Know your 4th Amendment Rights

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez aka Lady2Soothe

4th Amendment

Police officers are not held to the same standards as civilians, they operate under policy not law; this is the difference between legal and lawful. A cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them as a condition of employment and must voluntarily agree to enforce unjust laws as well as just laws. Police agree to perpetuate injustice; therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws which are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. The majority of these laws were implemented for one thing and that’s “Revenue”. A cop might have “good intentions”, but these good intentions don’t change the fact they’re a part of an institutionalized system. So always remember ‘nice’ is not synonymous with good; therefore there are no good cops.

Driving is not a right it is a privilege. If you drive a motor vehicle on public roads, you are subject to the regulations imposed by the government concerning those roads. At a traffic stop, you are not allowed to deny giving an officer your ID. You are required to hand it over when asked. Anytime an emergency vehicle stops you, you’re being detained. If police flag you down, pull over immediately, turn off your car, and place your hands on the wheel. If the officer asks for your license, registration and insurance give it to him/her. If you’re ordered to exit the vehicle, do so immediately. But if the officer tries to use your traffic violation as a basis for a further investigation, minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light or expired registration) these ARE NOT CONSIDERED PROBABLE CAUSE.

Most police are able to exploit a major loophole to the probable cause search requirement by tricking you into giving up your constitutional rights. REMAIN SILENT: What you don’t say can’t hurt you but anything you do say can and will be used against you. Don’t announce you know your rights. They consider it a challenge.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
Up until 2010 this used to be definitively true, however you now must SAY THE ACTUAL WORDS OUT LOUD asserting your right to stay silent per the Supreme Court Ruling by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor “Criminal suspects must now ambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak. Suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.” If you need to say anything at all say “I chose to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.”

Police attempt to make you admit to breaking a law “You don’t mind if I have a look in your car?” is the LEGAL LOOPHOLE the officer wants to snare you with; it’ll sound like a command, but it’s only a suggestion. If you decline they’ll say “What do you have to hide?” Don’t fall for this manipulation trick. If necessary, repeat your refusal. By using psychological intimidation techniques and demoralizing scare tactics they’re obligating YOU to prove your innocence. Remember it’s their job to prove you’re guilty; it’s NOT your job to prove you’re innocent.

Silent 2

Most avoidable police searches don’t occur because police have probable cause. They occur because people are hoodwinked and intimidated into consenting to search REQUESTS. The 4th Amendment protects your RIGHT TO REFUSE, but it doesn’t require police to tell you about your right to refuse. Consenting to searches AUTOMATICALLY makes the search legal in the eyes of the law. When you’re pulled over, don’t try to figure out whether or not the officer has probable cause. YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SEARCHES and you can say “Officer, I know you’re just doing your job, but I don’t consent to searches.”

Opening your car door doesn’t mean you consent to a search. An officer’s *belief* a phone may have evidence of a crime is NOT enough to claim probable cause to seize the phone. Police need *Probable Cause* which is a reasonable belief a person has committed or will commit a crime in order for them to confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to said crime. Police must have EVIDENCE of a crime before seizing a person’s cellphone. Law enforcement CANNOT search a cellphone WITHOUT a warrant. Police may demand and threaten, but they DO NOT have the power or authority requiring you to tell them your security code which is considered testimonial and falls under self-incrimination. Also YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SEARCHES. If the officer does not have probable cause to search the vehicle, the search is unconstitutional under the court’s Riley decision.

“STOP AND IDENTIFY” statutes are statutory laws in the US authorizing police to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they REASONABLY suspect has committed a crime. If the person is NOT REASONABLY SUSPECTED of committing a crime, they are NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION, even in states with stop and identify statutes.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT (Amendment IV) to the US CONSTITUTION is the section of the BILL OF RIGHTS PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES and REQUIRES any warrant to be JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED and SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

If you’re not doing anything wrong Police attempt to convince you producing an ID is a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. However, no lawful obligation exists for a citizen to even own an identification card, therefore there is no lawful obligation for anyone to carry an identification card; Since there is no lawful obligation to have one, there can also be no penalty for refusing to produce one. Read the “Stop and ID” codes, they are NOT “laws”, they are “codes/statues” and those codes/statues do not place any lawful obligation upon anyone owning or carrying an identification card. These codes/statues only establish that a cop can ASK, NO OBLIGATION on the person to produce.

