02FEB2014: Police Dig Into the Underwear of Pulled Over Drivers using weapons and drugs as excuse

molest search


Editorial Comment: As you can clearly see and hear by the excuses that the Drug Task Force Commander, Wesley Nunn gives… as long as they can say they were searching for weapons for their safety then it is their justification for molesting drivers at will…? Hummmm. 

(Amanda Warren) Drivers and passengers in the Atlanta, Georgia area are coming forward after feeling sexually violated by police. People pulled over for minor traffic stops or registration checks are shocked to find out that the alternative to going down to the station meant officers sticking their bare fingers into underwear, touching the genitals.

For the record, not even the most broadly written, police-state favorable laws are supporting these actions. Yet, the police are confidently acting on them as though they “have permission” and have the right within the confines of law. There isn’t even “probable cause” in the report below.

Terry Phillips  was only the passenger when his wife was pulled over by Forest Park police for suspended registration.

He is clearly protesting in this dash cam video here, where he is conveniently taken outside the camera view, “for his privacy.” The police officer who tells him he is suspected for possession of drugs later says, “Did I say…?” and continues to emphasize how much privacy he has, as though he should be grateful.

Phillips describes his experience:

He was like, ‘Just unbuckle all your clothes,’ and put his hands down inside my pants.

His attorney, Mark Bullman, says:

That’s a general strip-search, which you’re not allowed to do. Unless it’s an emergency or it’s done in a controlled environment by professional people w[h]ere other people aren’t there to look in a public setting.

If you pat the outside of someone’s pants you can clearly identify whether or not somebody has a firearm or something of that nature. You can’t be moving people’s clothing and opening them, particularly in situations where there’s not been a custodial arrest.

Notably, the people handcuffed and/or searched believed they were only saying yes to a pat-down search not excessive handling, groping, hands up shorts and bare hands inside underpants and fondling parts. Presumably, they would not have permitted that kind of personal violation, which is why lawsuits are forthcoming.

The moral of the story to drivers and passengers in Georgia is, as the news reporter concludes – DO NOT GIVE PERMISSION FOR A SEARCH. Never say “yes,” never imply it’s okay. A question nags: what happens to people who say “no,” thereby revoking “verbal consent”?

Unfortunately, little is said about what happens if you are taken to the station for a private search when you deny permission for a roadside body search. The news video seems to imply that you would be searched in the station, and can only avoid the added embarrassment of roadside publicity. But would you be taken to the station at all if you said, “NO”?

And why are people in minor stops having to get out of the vehicle at all or placed in handcuffs?

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/roadside-violation-drivers-passengers-say-police/vCPkQP/

-Read more: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/police-dig-into-underwear-of-pulled.html

Article Source:

Photo:  Channel 2 News








27JAN2014 – Psychological Warfare – Ohio police department using fake drug checkpoints

Editorial comment – OHIO is not the only state performing these ‘pre-crime set-ups’ and psychological warfare operations against  the American and/or U.S citizen driver. TGR has acquired information over the past few years suggesting that Missouri and other states participate in these psychological police-state predictive programming warfare ops. I wonder if they ever consider drivers may turn off after seeing these signs because they are late anyway to their destination, or they want to avoid or not participate in the whole ‘super-soldier’  performance and  predictive programming psychological entrapment warfare games?  Maybe they just want to avoid being shot that day at the alleged checkpoint?  Can’t we just travel and not be harassed? Just a few more unresolved questions… 

Photo: Cleaveland.com

(ElPasoTimes) – MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, Ohio—Police in the Cleveland suburb of Mayfield Heights know they’re not allowed to use checkpoints to search drivers and their cars for drugs.

So they’re trying the next best thing: fake drug checkpoints.

Police in the city of 19,000 recently posted large yellow signs along Interstate 271 that warned drivers that there was a drug checkpoint ahead, to be prepared to stop and that there was a drug-sniffing police dog in use.

There was no such checkpoint, just police officers waiting to see if any drivers would react suspiciously after seeing the signs.

