remain silent prior to interrogation. This right extends from the point of arrest throughout the suspect's involvement in the criminal justice system. While many in the law-enforcement community feel that this restriction unfairly limits the ability of police and prosecutors to obtain convictions, studies have shown that conviction rates have not changed significantly since the Court first required police to inform arrestees of their right against self-incrimination.

The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Clause

"In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a critical component of the Bill of Rights in that it provides the accused with an advocate who is trained in the legal process and can provide a safeguard against violations of the suspect's other Bill of Rights protections. Interestingly, it was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that states must provide a lawyer for all felony suspects, ending disparities in legal representation based on economic class.

Today, all person charged with a serious crime in the United States enjoy the assistance of a defense attorney regardless of economic status. State-employed public defenders represent clients who cannot afford their own attorneys, and contrary to popular belief, achieve roughly equal outcomes for their clients as do the more expensive privately-hired lawyers.

The Relationship Between Self-incrimination and the Right to Counsel

Many Americans, particularly young people, have become cynical about police practices and our legal system. It is not uncommon to lose hope when arrested or even become angry at the officer or the law he is enforcing. It is an important reality however, that our legal system does provide services for the accused. It cannot be overstated how important it is to wait for legal advice before attempting to discuss a criminal charge with police. The subtleties of the legal process require careful decisions about what to say and how to say it. A lawyer will help you prepare for tough questions and can emphasize your positive qualities to the judge, including qualities you didn't know you had.

The constitution includes protections for criminal suspects because the legal system is incredibly complex, involving rules and regulations that everyday people would not understand. If you are charged with a crime, take advantage of the protections the constitution gives you. Don't talk to police about what happened until you have spoken with a lawyer and discussed how to present your side of the story.

I was so mad after I saw the first protest driving home from work that I put a sign in my car's back window. I work in Escondido, Mexifornia and my husband was afraid that someone might vandalize my car. So far, I have had mostly a positive response to my sign which simply says, "illegal means illegal." One Mexican guy in a truck did try to run me off the road while I was on my way to work. I know it was intentional because I could see him getting angry when he was behind me as he read my sign. Hey, I figure, I haven't seen anyone else putting a sticker on their window and I want people to know how I feel. I teach at a school, speak fluent Spanish, have all hispanics in my class with varying degrees of English fluency. I don't care who knows how I feel. I do my job but I am tired of this garbage that is happening right now.

One Mexican guy in a truck did try to run me off the road while I was on my way to work. I know it was intentional because I could see him getting angry when he was behind me as he read my sign.

Which proves that they DO understand the English they pretend they don't understand.

Yes, this was the stupidest thing we have ever done.

This is one of the bravest acts I have ever witnessed and you are a hero, watchdog. This video is an important documentation of the misuse of police power to hassle the legal American while protecting the "rights" of illegals. This police officer was obviously a sympathiser to the illegal alien cause and followed through on searching your car on an allegation. Can any of us get anyone's car searched just by making and allegation that we saw a gun in the car? If so, maybe that law should be used now by YOU, to make allegations concerning anyone you feel may have a weapon in their vehicle, on their person, and video tape what the reaction is.

Don't give up, watchdog. You accomplished something just by exposing the policemen's biased behavior. - Why not try to send this to Lou Dobbs? It seems that exposure is the best first step here. THEN the legal case can't be buried in anonymity. Keep looking for lawyers - surely there are lawyers with intestinal fortitude to match your own. If you can get exposure, there is better chance to get the legal help.

BTW, I wouldn't be so impressed with the hotshot lawyers they supposedly have at LaRaza and etc. This is an IMAGE - it is not neccesarily the truth. I posted a translation of a Spanish news article here, back when Frist was putting forward his own version of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Bill. The article was about the Latino leaders getting together to DEMAND that his bill not go forward. IT SURE LOOKED LIKE THEIR LAWYERS WERE VERY MISINFORMED ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THAT BILL. I think the image of having smart lawyers is greatly over-rated. If you SEARCH for a lawyer diligently, I think you will find one who has the b*lls to look beyond this IMAGE. I will be praying for you to find that lawyer.

Im not completely sure, but by the guy making a false accusation to the police he was not only slandering you but Im sure that since the policeman is an officer of the law he was also commiting perjury. And Im sure if you go to the police dept and make a claim to internal affairs about the way you were treated you might be able to get some information, since Im sure one of the officers had to put some information on that guy in one of the reports.
It's worth a try, I would , cause it would burn my ass to let him get away with what he did...

God Bless America & Our Troops
Semper Fi