Category Archives: SEARCH WARRANTS

Video shows Virginia Police Caught PLANTING Drugs – 6/2014 CORRUPTION

DRUG DOG FOUND NOTHING IN CAR BUT VIRGINIA POLICE SAID THEY DID

[UPDATE 5.3.16: You cannot see the HILARIOUS annotations on mobile – so watch on desktop, for all the details & funny pop-ups. YES, the case was dropped once this video was shown to the Asst. D.A., There were NEVER any drugs to begin with & if they’re were I’m sure the K9’s nose would’ve been ALOT better than these 2 dirty cop’s noses. Also, I was instructed by my Atty. that with the Judges & Cops in that town; a Civil suit would’ve been a waste of time. I support cops as we need them/but loathe biased thugs hiding behind badges.] POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT & SERVE – NOT – PLANT EVIDENCE & POLICE PROFILE. This is personal to me/I’ll tell you why. In June I was illegally stopped while bird dogging RE properties with a white female Co-worker (Driver & owner) in a VERY rural part of VA. We were followed by an unmarked car so we voluntarily pulled over to allow him to pass. We were detained, searched for weapons & drugs and when that turned up nothing & instead of being allowed to drive away – 4 cruisers pulled up with a the K-9 dog and they proceeded to walk the dog inside & out. RESULT- That turned up nothing. So 2 cops ripped the car apart, looking for God knows what on the side of a country road for 1.5hrs and 5 other cops on standby in tactical gear. Picture 1 cop working the driver’s side & the other on the passenger side. After ripping through the car, the passenger side cop (Jr. officer) walks away and leaves his superior to finish. After finding NOTHING; the superior officer walks back to his squad car, the Jr. officer steps over to him, mumbles under his breath & the Superior officer bolts to the passenger side floorboard (my seat) and miraculously finds a morsel of marijuana. Something the dog & the other cop didn’t detect. He puts it in a tester, claims it to be Marijuana and that b/c it was found on MY side of the car—says ‘he’s giving me a citation for possession’. Why not arrest me –BECAUSE apparently the quantity was so small. WEIRD – So ask yourself, how is it a passenger with No marijuana (furthermore – 2 Non users), get pulled over for tinted windows (ONLY after I questioned the stop, the officer replied, give me your I.D. –UNFORTUNATELY for them I had NO warrants etc.), has a K-9 dog & 2 cops search the car with NO results UNTIL 1 officer does something blatantly illegal WEIRDER – So ask yourself, how is it the officer on the driver’s side of the car, magically finds marijuana a dog couldn’t discover? WEIRDEST – After paying $1500 to a lawyer, the VA Prosecutor dropped the charges knowing there was a video. BUT NOW, I’M SADDLED WITH EXPUNGING THIS RIDICULOUS CHARGE FROM MY RECORD—ANOTHER FEE, and get this – Since Virginia is a Commonwealth, they reserve the right to DENY my request! Ps: So I guess June 25th was my day to get a drug arrest record, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! Pss: The Jr. cop (whom I believe planted the so-called Marijuana) even asked to see the vid –I suppose he wanted to see IF he was caught on tape & YES, it’s all on video. HAHA, these guys really think they’re cowboys. PIECE de RESISITANCE – I RECORDED IT ON HD Iphone VIDEO – So after some serious thought, I decided to post the video of (2) Virginia cops planting evidence and make them celebrities.

www.crimefiles.net

www.intelagencies.com

Henry Sapiecha

POLICE NOW HAVE ACCESS TO PORTABLE HAND HELD XRAY UNITS THAT CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR HOUSE WALLS

Xrs-3.gif

Who doesn’t fancy himself a Consitutional expert after a three-day weekend binge-watching The Wire? If nothing else, you know that police need a warrant to justify extreme methods of surveillance, and that a warrant can only be obtained after all other measures have been thoroughly exhausted. (Or, if a judge is buddies with a drunken detective and has the hots for the Assistant State’s Attorney.) So, surely today’s news may come as an outrage:

An investigation by USA Today has found that at least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and Tommy Lee Jones’s U.S. Marshals, are equipped with radar devices that allow officers to “see” through the walls of a person’s home. The various agencies have been using this new technology for upwards of two years, often without search warrants.

RELATED: Ferguson Peacekeeper Ron Johnson: What I’ve Learned
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
Agents’ use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that “the government’s warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions.”
The principal tool in question is L-3 Communications’s Range-R, a handheld device that was first developed for the U.S. Army for use in the Middle East. Like the military-grade gear that turned heads in Ferguson and on college campuses last year, Range-R’s have reportedly been used far away from traditional battlefields. Specifically: Outside of American homes, raising new Constiutional issues

The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against illegal search and seizure, and it sets specific terms for when officials may break it. Here is the Amendment, in full:
“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.”

According to today’s report, various agencies are turning to Range-R’s without explicit permission from the courts, which would (presumably) nullify any evidence or intelligence presented during a trial. Read the full report here.

OOO

Henry Sapiecha

POLICE NEED SEARCH WARRANT TO GO THROUGH PERSONS MOBILE PHONE RECORDS

Warrant needed for mobile phone search: US

mobile phone worker user image www.policesearch.net
Washington: In a sweeping victory for privacy rights in the digital age, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the mobile phones of people they arrest.

While the decision will offer protection to the 12 million people arrested every year, many for minor crimes, its impact will most likely be much broader. The ruling almost certainly also applies to searches of tablet and laptop computers, and its reasoning may apply to searches of homes and businesses and of information held by third parties like phone companies.

“This is a bold opinion,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “It is the first computer-search case, and it says we are in a new digital age. You can’t apply the old rules anymore.”

Mobile phones deserve the same protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” as other personal property – for example homes – enshrined in the US constitution’s Fourth Amendment, the top US court said on Wednesday.

The court, in two cases involving criminal suspects whose mobile handsets were searched by police, weighed the interest of law enforcement in finding important evidence against the civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts jnr, writing for the court, was keenly alert to the central role mobile phones play in contemporary life. They are, he said, “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy”.

But he added that old principles required that their contents be protected from routine searches. One of the driving forces behind the American Revolution,  he wrote, was revulsion against “general warrants,” which “allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity”.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand,” the chief justice also wrote, “does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the founders fought.”

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a [mobile] phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant,” he wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision as important for constitutional rights, while the Centre for Democracy and Technology called the ruling “a tremendous victory for privacy rights”.

Yousry Zakhary of the International Association of Chiefs of Police said the ruling was “disappointing and will undoubtedly impact law enforcement’s ability to investigate and combat crime”.

Meanwhile, the US Congress passed a law offering whistleblower protections for government intelligence employees, a move cheered by supporters of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The House of Representatives voted late on Tuesday to pass the provision authorising the US government’s intelligence activities for the 2015 budget year, which begins on October 1. Section VI forbids firing, demoting or other reprisals against any intelligence worker who reports violations of federal law, wasting of funds or any activity that puts the public in danger to the inspector-general of agencies such as the National Security Agency or Central Intelligence Agency.

“It’s a no-brainer to restore safe alternatives to illegal leaks,” said Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, which defends Mr Snowden.

But non-staff contractors, such as Mr Snowden during his time working for the NSA, are not covered by the new protections.

New York Times, AFP

Henry Sapiecha