Invalid "Terry frisk"

[Joshuaace2]

Hope they return it to the circuit court. It's not even about me at this point.

It's about the next guy. I'm doing my best to insure someone else isn't subjected to an unlawful invasion of their privacy. To insure they receive a fair trial, before an impartial judiciary, with effective assistance of counsel.

It's about slowing the erosion of the U.S. Constitution, so that my children, and their children, enjoy the same freedoms and protections their ancestors of many generations had.

It's about holding the Government accountable for investigating, and prosecuting citizens in accordance with the law. If they're not held to that standard, innocent people are arrested, tried, and convicted. I don't believe any right minded person wants that to happen.

Thanks,

Roger

 

[dave33]

Roger, As you can tell I have been staying out of the discussion, mostly because you have been relaying my opinion on your situation. After reading your last post, I just have to say that was an inspirational statement. The justice system has forgotten it's basic responsibilities. I could not have worded that better, even after a long effort of sleepless thought filled nights. Maybe, after I am more familiar with this site I will figure out how to make that my quote. Thanks. Truly awesome. Dave

 

[tranquility]

Fascinating little theory, guys. With the exception that the OP is guilty.

Sorry about that, becuse it really messes up the teary-eyed moment, but what we're really talking about is protecting the innocent. The OP is not innocent. He had THC metabolites in his blood while driving, possession of marijuana on his person and an officer (at least by his probable testimony) who pulled over the OP for some violation of the law and who thought, through objective signs and symptoms, felt he was driving under the influence.

Now, what is it he's trying to protect against again? His theory on the law is wrong, his facts are going against him and the vast majority of court opinions show he has no case.

America, what a country. It's filled with jerk cops who suspect crime when it occurs. Not that being right counts, it's just that NOTHING (Except for the potential of the judicial misconduct, which is questionable at best.) the OP has alleged is illegal or wrong according to current understanding about what the Constitution guarantees.

Get the warm and fuzzies all you want, but I disagree. This guy's argument is a technical one which tries to navigate the interstices of the law. Great, good deal. I think it is the duty of his attorney to try this type of argument as it forces the government to prove up its case. This process protects all of us. But, I don't really weep that his sextant can't navigate the shoals of his crime(s) to prevent him taking responsibility for them.

 

[Joshuaace2]

Tranquility, again you have wandered away from where you should be. This is the deep end of the intellectual pool. Unless you have your floaties on, don't go near the edge.

You say, "Except for the potential of the judicial misconduct, which is questionable at best." I don't know where your from, but I'm in America. Here a Judge has to be impartial, unswayed by bias. That is fundemental to our judiciary process. When he offers, or argues a point of law for either side, he has unbalanced the scales of justice, and delivered a blow to the foundation of our judicial process.

You say "the vast majority of court opinions show he has no case." Yet you, or no one else has cited a case that the officer who performed the illegal search was the Government's "proof" of inevitable discovery. Why is that? If there is such a vast majority of case law, why can't you find one, just one?

I'll tell you why. It's because there isn't one. At the point the officer searched me for evidence, without lawful justification, it was official misconduct. His credibility is impeached. No reasonable person would conclude that after his acts commited in bad faith, that the following ten minutes of his investigation were conducted in good faith.

Every case you find on inevitable discovery will contain some, if not all of the following langauge. Once Government illegality occurs, "Proof" of inevitable dicsovery requires an "independant source", or an "alternate line of investigation" that purges the taint of the unlawfully obtained evidence. If not, then the Court's have been made a party to the unhindered violation of the Constitutional Rights of one of it's citizens.

I guess in your world, when the police suspect a person has committed
a crime, they would be justified in beating the hell out of them until they confess. Starving, Stoning, and Waterboarding would all be acceptable investigation methods, Right?

What do "terry", "Sibron", "Miranda", "Mapp", "Williams", "Dickerson" and "Escobedo" all have in common? They were all probably guilty. What else do they have in common? By challenging evidence and procedures in their cases they contributed to case law that helps to preserve the Constitutional Rights of us all.