Unless you’re detained or arrested, you may terminate the encounter anytime. But don’t wait for the officer to dismiss you. Ask “Am I free to go.” If the officer threatens to call in a K-9 unit, ask “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”

Not only can this line can help withdraw you from an encounter, it also deflects any of the officer’s probing questions or threats. If the officer says; “If you cooperate with me, everything will go easy for you.” Respond by stating “I don’t consent to any searches” or “Am I free to go?” If you’re let go, leave immediately. If the officer’s answer is unclear, or if you’re asked additional questions, repeat “Officer am I free to go?”

If you are not free to go, you are officially detained as they might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested. In such a situation upon questioning say “I chose to remain silent. I would like to see an attorney.” NEVER rely on the police to inform you of your right to remain silent and/or secure a lawyer. Upon further questioning if necessary, but say nothing else. REMEMBER ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

Miranda Warning

CONSENSUAL
Police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may SUSPECT INVOLVEMENT in a crime, but lack “SPECIFIC AND ARTICULABLE FACTS”.

REASONABLE SUSPICION
Police may BRIEFLY detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime or reasonably suspect may be armed and dangerous.

ARREST
A detention requires only that police have REASONABLE SUSPICION a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer MUST HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the person has committed a crime.

Silent

TERRY STOP
A brief detention of a person by police on REASONABLE suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but SHORT OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST. A person detained can be questioned but is “NOT OBLIGED” to answer, REFUSAL TO ANSWER FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR AN ARREST.

The Supreme Court of the United States states police may briefly detain a person they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held police may do a LIMITED search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons IF they have a REASONABLE and ARTICULABLE (legal standard) SUSPICION the person detained MAY be “ARMED AND DANGEROUS”.

To have reasonable suspicion to justify a stop, POLICE MUST BE ABLE TO POINT TO “specific and articulable facts” indicating a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

The search of suspect’s outer garments, also known as a pat-down, must be LIMITED to what is necessary to discover weapons; however, pursuant to the “PLAIN VIEW” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but ONLY if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.

TRAFFIC STOPS
A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry Stop; for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held drivers and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Drivers and passengers may be searched for weapons upon REASONABLE SUSPICION they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous or the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment without a warrant, probable cause, or the driver’s consent. Police may not search the vehicle unless under the “PLAIN VIEW” doctrine to seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband visible from outside the vehicle.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PREVENT POLICE FROM EXTENDING AN OTHERWISE *COMPLETED* TRAFFIC STOP TO ALLOW FOR A DRUG-SNIFFING DOG TO ARRIVE.
The Supreme Court ruled April 21, 2015 the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared Fourth Amendment Constitutional Protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive. “The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” Ginsburg ruled. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are, or reasonably should have been completed.” The court also noted an officer who “completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously” doesn’t earn extra time to pursue an “unrelated criminal investigation.” The decision applies the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” and covers all the police–local, state and federal.

Absent probable cause, the officer cannot legally detain you for any longer than it takes to address the purpose of the traffic stop. He might question you about why you were pulled you over, or inquire about your destination. You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to invoke it, let the officer know. If you don’t know why you’re being detained, you have the right to ask. Once the officer has issued you a citation or warning, ask him if you’re free to leave.

Regardless of how the question is phrased, if an officer asks if he can let a drug dog sniff around your car after you’ve been given a ticket, he’s asking your permission to continue detaining you. If you intentionally and voluntarily say yes, and the dog signals to the officer that there may be an illicit substance inside, he will have probable cause to search your vehicle.

If you refuse a search or you don’t want to consent to have your car sniffed by a drug dog, say so loudly and clearly, and then ask for permission to leave, If the Officer says no, and your traffic violation has already been fully addressed, then it’s likely you’re being unlawfully detained. If the police won’t let you leave, unfortunately, your rights are being violated, there is little you can do about it in the moment. Even when the cops are violating your rights, people should not aggressively challenge the cops’ authority in those circumstances. The police abuse their authority and your rights are going to have to be settled later.

It may be difficult in the moment, but there are several factors you should try to focus on, particularly the time. When did you get stopped? How long did it take them to write the ticket? When did the stop end? How long did you have to wait when they were bringing the dog? Additionally, you have the right to ask the officers for their badge numbers. Whether the search was legitimate or not, you’re probably going to jail now. It’s crucial at this juncture you remember that you don’t have to answer any interrogating questions.

Rodriguez v. United States,
575 U.S. ___ (2015)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-9972/opinion3.html

“LET ME SEE YOUR ID.”
In the United States there’s no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.

Under California law (and most states), a police officer cannot lawfully arrest you for the sole reason you were UNABLE or REFUSED to produce identification upon his or her request. In the U.S. Court of Appeals case Stufflebeam v. Harris, the court concluded an officer can request ID from a passenger, but if the officer has NO REASON to contact the passenger regarding any sort of investigation, the passenger is not required to provide identification. The officer must have reasonable suspicion the passenger has or is about to commit a crime. If you are just a passanger passenger in a routine traffic stop, you do not have to identify yourself any more than if you were just walking down the street.