Authorities say that four people were stopped, with some arrests and drugs seized. They declined to be more specific.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reports (http://bit.ly/12tIqGq) that some civil rights leaders and at least one person pulled over by police are questioning the tactic, wondering if it could violate the Fourth Amendment against unlawful searches and seizures.

“I don’t think it accomplishes any public safety goals,” said Terry Gilbert, a prominent Cleveland civil rights attorney. “I don’t think it’s good to mislead the population for any reason if you’re a government agency.”

Nick Worner, a spokesman for the Cleveland office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his office will be looking further into the fake checkpoints to determine whether anyone’s rights may be being violated.

Dominic Vitantonio, a Mayfield Heights assistant prosecutor, said the fake checkpoints are legal and a legitimate effort in the war on drugs.

“We should be applauded for doing this,” Dominic Vitantonio said. “It’s a good thing.”

A 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said actual drug checkpoints are not legal and that police can randomly stop cars for just two reasons: to prevent immigrants without legal permission to be in the U.S. and contraband from entering the country and to get drunk drivers off the road.

It’s unclear how that ruling would apply to a fake drug checkpoint or whether any other police department in the nation has used similar tactics

Bill Peters, one of the four drivers pulled over as a result of the fake checkpoint, said he wonders if he was targeted because he has long, unkempt hair.

Peters, of Medina, said he was driving on the interstate when he missed his exit. He pulled over to check his phone for directions, then pulled back onto the freeway when his phone disconnected from the charger, causing him to pull over again to reconnect it, he said.

Soon after returning to the freeway, police pulled him over.

Peters said the officer asked him what kind of drugs he had in the car, saying it would be much easier to confess before other officers and a drug-sniffing dog arrived. Peters insisted he had no drugs. As promised, other officers and the dog were summoned, and Peters agreed to allow his car to be searched.

No drugs were found.

“The last time I checked, it is not against the law to pull over to the side of the road to check directions,” said Peters, who added that the officer who stopped him commended him for being safety conscious.

“I see what they’re doing, but I think it’s kind of dangerous,” Peters said. “It’s one thing to do this on a 25 mph road; it’s another on a busy interstate. I think it’s a violation to just be pulled over and searched.”








31DEC2013: St.Louis becomes tyrannical DUI Blood Test “No Refusal Zone” New Years Eve

(thegatewaypundit) – In September 2008 top Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis announced that they would threaten and prosecute critics of Barack Obama.

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch threatened to bring libel charges against those who spoke out falsely against Barack Obama. The Obama goon squads were formed.

Now this…
City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce is establishing a DUI “no refusal zone” inside the city limits of St. Louis. Starting today, drivers may face a blood test without consent if they are suspected of driving under the influence.
FOX 2 News reported:

If an officer suspects you are driving in St. Louis City under the influence of alcohol, you can refuse a breath test. But, you might face a blood test whether you consent or not.

City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Police Chief Sam Dotson and Fire Chief Dennis Jenkerson planned a press conference Monday afternoon to announce a “No Refusal Zone” across St. Louis.
This issue has already been through the U.S. Supreme Court.

Missouri law says you can refuse to give a breath test, if police pull you over and suspect that you are driving drunk. But, the law does not protect you from certain consequences. Neither does a recent ruling by the nation’s highest court.

In Cape Girardeau County, an officer arrested Tyler McNeely in October 2010 for suspicion of DUI. McNeely refused to take a breath test. An officer took McNeely to the hospital and had his blood drawn, without a warrant.

Eight of the nine Supreme Court justices said that action violated the suspect’s fourth amendment protection from unnecessary search and seizure. Justice Sonya Sotomayor stated that police must first seek a search warrant for that blood. It looks like city officials plan to do that, each and every time a suspect refuses a breath test.

Read more about the tyranny in Missouri Here! 






The Official Government Rag 'Mayday' alert
The Official Government Rag ‘Mayday’ alert