It is not just a verdict of guilt that is important. It is also the investgation, and prosecution of the accused, in accordance with the law, upholding the integrity of the Judicial, and Executive branches of our Government, that is important.

It is the ignorance of the Constitution, and the case law that supports it, from SHEEPLE like you, that contribute to the erosion of that Constitution. I find it very unpatriotic, and it repulses me.

I disagree with what you say, but until I die, I will defend your right to say it. And it's a good thing too, because you probably won't.

Roger

 

[Joshuaace2]

Tranquility,

BTW, who the hell are you to suggest I haven't accepted responsibilty for my own actions.

Did I ever once deny having three tenths of a gram of marijuana in my pocket? No.

Did I ever once deny having some amount of THC metabolite in my blood? No

Do I accept responsibility for my actions? ABSOLUTELY

Do I accept responsibilty for the actions of the Officer who searched me unlawfully, then questioned me about the last time I used MJ. Effectively violating mt Constitutional Rights granted by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO I DON'T

Do I accept responsibilty for the misconduct of the prosecutor, who withheld exculpatory evidence, effectively violating my Rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO I DON'T

Do I accept responsibility for the unpreparedness and incompetence of the Public Defender, effectively violating my Rights granted by the Sixth Amendment. Do I accept responsibility for her actions? NO I DON'T

Do I accept responsibility for the Judge who was not only a witness too, but a willing participant to the violation of my Rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO, NOT IN THIS LIFETIME.

You see, all of those people took an oath that essentially says, "I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America". Every single one of those people broke that oath knowingly. Do I accept responsibility for that? NO

Do yourself a favor. Read the U.S. Constitution, one word at a time, with the aid of a dictionary to help you with the arrangement of letters you don't seem to understand. Really, it is in your best interests.

Roger

 

[tranquility]

Do I accept responsibilty for the actions of the Officer who searched me unlawfully, then questioned me about the last time I used MJ. Effectively violating mt Constitutional Rights granted by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO I DON'T

While the search was illegal (and the fruits of that search validly admitted under a different doctorine you don't want to accept), you have not alleged anything even remotely violative of the fifth. Nothing. That you continue to insist on this show a lack of accepting responsibility.

Do I accept responsibilty for the misconduct of the prosecutor, who withheld exculpatory evidence, effectively violating my Rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO I DON'T

Missed that part. What exculpatory evidence was witheld by the prosecutor?

Do I accept responsibility for the Judge who was not only a witness too, but a willing participant to the violation of my Rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Do I accept responsibility for his actions? NO, NOT IN THIS LIFETIME.

Everyone who loses feels the judge was against him. Forcing you (your attorney) to present the case at a well appointed time is not a violation. Trying to help a witness testify through asking questions is not a violation. However, the question asked was leading and I am a bit troubled by it. But, it was IRRELEVANT as the testimony remained as it was and the search was not allowed on the basis of a frisk but on inevitable discovery. Even though you don't want to accept that legitimate theory, accept the fact that even if the search had not been done, per your facts you would have been arrested and the pot found as a result of the search done contemporaneous with arrest.

You see, all of those people took an oath that essentially says, "I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America". Every single one of those people broke that oath knowingly. Do I accept responsibility for that? NO

Yet, no one has been proven, beyond the little man in your head speaking to you, that any of them *knowingly* violated your rights under the Constitution.

Do yourself a favor. Read the U.S. Constitution, one word at a time, with the aid of a dictionary to help you with the arrangement of letters you don't seem to understand. Really, it is in your best interests.

Actually, it's the little words in it which are much harder. They're the ones where you think you know what they mean, but you need to read long and difficult cases to understand them. I spent many, many, many hours doing so over a couple of years. (Although only one year on the criminal proceedure portion of the constitution dealing with the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.)