Police DO NOT have to Inform You of Your Charges
It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you’re being arrested or what offense you’ve committed when you’re being arrested. However ALL arrests without a warrant must be supported by PROBABLE CAUSE, no matter which state you’re in. So every legal arrest must be based on probable cause that a suspect has committed a crime. Still, there is no general requirement that, at the time of arrest, an officer has to share this probable cause assessment with the arrestee. A person arrested must be given a probable cause hearing, ordinarily within 48 hours of their arrest.

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI or DWI)
DUI designates driving under the influence, while DWI refers to driving while intoxicated. … A DUI charge denotes a lesser degree of impairment than a DWI for a driver charged with drinking and driving. Level of impairment is determined by the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest.

If you are suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI or DWI), law enforcement has three primary ways to test your blood alcohol content (BAC): a breath alcohol test (breathalyzer), a urine test, or a blood test. The consequences for refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test vary from state to state.

FIELD TESTING
There are three standardized field sobriety tests police administer as a prerequisite to further testing. These tests include the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, one-leg-stand test, and the walk-and-turn test. As a general rule (and unlike chemical testing), there is no legal penalty for refusing to take these tests although the arresting officer can typically testify as to your refusal in court.

IMPLIED CONSENT
In most cases, if an officer suspects you’re driving under the influence, “implied consent laws” require you to take a chemical test (using your blood, breath, or urine) to determine your blood alcohol content (BAC). Implied consent laws say that by just driving on the road, you are agreeing to take a chemical test to assess your BAC. Implied consent laws vary by state, particularly about which test is required and when it should be given, but every state has them, so in every state, you must take the test.

If you refuse to take the test, you will face heavy penalties, possibly worse than if you were found guilty as a result of the test. The penalties vary by state and usually include a combination of a fine, jail time, license suspension, and required use of an ignition interlock device. Additionally, when your case goes to court, the prosecution will typically use your refusal against you, stating because you knew you were intoxicated you refused to be tested. For all of these reasons, it usually does you no good to refuse to take a chemical test.

REMEMBER: You have the right to remain silent, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you say or do will be exaggerated, misquoted, twisted and used against you. Click Here to read Pleading the Fifth and Understanding Your Miranda Rights

MIRANDA RIGHTS
The police DO NOT have to read you your Miranda Rights. Any time before or after you are arrested and they can and will be used against you.

PUBLIC SPACE
A public place is an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal. Privately and corporate owned stores, restaurants, bars and theaters are also considered public places in legal definitions because the public is invited into these establishment. Public property is property dedicated to public use and is a subset of state property. The term may be used either to describe the use to which the property is put, or to describe the character of its ownership (owned collectively by the population of a state). While “privately owned public space” as a term of art refers specifically to private property required to be usable by the public under zoning or similar regulatory arrangements, the phrase in its broadest sense can refer to places, like shopping malls and hotel lobbies which are privately owned yet open to the public.

YOUR RIGHT TO TAKE VIDEOS AND PHOTOGRAPHS
June 2014, the US Supreme Court held when in outdoor public spaces where you are legally present, you have the right to capture any image in plain view. This includes pictures and videos of federal buildings, transportation facilities (including airports). Third Circuit Federal Court Judge Thomas Ambro “Officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”

Law enforcement CANNOT search a cellphone WITHOUT a warrant. Police may demand and threaten, but they DO NOT have the power or authority requiring you to tell them your security code which is considered testimonial, and falls under self-incrimination.

How do you get around it if an officer asks you?
Simply say “I decline to answer your question on the grounds it might incriminate me. I’m not required under the law to provide my security access code.”

Remember YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SEARCHES including phone searches.

VIDEOTAPING and PHOTOGRAPHY

1. ~ STAND BACK

2. ~ DON’T POINT YOUR CAMERA/PHONE LIKE A GUN

3. ~ HOLD YOUR CAMERA/PHONE SIDEWAYS (LANDSCAPE VIEW)

4. ~ HOLD YOUR CAMERA/PHONE STILL and KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECTS. DO NOT try to capture what other’s are doing.

5. ~ IF YOU’RE INSIDE TURN YOUR TV or MUSIC OFF

6. ~ DON’T SHARE YOUR VIDEO WITH POLICE

7. ~ USE A LIVE STREAMING APP IF POSSIBLE as officers will often lie in order seize your camera/phone without a warrant by stating witnesses are allowed to leave at any time but are not allowed to take their camera/phone as the camera/phone may contain evidence.

