Lauren Canario arrested, Russell Kanning hassled 9/15/2007

[firecracker joe]

hey lauren
glad your out of the prison camp! when will the pigs realize were not the bad guys they are and the more they pick on non violent sweet people like you the more they will get angry people like me to stand up  for our right s. So they stole your video camera and kidnappped you and then just let you go at a foriegn location. You Lauren are one onf my heros and i dont have many of them so keep up the good work and let me know what i can do. FIRECRACKER JOE

[612Actual]

Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.  Their conduct invoked the 4th Amendment.

You need to verify whether the nature of an expired tag is CRIMINAL or CIVIL.

You also need to verify the NATURE of the police CONTACT.  Which one was it?:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called "detention,"  involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

The bottom line is the servant seized property without a warrant.  Warrantless arrests and seizures are prima facie illegal.  They are punishing you by depriving your of property BEFORE any deprivation hearing in a court of law where you had an opportunity to examine any witness or evidence.  This is a substantive due process issue.  Police are NOT judges.  They can ACCUSE but they CAN NOT CONVICT, especially at curbside. 

You could file a claim for damages against the cop in their PERSONAL CAPACITY for "acting beyond the scope" of their duty in absence of "authorization".

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH:

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]

When, however, the question of the legality of an arrest or of a search and seizure is raised either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant or that private premises were entered or a search made without a search warrant, and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification. (Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 471- 472 [289 P.2d 428]; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319 [239 P.2d 876]; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [228 P.2d 550]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656 [290 P.2d 535]; People v. Gorg, supra, 45 Cal.2d 776, 782-783.)
Badillo v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.2d 269
[S. F. No. 19346. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956.]

[outatime]

Reading about this Gestapo checkpoint just makes my jaw drop. Lauren Canario is a brave woman.

Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.

No, the term is "theft"

I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH

I'm in CA too but thankfully I'm too young to be a lawyer.

Thomas

[612Actual]

outatime wrote -  I'm in CA too but thankfully I'm too young to be a lawyer.

Thomas

-----------------

Dunno what that has to do with anything. 

I'm not a lawyer but I want to know what lawyers know, it could and has come in quite handy.  The only two real differences between you and an attorney is that they are called "attorney" and they know the rules.  You can know the rules without being an attorney, and I might add, have more power than them because they PRACTICE law, you don't need to be a member of the State Bar to APPLY law.  Once you're a member of the State Bar you have ring in your nose that the judge can yank whenever they want.  I don't have a ring in my nose.

And yes it's "theft" and there's reasons for the use of the terms "warrantless seizure" and "warrantless taking".  The word "theft" isn't used in the 4th Amendment, "seizure" is.  Use their words against them.

[JosephSHaas]

Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.  Their conduct invoked the 4th Amendment.

You need to verify whether the nature of an expired tag is CRIMINAL or CIVIL.

You also need to verify the NATURE of the police CONTACT.  Which one was it?:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter.

*********************************************************** The second type, called "detention,"  involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime."   (*)
*************************************************************The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

The bottom line is the servant seized property without a warrant.  Warrantless arrests and seizures are prima facie illegal.  They are punishing you by depriving your of property BEFORE any deprivation hearing in a court of law where you had an opportunity to examine any witness or evidence.  This is a substantive due process issue.  Police are NOT judges.  They can ACCUSE but they CAN NOT CONVICT, especially at curbside. 

You could file a claim for damages against the cop in their PERSONAL CAPACITY for "acting beyond the scope" of their duty in absence of "authorization".

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH:

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]

When, however, the question of the legality of an arrest or of a search and seizure is raised either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant or that private premises were entered or a search made without a search warrant, and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification. (Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 471- 472 [289 P.2d 428]; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319 [239 P.2d 876]; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [228 P.2d 550]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656 [290 P.2d 535]; People v. Gorg, supra, 45 Cal.2d 776, 782-783.)
Badillo v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.2d 269
[S. F. No. 19346. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956.]

(*) Thanks 612Actual.

Is there an "articulable suspicion" for this "about to commit a crime" if the COPs "think" that Lauren was going to set foot ON the Ed Brown property? As indicated below, this is a "far-out"* concept from what could have been the reason* for her to "simply walk away".

