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

[Kat Kanning]

Have they given your camera back?

[TackleTheWorld]

Have they given your camera back?

No

[TackleTheWorld]

Camera theft update!

A process server brought me a search warrant this morning, for my camera.  It describes the camera, commands Andre J. La Bier to search it on or before Sept 28, and was signed by James R. Muirhead on Sept 18. 

I can't find any reason why the camera should be stolen on the paperwork.  For example, "this camera should be seized because it is evidence of a someone getting kidnapped".  No crimes are mentioned on the warrant. 

The warrant does say the camera was "obtained" from me on Sept 15 - before the warrant existed.  Of course, warrants are supposed to describe the thing being seized, and you can't describe it until you have it in the evidence locker. Hmmm...

[KBCraig]

That's bizarre. How do you search a camera? You can search the tape by looking to see if any crimes have been recorded, but tapes are fleeting things. They're easily swapped out, erased, recorded over, etc.

I guess they didn't include the affidavit stating what they believed was on the camera/tape, the basis for that belief, etc.

???

[KBCraig]

Reading Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I don't find any mention of post-dated search warrants.

[Russell Kanning]

show lauren the law

[Kat Kanning]

Silly porcupine, don't you know laws are for us serfs to follow.  They're not for nice government officials.

[coffeeseven]

show lauren the law

[dalebert]

I wish I'd thought of this earlier, but Lauren should have filed a theft report with the police at the time. I know she's not a big fan of making use of police services, but in the case of the Feds, it's like fighting fire with fire.  They absolutely did steal her camera. This is truly absurd. 

[Ahmed]

I was browsing through the NH highway statutes, and there seem to be a few that are unconstitutional on their face.  For example,

Section 265:4 Disobeying an Officer. --
    I. No person, while driving or in charge of a vehicle, shall:
          (d) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer;

So the officer walks up to you and says, "This is a check for $10,000 made out to cash, sign here."  If you don't sign, you've committed a misdemeanor. 

Or this:

265:84 Implied Consent of Driver of Motor Vehicle to Submit to Testing to Determine Alcohol Concentration.
    Any person who drives a vehicle upon the ways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations....

You can't even withdraw permission by virtue of the fact that you're dead:

265:91 Incapacity to Give Consent.
    Any person who is dead, unconscious or who is otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusing shall be deemed not to have withdrawn the consent

This is a very slippery slope.  For example: "By virtue of the fact that you attend a government funded school, you are deemed to consent to _______ (fill in the blank)."

[slimpickens]

Unfortunately there are many instances where we the people give implied consent when signing documents such as drivers license, vehicle registration, using the federal postal service, when you sign the dotted line, you voluntarily enter contract with the state. buyer beware, they then make the rules, and you already agreed to them by signing. My next goal is to figure out how to give back their licenses, and reclaim my liberty to use the common areas. and beat them in court when stopped.

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Unfortunately there are many instances where we the people give implied consent when signing documents such as drivers license, vehicle registration, using the federal postal service, when you sign the dotted line, you voluntarily enter contract with the state. buyer beware, they then make the rules, and you already agreed to them by signing. My next goal is to figure out how to give back their licenses, and reclaim my liberty to use the common areas. and beat them in court when stopped.

Revocation. I remember an old timer telling of a Revocation process.
I am sorry to not be able to know more.