8. ~ PROTECT YOUR PASS-CODE which is essential for preserving video in case police illegally destroy or confiscate your camera/phone

STAND BACK
If you’re approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the “appropriate” distance you need to stand back to avoid “interfering”. If you feel you’re already standing at a reasonable distance, say something to the effect of; “Officer, I have a right to be here. I’m filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work.” It’s up to you to decide how far back you’re willing to stand in order to avoid arrest.

“STOP RECORDING ME. IT’S AGAINST THE LAW”
Respond “Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don’t need your permission to record so long as I’m not interfering with your work.” Or “Officer, I’m familiar with the law, and the courts have ruled it doesn’t apply to recording on-duty police.”

FILMING POLICE OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA In the state of California, you are allowed to record police while on duty, but there are some restrictions. The first general rule of recording the police is to do so as openly as possible. When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society. As long as the audio or video recording is being done in a public place and you are not trying to hide it, you are within your First Amendment rights. You cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission.  This includes conversations you’re one of the parties to.  If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies. Even if you are recording with an officer of the law in plain sight, he or she might still feel the need to confront you. If you are confronted, explain you’re asserting your First Amendment rights.

California Penal Code Section 647 concealing your camera is a violation, California law prohibits hidden video recordings in private places. This law states any person who uses a concealed camcorder to secretly videotape or record another person without their consent is committing a crime. It is also important to take note of the state’s “anti-paparazzi” legislation. This makes photographing or recording anybody on private property a crime. If you’re on private property, you should follow the directions of the security guard, a police officer or the property owner.  Do not, however give up your camera or tape recorder and Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances. They have no legal right to seize it unless they have strong reason to believe it contains evidence of a crime. If you are going to document police activity with your camera phone or other recording device, make sure you are doing it in a public area.

Consequences of Secretly Recording a Police Officer
Under California Penal Code Section 647, audio recording or videotaping a police officer with a concealed camera is a misdemeanor. If found guilty, you could face up to one year in county jail and fines of up to $1,000.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges photography is permitted in and around airline security checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process. TSA does ask that its security monitors not be photographed, though it is not clear whether they have any legal basis for such a restriction when the monitors are plainly viewable by the traveling public. TSA also warns that local or airport regulations may impose restrictions TSA does not. It is difficult to determine if any localities or airport authorities actually have such rules. If you are told you cannot take photographs in an airport you should ask what the legal authority for that rule is.

The California Digital Media Law Project
has a handy Q and A for specific scenarios.

“WHAT ARE YOU DOING?”

If a police officer says “What are you doing?” while remaining calm say “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite”. They might follow up by asking, “Who do you work for?”Tell them you’re an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don’t lie—but don’t let police trick you into thinking the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn’t.

The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a CONVERSATION. All but 2 —Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws in which courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

MIDDLE FINGER
Federal Appeals Court Judge Jeffrey Sutton “Giving the middle finger is protected under constitutional free-speech rights. Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule, but that doesn’t make it illegal or for that matter punishable.”

PLEASE NOTE: A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act.

PLEASE NOTE: Wording and interpretation by state, county or city may vary and a substantial allegation furnishing identity at the time of a stop would give police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense.

VIDEOTAPING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY
If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there’s NO PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY AT FEDERAL BUILDINGS.
HOMELAND SECURITY BULLETIN ON PHOTOGRAPHERS AND FEDERAL BUILDINGS
http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Photographing-the-Exterior-of-Federal-Buildings.pdf

HOMES
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution specifically mentions “houses” as a place where persons have a right “to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” By placing ANY part of his body inside the house without consent the officer has already illegally entered the home in a manner considered unlawful.

Private residences enjoy the highest levels of Fourth Amendment protection against governmental intrusion. “The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home.” (Payton v. New York)

Unlawful entry by police is considered a violation of tort laws in accordance to trespassing regulations. Trespassing regulations can occur to a person, to a chattel or personal property, and to land. Unlawful entry is considered to fall within the trespass to land category. Unlawful entry can therefore be defined as an intentional action to violate the rights of person over his/her real property. For an investigation to turn into a search, a court must conclude the investigation impinged or intruded upon a person’s “legitimate expectation of privacy.” Law enforcement agencies must apply for a search warrant before conducting a search of the person or premise in issue. If any search is conducted in the absence of a search warrant, it is presumed to be unreasonable and will be considered an illegal search.