According to http://www.criminal-defense-attorney-usa.com/faqs.html of the 3 types of police-citizen encounters, #2 of "investigative stops" is a "seizure" that is "justified" IF there is "reasonable AND articulable suspicion of criminal activity..." (emphasis ADDed).  "...that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The latter of articulable suspicion is the equivalent of reasonable "if it is supported by some minimal* level of objective justification". 

The COPs knew that she had driven there in a car that was un-registered, so they took it upon themselves to remove it from the public domain. Did they give her a chance to call AAA to have it removed herself?  No!  As she started walking like maybe to a phone from a neighbor who could have assisted her by letting her use their telephone, they THOUGHT she was going to set foot on the Brown property and so "about to commit a crime".  What if any of us went to a neighbor's land on the west and east of Ed's place along this road to merely LOOK to see what might be happening on Ed's land?  Is that a crime?  Of course not!  The "Thought Police" of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four" is in full force!

Whose land did they abut with their tent and cones? Could the owner thereof have volunteered to have her car pushed onto his/her/their property until Monday, when the car could be properly registered with the D.M.V.? Of course, but if they were not there in person, they must be in that house up the road, and to be arrested for walking by to try to see them!?

I don't like that "minimal"* word above, in that just because she chose to walk toward Ed's place, the COPs can use this an an excuse?! Monier calls it a possible interference by her of their operations for the U.S. Attorney to look into possible charges tomorrow, but really now, who was doing the interfering?! WHY didn't the COPSs just set up their INFORMATION BOOTH, to hand out the red warning sheets, and let the people on their way? THEN that support team up the road could photograph WHOever sets foot on the Brown's driveway as actually in KNOWIng violation of the Court Order for the day. Contempt charges could be lodged, and the persons so charged show up with Bill Gardner himself, under a subpoena duces tacum to bring that certificate of federal non-filing with him from his Office of Secretary of State that it is the Feds who are the "outlaws" to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution! Case closed! Feds, telling us to KEEP OUT!, we telling them to GET OUT! Get back to their own deeded property and leave other deeded property owners withIN this state alone, as you have NO jurisdiction here!

Yours truly, Joe Haas

[coffeeseven]

Once upon a time I concerned myself with all of the legal jots and crosses. A long time ago I recognized that police and judges no longer work for us, and more often than not work against us, even against their own law. I have freed myself from the study of things legal.

It's cathartic to fight against that that just plain pisses you off and not to have to worry about every line of the ever increasing bulk of their law.

[612Actual]

JosephSHaas wrote - Is there an "articulable suspicion" for this "about to commit a crime" if the COPs "think" that Lauren was going to set foot ON the Ed Brown property? As indicated below, this is a "far-out"* concept from what could have been the reason* for her to "simply walk away".

------------

The court's have continually and consistently held that "reasonable articulable suspicion" of CRIME is necessary for POLICE CONTACT amounting to a SEIZURE or ARREST.  Additionally EVERY SINGLE case states that the "reasonable articulable suspicion" is related to CRIME.  That's why it's IMPERATIVE to KNOW the nature of the allegation. 

Is walking in and of it self a crime?  Is being unshaved a crime?  Is visiting a friend a crime?  How could the cop's possibly KNOW the motive of why someone is going to that house?  Did the suspect pick up a rock and make a "furtive gesture" with it?  Did the suspect spit on the cops?  What many cops are doing across the country on a routine basis is violating their oaths and disparaging and denying the very rights they swore to uphold. 

Re the warrantless taking of a car, is an expired tab a crime?  If not then the cop CAN NOT have reasonable articulable suspicion because NO CRIME has been committed and he MISAPPLIES the State's police power!  This is a "beyond the scope" and "no authorization" matter.  The following is a premier case out of California standing for the proposition.  There's tons of cases both State and fed that hold the same thing:

[2] " 'n order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience [citation], to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course, is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. [Citations.]' " (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903 , 914 [239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161]; cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178, 98 S.Ct. 1717].)
People v. Renteria , 2 Cal.App.4th 440
[No. B055019. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan 7, 1992.]

[612Actual]

JosephSHaas wrote - ...in that just because she chose to walk toward Ed's place, the COPs can use this an an excuse?!

-------------

Get used to it, the cops, or anyone else for that matter can accuse.  However:

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE

520.  The party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of proof on that issue.

It's the same everywhere because the justice system in this country is founded on that principle. 