As to the deep end of the pool, sorry, I believe it is you in dire need of the floaties. I did a bit of swim training in my life and it's clear you don't have any of the basic strokes down. I suggest you go to a place where the local law students hang out and ask them for a civ pro outline. There are commercially-prepared ones as well. Gilbert's is popular, but any one is fine. Go through it and learn the basics so you can understand the real issues here.

You're clearly intelligent, but you're too close to see things rationally. That's why they say a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. Not because one cannot do it, but because you only want to see one side of the issues. I know you are represented (perhaps poorly), but if an appellate brief were to go with only one side argued it would be considered misconduct the court might sanction. You must also cite the case law against your position and distinguish.

Scream miscarrage of justice all you want and claim the Constitution is being torn asunder, but, even under your facts and even with your theory of the law, you need to make complex arguments to even get to the point there were constitutional violations (with the exception of the frisk) let alone ones that are knowing violations amounting to crimes against humanity.

 

[Joshuaace2]

Read post #21. Ah, the videotape. Sought to discover it from the beginning. Motion presented to the prosecution, in the presence of the judge. Three months later after receiving absolutely nothing, Defense filed a motion to compel. The following day the prosecutor stated in court he was in "Complete compliance with the rules governing discovery."

You've obviously read the other thread. One of the PD's reasons for a continuance request was the need for more discovery. Two months after the SA said in court he was in complete compliance with discovery, they still had not relinquished a copy of the videotape.

At that time, one day before trial, the SA suggested for the very first time, a videotape did not exist. The officer stated in his report that it did, but when he checked the recorder in the car, it was not working. The judge excepted this explanation, without question, and without testimony from the officer. Hearsay, is what the judge excepted. Even if the videotape did not exist (I doubt this is the case) the defense was prejudiced by not being informed of the non-existence of that videotape.

Are the indications of alcohol impairment, and marijuana impairment one and the same? No. Does everyone seem to agree that it was the observations made by the officer, during the FST's, that serve as the "proof" of inevitable discovery? Seems like yes. If the videotape does not show indicia of impairment, would that video be exculpatory? ABSOLUTELY.

So your "troubled" by the judge asking leading questions of a witness? Are you not troubled by the judge offering his theory of inevitable discovery, without any mention by the prosecutor? Are you troubled by the judge arguing his theory, absent any input from the state? Clearly the burden of proof is on the state at that point, not the judge. How can you prove a point you didn't offer, and didn't argue?

Now on to the Fifth. When the officer found the marijuana in my pocket, what do you think he asked me? He asked when the last time I smoked was?
I answered "prior to coming to work, earlier in the day". Since the threshold of THC in your blood in Illinois is zero. That in fact was a confession of guilt.

Now the question is; when the police have their hands on your person, you are outside of your vehicle, they have posession of your keys, and evidence of a crime has already been seized from your pocket; at that point would a reasonable person believe they were free to leave? I don't think so. Would a reasonable person believe they were under arrest at that point? Yes they would.

Was my admission of smoking mj presented at trial? Yes it was. Were the FST's performed for the purpose of observing indicia of impairment? No they weren't. They were performed as an exercise of procedure. I had already confessed to the crime.

Did the officer knowingly search me without lawful justification? Yes he did.

Did the prosecutor knowingly withold exculpatory evidence, or at the very least the fact that video did not exist? Yes he did.

Did the judge offer, and argue points of law for the prosecution? Yes he did.
Is he specifically prohibited from doing so by the Judicial Canons? Yes he is.
Did he do so knowingly? Yes he did.

Did the PD lack the preparation to adequately raise and argue the specific points of law in this case? Absolutely. Did she do so knowingly? Yes, she even asked for a continuance for just this reason.

In post #49 I made a plea for civility in this thread. After being provoked more than one time I retaliated, I apologize for my insulting comments. We are obviously both intelligent human beings, and as such, we should treat each other with civility.

As always, Thanks, feedback appreciated.

Roger

 

[Zigner]

This thread really should be locked - the OP will carry on and on until he convinces someone, ANYONE, to agree.