There are only four legal ways police can enter a dwelling:

CONSENT: Consent can only be obtained from the owner of the property to be searched, someone with valid authority of the property, or someone with valid control over the property. Consent can be given verbally or written. The burden of proving consent is on the peace officer, and consent can be withdrawn at any.

WARRANT/COURT ORDER: An officer can enter a suspect’s home to arrest the suspect if the officer has a warrant for the arrest of the suspect and the officer reasonably believes the suspect to be in the dwelling. Case Reference: Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES: An officer may enter a dwelling without a warrant when exigent circumstances exist. Examples include situations where an officer has to enter in order to prevent death or injury to those inside of the dwelling, to prevent the destruction of evidence, or to prevent the immediate escape of a suspect.

HOT PURSUIT: The officer must be pursuing the suspect for an arrestable offense. The suspect must know that he or she is being pursued, and the suspect must be in actual flight.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE – U.S. Supreme Court

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)

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.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW:
1. Law enforcement authority to seize.
2. Law enforcement official must be in a place he/she has a right to be in.
3. Discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.
4. It must be immediately apparent that what the official has discovered is evidence.

Click here to print a Foldable Wallet Card
“WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE STOPPED BY POLICE” http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/Palmcd_2014_police_nyclu.pdf

Fold Card

researcher-blk-wht

Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez

Human Rights Advocate, Researcher/Chronological Archivist and member in good standing with the Constitution First Amendment Press Association
(CFAPA.org)

while remaining calm.

75 massacres of 50 or more people before 1989

Lady2Soothe

Massacre

Before we begin spreading lies that the Orlando Florida Massacre is the deadliest mass terrorist attack in US history with 50 deaths; let us not forget the 75 massacres of 50 or more before 1989