The cops have to carry the bags of bricks until they PROVE you're guilty of their ALLEGATION.  They have to articulate the "elements" of the ALLEGED "crime".  If they can't and you can establish that they "acted beyond the scope" of their duty because they had NO AUTHORIZATION to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity then they are liable in damages in their PERSONAL CAPACITY.  They were acting "under color" of authority and they kissed their immunity good bye.

[Friday]

Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.   

[Rochelle]

Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.   

Hmm...they must have needed some more handcuffs in the local PD more than they needed to impound your car

[error]

None of us are truly safe. A legislature is in session.

[Kat Kanning]

Was the pamphlet a how-to guide to bullying for cops, Lauren? 

[JosephSHaas]

... an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch(*) is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith[/b][/i][/u][/color]. [Citations.]' " (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903 , 914 [239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161]; cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178, 98 S.Ct. 1717].)
People v. Renteria , 2 Cal.App.4th 440
[No. B055019. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan 7, 1992.]

Thanks again 612Actual,

The key word in that quote from you above is "hunch"(*), defined as a premonition or warning in advance, foreboding.

Marshal Monier had advised us all to NOT attempt to attend the concert, and so gave this advance "warning" to us as an "omen" of ill portend first by way of his communication of such to the newspaper reporters who did write it into their stories with his quote, and then directly to us by way of like the red-letter day.  Technically this warning was a "threatening likelihood of" something that MIGHT or WILL happen, like IF you step foot on the property THAT day, then they will see to it that you will not only be photographed with a written  invitation through the mail to appear in court for contempt=of-court, but that these law enforcement officers will in-turn be transformed into rule enforcement officers, as in the rule by judge to STAY AWAY!  from private property!?

I like your statement in the next reply of to have them "articulate the 'elements' of the ALLEGED 'crime'." There was no paperwork of an arrest, and so this detention for them to CONTINUE their thinking-up of what maybe they might be able to charge her with, is so ludicrous and "laughable because of obvious absurdity". Absurd: ridiculously incongruous (In-appropriate; out of place: yeah! like "they"/the Feds are out of their place alright, ONE STEP BEYOND the borders of their property onto state lands withOUT authority, as they are "Not harmonious" with their own U.S. Constitution that they take an oath of office to support, and in particular Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 over to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with NO federal filing! As Leonard Nimoy, the actor as Spock in "Star Trek" would say: completely "illogical".  And back to the word absurd: un-reasonable.  So there! Lauren's attorney ought to have a "field day" alright since they "acted beyond the scope" of their duty, withOUT authorization "to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity then they are liable in damages in their PERSONAL CAPACITY.  They were acting 'under color' of authority and they kiss their immunity good bye."

Good luck, J.S.H.

[Jim Johnson]

Was the pamphlet a how-to guide to bullying for cops, Lauren? 

Only for those who can read above the second grade level.

[612Actual]

Friday wrote - Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.

---------------------

The reason the cop has DISCRETION not to take your car is because the Legislature must have provided the authorization for his behavior.  However, notwithstanding the fact that they MAY impound it, it's still a WARRANTLESS TAKING/SEIZURE which invokes the 4th Amendment.  You're being punished BEFORE you've had any hearing to determine whether you did anything wrong.

Again, an ALLEGATION isn't a CONVICTION.  Cops ARE NOT judicial officers and CAN NOT CONVICT you of their ALLEGATION. 

Now the kick in the head part is that when you went to the DMV to ASK for what the DMV was offering and you ACCEPTED their TERMS & CONDITIONS, when you registered YOUR PROPERTY (car) you PERFECTED a SECURITY INTEREST in YOUR PROPERTY with the State.  In other words, you CONVEYED and INTEREST to the State which under the TERMS & CONDITIONS they could recover in the event that you breached your agreement. 

You need to verify whether an expired tag is in fact a crime.  If it's not then what the hell is a POLICE OFFICER doing applying the State's police power to alleged CIVIL wrong doing? That's a Separation of Powers Doctrine issue because the Legislature HAS NOT AUTHORIZED the police to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity, and when they do they CREATE LEGISLATION which is not only a violation of their oath but also the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  It's imperative that people understand the NATURE of the conduct being called into question by police officers because it has everything to do with JURISDICTION and if they don't have JURISDICTION then they BREAK THE LAW when they act beyond their AUTHORIZED DUTY, it's a trespass.