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:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/roadside-violation-drivers-passengers-say-police-s/nc7kd/

Photo:  Channel 2 News

——————————————————

mayday2014

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG OFFICIAL MAYDAY LINKS 

 

 

Advertisements

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.”

http://www.elpasotimes.com/nationworld/ci_23571387/ohio-police-department-using-fake-drug-checkpoints

————————————————————

mayday2014

 

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG OFFICIAL MAYDAY PAGE

 

04Nov2013: Police profiling specific cars for searches in GA


GA searches1

ATLANTA — A Channel 2 Action News investigation has uncovered a new kind of profiling that could leave you sitting on the side of the road while officers search your car.

Four families, an attorney, and even an officer told investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer that officers are violating drivers’ rights based on the type of cars they drive.”It was bumper-to-bumper traffic. Blue lights pulled up behind me. We pulled over. First thing I thought was, they have the wrong person,” Shenita Hampton said.

She and her husband were driving in Gwinnett County when they were pulled over by DeKalb County police officers, including a K-9 unit. Hampton says she was made to wait outside in the rain for more than 30 minutes.

“They searched the vehicle. They didn’t find anything. They damaged the birthday cake that was in the car,” Hampton said. “Never apologized, it just was a nightmare.”

She says the K-9 left several scratches and dog hair all over her car. An officer wrote her a ticket for ‘driving too fast for conditions’ but a judge dismissed the case.

Hampton contacted Channel 2 after watching a similar news story earlier this year. Robert Brinson had recorded his DeKalb police traffic stop, after the officer started asking about drugs.

“Is this normal procedure for someone to get pulled over for a traffic ticket and ya’ll detain them?” Brinson asked on the video.

“We didn’t detain you. We asked you about drugs. We are just going off of these clues and everything else,” the officer replied. The officer never said what those clues were.

Brinson was late for a work appointment and admits he was speeding when the officer stopped him on Interstate 20 near Panola Road. It took just eight minutes to write Brinson’s ticket, but then he was made to wait on the side of the road for an hour for a K-9 to arrive to search for drugs.

“And I asked him, is this normal procedure to search people for drugs once you pull them over for speeding? He was like ‘If you don’t have anything why can’t we search?'” Brinson said.

“I was actually kind of shocked that so many people was going through this,” said driver Fred Williamson.

Gwinnett police stopped Williamson to measure his window tint as he and his wife were driving to pick up a prescription. He had left his wallet at home, but recited his personal information to the officer from memory. Then, he says the officer asked if he could search for drugs.

“Most people would say, if you don’t have anything why not go ahead and let them search it? Because that’s my right to refuse them,” said Williamson, adding that the officer began searching him, his wife and his car anyway.

“I’m still constantly telling him I do not give you consent to search my car and that’s when he pulled his Taser out and he pointed it at me. He told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, and he walked over and placed me in handcuffs,” Williamson said, “After he didn’t find anything, that’s when he came back and he took the handcuffs off of me.”

In all three of the above cases, police found nothing during the search. All of the drivers filed police department complaints. All were driving Dodge Chargers. 

“I had never heard of car profiling, not until now,” Williamson said.

Another Gwinnett police officer who witnessed the search filed a complaint against the officer who did it. In a written report, an internal affairs investigator admitted Williamson’s ‘vehicle would draw the attention of police officers.’

“He just said you’re more likely to be pulled over because of the Dodge Charger and because of the theft of Dodge Chargers and because of the way they’re built they’re more likely to have a bunch of drugs in them,” Williamson said.

“To suggest that driving a particular type of car indicates you’re committing a crime is ridiculous,” said attorney Mark Bullman, who has already filed a lawsuit against DeKalb County, alleging a pattern of illegal car searches by officers.

“Your right as a driver is to say ‘I don’t consent to you searching my vehicle.’ They don’t have a right to search if there is not reasonable suspicion,” said Bullman.

But a metro-area K-9 officer told Channel 2 he is often asked to provide that ‘suspicion’ by having his dog show up and alert on the outside of the car, which gives officers the authority to search the inside.

“They’re hitting when they shouldn’t be hitting and then the second issue is that the handlers are cuing the dogs, causing them to hit and then using that as the impetus to then improperly or illegally search the vehicle,” the officer said, asking not to be identified.

He said he’s also noticed a pattern.

“Your Chargers, certain Chevy vehicles we’re seeing, your Challengers, and vehicles of that nature. They’re being targeted specifically because young black men are driving those vehicles,” the officer said.

Tenesha Walker says officers walked up to her Dodge Charger while she was lost and trying to turn around in a DeKalb County neighborhood.

“They asked me if I had any weapons or drugs in my vehicle… I was shocked,” said Walker, who was working as a 911 operator for DeKalb police at the time.

She says officers shined a flashlight into the backseat of her car, during daylight, to look around.

“I wrote a letter to internal affairs and I stated that if I had tinted windows and chrome rims I believe that it would have been worse,” said Walker.

In all four complaints, the departments cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.

Shenita Hampton said she’s not willing to take the risk, “My husband and I, we decided to get rid of [the car] because we’re hearing more and more stories of Chargers being pulled over, and I didn’t want to go through that anymore.”

Watch Video:

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/drivers-officers-profiling-specific-cars-for/vCHKS5/

Read more: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/drivers-officers-profiling-specific-cars-searches/nbfJ9/

————————————–

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