Smallpox

1. Small Pox Blankets were intentionally distributed to Indian Tribes, and before running its course killed thousands
2. 1325 Crow Creek massacre 486 known dead were discovered at an archaeological site near Chamberlain, South Dakota. The victims and perpetrators were unknown groups of Native Americans.
3. 1539 Napituca Massacre Hernando de Sotohad 200 executed, in the first large-scale massacre by Europeans on what became American soil.
4. 1540 Mabila Massacre Choctaw retaliated against Hernando de Soto’s expedition,killing 200 soldiers, as well as many of their horses and pigs, for their having burned down Mabila compound and killed 2,500 warriors who had hidden in houses of a fake village.
5. 1541 Tiguex Massacres Spanish attacked Tiguex Indians burning at the stake 50 people who had surrendered.
6. 1599 Acoma Massacre Juan de Oñate led a punitive expedition against the natives in a three-day battle at the Acoma Pueblo, killing approximately 800.
7. 1601 Sandia Mountains Spanish troops destroyed 3 Indian villages approximately 900 Tompiro Indians were killed.
8. 1610 Paspahegh Massacre Lord De la Warr sent 70 men to attack the Paspahegh Indians. They destroyed their main village near Jamestown, killing between 16 and 65 people.
9. 1622 Jamestown Massacre Powhatan killed 347 English men, women and children
10. 1623 Pamunkey Peace Talks The English poisoned the wine at a “peace conference” with Powhatan leaders, killing about 200; they physically attacked and killed another 50.
11. 1673 Mystic Massacre English colonists John Mason River in present-day Connecticut, where they burned the inhabitants in their homes and killed all survivors, for total fatalities of about 600–700.
12. 1643 Pavonia Massacre governor, William Kieft. Kieft and Corlears Hook attacked, 129 being killed.
13. 1644 Massapequa Massacre John Underhill’s men killed more than 100 Indians
14. 1644 Pound Ridge Massacre Dutch, attacked and burned a sleeping village of Lenape, killing about 500 Indians.
15. 1675 Bloody Brook Massacre Indian warriors ambushed and killed 60 soldiers
16. 1675 Great Swamp Massacre Colonial militia attacked a Narragansett fort near South Kingstown, Rhode Island. At least 40 warriors were killed and 300 women, children and elder men burnt in the village.
17. 1676 Massacre at Occoneechee Island Nathaniel Bacon turned on his Occaneechi allies and his men destroyed three forts within their village on Occoneechee Island, on the Roanoke River near present-day Clarksville, Virginia. Bacon’s troops killed one hundred men as well as many women and children.
18. 1676 Turner Falls Massacre Captain William Turner and 150 militia volunteers attacked a fishing Indian camp at present-day Turners Falls, Massachusetts. At least 100 women and children were killed in the attack.
19. 1676 Rhode Island Major Talcott attacked a band of Narragansetts on Rhode Island, killing 34 men and 92 women and children.
20. 1777 Paoli massacre Patriots under command of General Anthony Wayne 200 under command of General Charles Grey.
21. 1680 Pueblo Revolt Pueblo warriors killed 380 Spanish settlers
22. 1989 Lachine massacre 1,500 Mohawk warriors attacked the small settlement of Lachine,New France and killed more than 90 of the village’s 375 French
23. 1689 Zia Pueblo Governor Jironza de Cruzate destroyed the pueblo of Zia, New Mexico. 600 Indians were killed and 70 survivors enslaved.
24. 1690 Schenectady Massacre French and Algonquins destroyedSchenectady, New York, killing 60 Dutch and English settlers, including ten women and at least twelve children.
25. 1692 Candlemas Massacre 200-300 Abenaki and Canadiens killed 75, took 100 prisoner
26. 1704 Apalachee Massacre Carolina Governor James Moore launched a series of brutal attacks on the Apalachee villages of Northern Florida. They killed 1000 Apalachees and enslaved at least 2000 survivors.
27. 1704 Deerfield Massacre Abenaki,Kanienkehaka, Wyandot and Pocumtuck killed 56 civilians and more than 100 as captives.
28. 1805 Canyon del Muerto Antonio Narbona massacred 115 Navajo Indians
29. 1813 Fort Mims Massacre of Creek Red Sticks attacked Fort Mims, Alabama, killing 400-500 settlers,
30. 1813 Battle of Tallushatchee 900 Tennessee troops under General John Coffee, and includingDavy Crockett, attacked an unsuspecting Creek town. About 186-200 Creek Warriors were killed, and an unknown number of women and children were killed, some burned in their houses.
31. 1813 Hillabee Massacre under General Andrew Jackson 65 Creek Indians were shot or bayoneted.
32. 1813 Autossee Massacre Georgia Militia General Floyd attacked a Creek town on Tallapoosa River, in Macon County, Alabama, killing 200 Indians before setting the village afire.
33. 1832 Battle of Bad Axe Soldiers under General Henry Atkinson and armed volunteers killed around 150 Indian men, women and children
34. 1833 Cutthroat Gap Massacre The Osage tribe attacked a Kiowa camp west of the Wichita Mountains in southwest Oklahoma, killing 150 Kiowa Indians.
35. 1835 Dade Massacre Seminole killed almost all of a command of 110 American soldiers
36. 1836 Goliad massacre mass killing ordered by Antonio López de Santa Anna.
37. 1840 Colorado River Volunteer Rangers under Colonel Moore massacred 140 Comanches
38. 1840 Clear Lake Massacre Salvador Vallejo massacred 150 Pomo and Wappo Indians
39. 1846 Sacramento River Captain Frémont’s men attacked a peaceful band of Indians (probablyYanas) on the Sacramento River in California, killing between 120 and 200 Indians.
40. 1847 Storming of Pueblo de Taos American troops attacked the heavily fortified Pueblo of Taos with artillery, killing nearly 150, some being Indians. Between 25 and 30 prisoners were shot by firing squads.
41. 1850 Bloody Island Massacre Nathaniel Lyon and his U.S. Army detachment of cavalry killed 60–100 Pomo Indians
42. 1851 Old Shasta Town Miners killed 300 Wintu Indians
43. 1852 Bridge Gulch Massacre 70 American men led by Trinity County sheriff William H. Dixon killed more than 150 Wintu people
44. 1853 A posse of settlers attacked and burned aTolowa rancheria at Yontocket, California, killing 450 Tolowa during a prayer ceremony.
45. 1853 Howonquet Massacre Californian settlers attacked and burned the Tolowa village of Howonquet, massacring 70 people.
46. 1855 Harney Massacre US troops under Brigadier General William S. Harney killed 86 Sioux, men, women and children. About 70 women and children were taken prisoner.
47. 1857 Mountain Meadow Massacre Local Mormons approached the Baker-Fancher wagon train with a white flag and a promise they would lead them to safety – but instead shot and knifed 120
48. 1858 – 1859 Round Valley Massacres White settlers killed 150 Yuki Indians and California militiamen massacred 240 Indians on the Eel River. On 1 May, Major Johnson reported that six hundred Yukis had been massacred by white settlers “in the last year”.
49. 1859 Pit River Massacre White settlers massacred 70 Achomawi Indians (10 men and 60 women and children)
50. 1860 Massacre at Bloody Rock 65 Yuki Indians were surrounded and massacred by white settlers
51. 1860 Indian Island Massacre white settlers killed between 200 and 250 Wiyot Indians
52. 1861 Horse Canyon Massacre 240 Wailakis Indians murdered
53. 1862 Tonkawa Massacre 240 of 390 Tonkawa murdered
54. 1863 attack near Preston, Idaho, at the confluence of Bear River and Beaver Creek, is considered the largest single-incident massacre of Indians in the American West with 490+ Northwestern Shoshone Indians murdered.
55. 1863 Lawrence Massacre Pro-Confederate Guerrillas killed civilians and burned a quarter of the town of 185 -200
56. 1863 Bear River Massacre Col. Patrick Connor led a United States Army regiment killing 280 Shoshone men, women and children near
57. Draft Riot 115 people lost their lives
58. 1864 Sand Creek Massacre Colorado Militia attacked a peaceful village of Cheyenne, killing at least 160 men, women and children
59. 1864 Oak Run Massacre California settlers massacred 300 Yana Indians who had gathered near the head of Oak Run, California for a spiritual ceremony.
60. 1864 Fort Pillow massacre 277 Federal black troops killed by Confederate soldiers.
61. 1864 Saltville massacre Wounded/captured Federal black troops by Confederate soldiers and guerrillas
62. 1865 Bloody Point Massacre 65 settlers were massacred by Modoc Indians
63. 1868 Battle of Washita River 140 – warriors, “some” women and a few children killed. 53 women and children taken hostage.
64. 1870 Marias Massacre 173 Piegan, mainly women, children and elderly.
65. 1871 Camp Grant Massacre 144, with 1 survivor at scene and 29 children sold to slavery. All but eight of the dead were Apache women or children.
66. 1872 Skeleton Cave Massacre 76 Yavapai Indians men, women and children killed.
67. 1873 Colfax massacre 83 -153 Blacks killed at courthouse and as prisoners afterwards
68. 1877 Thibodaux massacre as many as 300 killed, 5+ injuries to striking black sugar-cane workers.
69. 1890 Wounded Knee 130-250 Sioux murdered. 1890 South Dakota Home Guard militiamen ambushed and massacred 75 Sioux at the Stronghold, in the northern portion of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
70. 1917 East St. Louis Massacre 200-700 deaths.
71. 1918 237 Black Sharecroppers Were Murdered In Arkansas
72. 1919 The Arkansas Massacre 854 deaths.
73. 1921 The Tulsa Massacre 300-3000 deaths
74. 1921 Greenwood Massacre 300 killed 800 wounded. One of the nation’s worst incidents of racial violence.
75. 1923 The Rosewood Massacre 150 deaths.

