Jul 23, 2015 Posted by AGA Editor

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide) Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you’re like most people I’ve met , then you probably don’t. It’s a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us. It wouldn’t even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation’s Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, and corruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis. Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let’s take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying “no” to police searches, and here are some reasons why: 1. It’s your constitutional right. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property. You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren’t crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don’t be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars. 2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court. It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if... read more

Jul 11, 2015 Posted by AGA Editor

Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” – Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the... read more

Jun 11, 2015 Posted by AGA Editor

Police Shut Down Girls’ Lemonade Stand

Andria, left, and her sister, Zoey, stand by the lemonade stand that was shut down by police on Monday for not having a permit. Yes, you hear correctly. Sisters who set up a lemonade stand to fund a Father’s Day gift on Monday were shut down by the police due to a lack of permit. They set up the lemonade stand to raise the $105 they needed for tickets to the Texas waterpark Splash Kingdom. They were selling lemonade for 50 cents and kettle corn for one dollar on their street in the town of Overton, but about an hour after opening, police showed up and told the girls they needed a permit to sell the lemonade. Police agreed to waive the fee of the permit, which normally would cost $150. “The officer told them they had to go to city hall to get a permit. We all now a permit it just another way of saying permission. According to a Texas law, the sale of food that requires temperature control to prevent spoiling is illegal without a permit. Their mother wrote that she was feeling defeated. “The police department was very nice to us and provided us with the correct paperwork to get a ‘lemonade selling permit,’” she says. “This is unreal! It’s just lemonade! I almost feel slapped in the face as a return for the effort my family puts into our community!” Instead of pursuing the permit, the girls will set up a new stand this Saturday. Free lemonade, donations welcome. Good for you girls! Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Apr 21, 2015 Posted by AGA Editor

Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop

In a 6-3 decision issued today in the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Nebraska police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle. According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” While “an officer…may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” Ginsburg held, “a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.” At issue was a 2012 traffic stop conducted by a Nebraska police officer who happened to have his K-9 dog in the cruiser with him. When the stopped driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused to consent to letting the drug dog walk around the outside of his vehicle, the Nebraska officer called for back-up, thereby prolonging the stop by an additional eight minutes. According to the Court’s ruling today, those extra minutes violated Rodriguez’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. During the January 2015 oral argument in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor previewed the Court’s skepticism towards the police officer’s approach. “We can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor declared. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.” The Supreme Court’s opinion in Rodriguez v. United States is available here. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Apr 15, 2015 Posted by AGA Editor

Police Encounters: What You Need To Know

What makes police officers and the government powerless? When the American people know and use their rights! You have rights during a traffic stop or any police encounter. Learn what your rights are and use them before you loose them! During a traffic stop these cops are trying to question a teenager. His mother is objecting to the questioning. You are not required to answer any questions the police ask you. In fact, you should never answer their questions. This lady may have said too much but she knows her rights. THIS is what happens when people talk to much to cops with the IQ of a rotten head of lettuce. And she is right, Hell would play host to the Winter Olympics before I left ANYONE I cared about alone outside the car for them to potentially assault or kill. Just NOT going to happen. Furthermore, if the parent or legal guardian does NOT consent to the questioning of a minor without assistance of counsel, the cops MUST cease and desist all questioning of that minor, especially when the minor is not suspected of committing any crime. @ 0:05 – She is correct, they CANNOT detain a passenger if there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the passenger committed some offense, which is the ONLY way they could be considered “part of the stop.” That constitutes false imprisonment. @ 2:25 – The officer is totally incorrect on both points of the traffic stop NOT being an arrest, because it IS, AND that an individual is not required to identify themselves UNLESS they have already been lawfully arrested for some OTHER alleged offense. @ 3:18 – The public servant figuratively shoots himself directly in his ill-informed mouth by stating that he was (UNLAWFULLY) detaining the son because of the actions of the mother in telling him to not talk to the cop, and compounds his problems by claiming that she is “concealing” the minor’s identity. Again, he is not required to identify himself. @ 3:35 – BOTH officers screw themselves by claiming that they can detain him and that he MUST divulge his identity “for their safety.” NOTE TO COPS: If you are such a coward that your “safety” depends upon the name of a minor child that has committed no crime, nor that you have even the remotest suspicion of having committed a crime, then you are a REALLY pathetic human being. @ 4:30 – The... read more