13 #LetOurVoicesEcho

Colorado House Bill HB 12-1213

Lady2Soothe

Smoke

CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO ESCAPES FROM A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT OTHER THAN A COUNTY JAIL OR CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Escape from a Colorado State Dept. of Correction facility or halfway house CANNOT be used to extend a sentence.

Details on Colorado House bill HB 12-1213, introduced Jan. 30 2012 and last acted on May 17, 2012. When this bill was signed by Governor Hickenlooper it rendered such an adjudication inapplicable to a person who is convicted of escape or attempt to escape from a place *other* than a county jail or a correctional facility.

My name is Harold Smith

MY STORY
I was convicted of aggravated robbery and habitual criminal in June 1998. Aggravated robbery is a Class 3 felony which carries a maximum sentence of 16 years in prison. However, I had 2 Class 5 non-violent prior felony convictions. The first was possession of a dangerous weapon which I was sentenced to 2 ½ years in the Colorado Department of Corrections in 1993. I was allowed to go to the half-way house in May 1994. I walked away (escape) in September of that year. I was charged with, and convicted of escape, and sentenced to one (1) year DOC and one (1) year parole. This was the second felony used to adjudicate me a habitual criminal. I was on parole for the first escape when I caught the aggravated robbery January 26, 1998 which makes me ineligible for executive clemency. The punishment for aggravated robbery is 16 years was multiplied by 3 which extended my sentence to 48 years. Those are the facts of my case.

THE INJUSTICE
In 2012 Colorado Representative Rhonda Fields sponsored House Bill 12-1213 (hereinafter referred to as HB 12-1213) which states “AN ESCAPE SHALL NOT BE USED TO ADJUDICATE A PERSON HABITUAL CRIMINAL”. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed HB 12-1213 into law May 17, 2012, however it is not retroactive. I am still in prison due to a law which is no longer relevant or applicable in cases such as mine. In other words I have completely served my time plus additional time for the crimes I’ve committed, which would have subsequently allowed me to be the free and the socially productive man I’ve evolved into today.

I have been lobbying Congress for four (4) years in an attempt to have this law sanctioned as retroactive. I’ve been in contact with State Representative Jovan Melton who assured me he was 90% positive retroactivity would be enacted by legislature as expressed in a formal document by the beginning of April 2016.

Unfortunately the Retroactive Amendment of HB 12-1213 did not materialize as State Representative Jovan Melton expected as he was unable to secure endorsement by Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives Dickey Lee Hullinghorst who refused to even consider the proposed new bill during an election year.

Ironically, the passage of the Amended HB 12-1213 Bill for retroactive application would only affect myself and 5 other people. Only 6 people would be released immediately from the Colorado Department of Corrections statewide.

Representative Jovan Melton has assured me the newly Amended HB 12-1213 Bill will be one of the first five (5) bills introduced to the upcoming January 2017 session and maintains he does not have to submit the bill to the Speaker of the House providing it is one of the first 5 bills proposed. Rep. Melton is convinced Amended HB 12-1213 will pass the House and Senate and signed into law.

Meanwhile as we await the Jan. 2017 session, Rep. Melton suggested I compose a letter to Governor Hickenlooper, addressing it directly to Rep. Melton at his office which he would personally hand deliver to Governor Hickenlooper, which I did in April. I was to explain the circumstances of my incarceration which has been extended three fold past my conviction sentencing. I was to remind the Governor he signed HB 12-1213 “an escape shall not be used to adjudicate a person habitual criminal” into law and as the Governor undoubtedly believed people such as myself are not habitual criminals. It was also recommended I ask the Governor to review the injustice of over-sentencing, over-criminalization, sentencing reform, prison and reentry reform which at this point is unnecessarily harsh and contributes to prison overcrowding while ballooning the state prison budget, and rectify this injustice by commuting my sentence to the original 16 years as time served.

I have family and friends out in the real world who love, respect and are proud of me but it’s not enough to push though the governmental red tape. If you or anyone you know can help I would truly appreciate any and all input, or even a friendly letter of support.

Many thanks and blessings for taking the time to read my message
Harold

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION You can reach Harold at:

Harold L. Smith
DOC #: 81050
Buena Vista Minimum Center
PO Box 2005
Buena Vista, CO 81211

PLEASE CLICK HERE to sign my Change.Org Petition so we may forward it to Governor Hickenlooper, our only option for Executive Clemency as he is the one who signed Amendment to HB 12-1213 into law. Change.Org Petition: Colorado Amended HB 12-1213 Retroactive Application Immediate Release for Harold Smith

COLORADO LEGISLATORS

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
136 State Capitol Bldg.
Denver, CO 80203-1792
Fax:(303)866-2003
Tel:(303)866-2471
email: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/share-your-comments
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/

Representative Jovan Melton
Email:jovan.melton.house@state.co.us
200 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-2919
http://jovanmelton.com/

Michael Bennet (D) Senior Senator
Denver Metro Office
1127 Sherman St., Suite 150
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-455-7600
Toll Free: 866-455-9866
https://www.bennet.senate.gov/?

Cory Gardner (R) Junior Senator
1125 17th Street, Suite 525
Denver, CO 80202
P: (303) 391-5777
F: (202) 228-7171
https://www.gardner.senate.gov/contact-cory/email-

Diana DeGette (D) House Rep. District 1
600 Grant Street, Suite 202,
Denver, CO80203
(202) 225-4431
https://degette.house.gov/contact/send-me-an-email/email-me

Jared Polis (D) House Rep. District 2
1644 Walnut St.
Boulder, CO 80302
Phone: (303) 484-9596
Fax: (303) 568-9007
http://polis.house.gov/contact/boulder.htm

Senator Mark Udall
Email: Senator_Mark_Udall@markudall.senate.gov
20510 Westminster, CO 80031
Phone: 303-650-7820

Michael Bennet (D) Senior Senator – 127 Sherman St #150, Denver, CO 80203
Scott Tipton (R) House Rep. District 3 – 225 North 5th Street, Suite 702, Grand Junction, CO 81501
Ken Buck (R) House Rep. District 4 – 7505 Village Square Dr. Suite 207, Castle Pines, CO 80108
Doug Lamborn (R) House Rep. District 5 – 1271 Kelly Johnson Boulevard, Suite 110 Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Mike Coffman (R) House Rep. District 6 – Cherry Creek Place IV; Suite 305 3300 S. Parker Road Aurora, CO 80014
Ed Perlmutter (R) House Rep. District 7 – 12600 West Colfax Avenue, Suite B400, Lakewood, CO 80215

Big Smoke Page 13

Big Smoke Harold Smith Page 14a

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 1 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 2 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 3 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 4 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 5 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 6 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 7 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 8 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 9 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 10 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 11 001

Jistice For Harold in Colorado page 12 001