|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
NOW COMES, THE PLAINTIFF/COMPLAINANT, JOHN Q. PUBLIC, IN PROPRIA PERSONA on his own behalf before this Honorable Court and brings this his just reason and cause of lawful authorities in support of his just complaint as follows:
Firstly, that the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND ALL COURTS ARE DUTY BOUND ON OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THAT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE WHICH IS IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THAT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. This argument can be supported as follows; Please see Article VI section 2;
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary NOTWITHSTANDING."
Obviously, that NOTWITHSTANDING means what it says and means!! That is NO'IWITHSTANDING IN LAW!!! Now over the last TWO HUNDRED plus years there has been many a debate as to the validity of this Supremacy Doctrine and in most cases the famous Chief Judge John Marshall gave the deciding opinion in the matter of MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 US 137, (1803) case were in the esteemed Justice John Marshall one of the most knowledgeable jurists in the whole history of the US Supreme Court made this decision; ALSO PLEASE SEE SHEPHERDS NOTATIONS, THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED!!
Anything in Conflict or Repugnancy to the United States Constitution is NULL AND VOID OF LAW. It bears no power to enforce nor any obligation to obey such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, for it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM IT'S VERY INCEPTION AND NOT MERELY FROM THE DATE SO BRANDING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO CITIZENS ARE BOUND TO OBEY IT. SUCH A LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY AND HAS NO FORCE OF LAW. It is said of it that IT IS A FICTION OF LAW.
It clearly follows, that the original forefathers clearly meant for the Constitution to operate for all time in the best interest and protection of the Rights of the People, and as such wanted this TRUST administered by the Government operating in the best interest of each and every citizen for now and for all time. It follows that the Government was the TRUSTEE/FIDUCIARY, which means the one promising to follow the rules of the trust in the best interest of the BENEFICIARY and the BENEFICIARY WAS TO BE THE CITIZENS, each and everyone of them to the extent that each was a KING or QUEEN in their own right as long as they each respected their fellow citizens right to the same equal treatment. Unfortunately some Citizens are more equal than others!!! So my Rights officially end at my fellow citizens nose and as long as I am willing to respect that premise I am a sovereign FREEMAN in full possession of my Constitutional Rights as long as I am willing to timely defend them. It follows that first I must understand those Constitutional Rights and use them wisely with responsibility toward my fellow neighbor citizen. In other words I have a Constitutional Right to FREE SPEECH, but I can NOT yell fire in a crowded theater. Hence I have Rights as long as I recognize the fact that my neighbor also a Citizen has his/her Rights and for all of us to be equal and whole as to possession of those Constitutional Rights we must be willing to respect each Citizens Right TO BE SOVEREIGN AND FREE. The very famous Professor Albert Einstein said the actual value of "A CONSTITUTION" is the value each Citizen places in, That Constitution, protecting basic Rights, and their willingness TO DEFEND THAT CONSTITUTION!! Unfortunately, over a long period of LACK OF INTEREST, the Constitution has suffered a great deal of APATHY AND IGNORANCE thereby putting the principals in serious decline due to that LACK OF INTEREST. We desperately need to change this fact, because PUBLIC POLICY is more and more replacing our great heritage and the Constitutional Rights are literally going into infamy just on the extra judicial whim of some executive or potentate claiming Lawful authority to otherwise ignore the Constitution, and the basic Rights protected by that Constitution. Obviously this is what we hope to change for our better future!!! Now we further see that ALL OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT are SWORN ON SACRED OATH to move timely to protect the Constitution from all enemies both FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC and to perform their DUTY to the best of their ability so help them GOD but no religious test is required to hold office. Please see Article VI para 3 Federal Constitution and Article II para 1 in the Michigan State Constitution. So we have established the DUTY TO TIMELY UPHOLD THE Constitution and the principles outlined under the Constitutions both FEDERAL AND STATE. This DUTY MAY NOT BE IGNORED!!! Please see BOYD vs. UNITED STATES, 116 U S 616, " THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT AGAINST ANY ENCROACHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED LIBERTY." Further see WILLIAM BUTLER vs. UNITED STATES, 297 US 1-88, " The Court has a DUTY TO UPHOLD THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the Rights protected UNDER THAT CONSTITUTION AND THE COURT IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO GIVE A MEANING THAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IS IT AT LIBERTY TO ADD A MEANING THAT IS NOT PHYSICALLY WRITTEN, NOR CAN THE COURT TURN ITS EYES FROM WHAT ALL OTHERS CAN SEE AND KNOW. Clearly, the Court is to decide and WHAT CAN NOT BE DONE OVERTLY MAY NOT BE ACHIEVED COVERTLY UNDER THE GUISE OF COLOR OF LAW." Clearly, THE DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS PROTECTED IS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAW AND THE STARE DECISIS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Clearly, there is no latitude to do ANY THING other than ones sacred DUTY AND VIOLATION OF THAT DUTY IS A CAPITOL FELONY!!! Please see Title 18 US Code section 2381, 2382, 2383, 2384, and 1621. Clearly our forefathers kind of wanted this DUTY TO BE HONORED AND MADE THE DISHONOR OF THAT DUTY A FELONY TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE AND GO OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!! FACT!!! IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER TO BE SURE!!! "BUT I HAVE IMMUNITY," YOU HERE ALL THE TIME!!! THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR A CRIMINAL ACT OR TRESPASS ON SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! YOU HOLD YOUR OFFICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR ONLY, AND IF YOU ARE A FELON YOU ARE NOT IN GOOD BEHAVIOR AND OBVIOUSLY NO IMMUNITY EXISTS TO BREAK THE LAW FOR ANYONE LET ALONE AN OFFICER OF THE LAW!!! FACT!!! The Constitution is OBVIOUSLY THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND NO AUTHORITY EXISTS TO IGNORE THE MANDATES OF THAT CONSTITUTION!!!! FACT!!!!
Next we need to understand how the Constitution is to be interpreted. By LAW THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSE TO BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE CLEARLY INTENDED BENEFICIARY THE CITIZEN FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY. Please see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 US 28 and 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd Constitutional Section 97, which clearly established that THE CONSTITUTION is to be interpreted to include the words, phrases, punctuation, and to include the INTENT of the FRAMER MADISON, HAMILTON, AND JAY, PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by MADISON, HAMILTON, AND JAY who were the authors of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Please see COHEN vs. VIRGINIA 6 WHEAT 2, (1821) which upheld this book THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AS THE EXACT HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, and after figuring ALL THAT, THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE CLEARLY INTENDED AND EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY. So we have more than substantiated that THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND THE COURTS ARE BOUND BY DUTY TO UPHOLD IT AS SUCH, and we have further determined that THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE BENEFICIARIES THE CITIZEN SO I DO HAVE A RIGHT IF I CAN ARTICULATE THAT RIGHT AND THE LAW HAS A DUTY TO UPHOLD THAT RIGHT, AND IF I TIMELY ASSERT THAT RIGHT THE COURT MUST UPHOLD THAT RIGHT UNDER ITS OATH OF OFFICE AND THE DUTY CREATED UNDER THAT OATH AND OFFICE THERE IS NO LATITUDE TO DO ANY OTHER ACT!!! FACT!!!!
Next, let us examine the 4th AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
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 particularity describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I do not think it gets ANY CLEARER THAN THAT!!! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, WALKING OR DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, HOUSES, THEIR HOMES BACKYARDS OR MOTEL ROOMS, PAPERS, RELATING TO THEIR BUSINESS MATTERS AND PERSONAL PRIVACY AND EFFECTS, WELL A CAR IS AN EFFECT, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OR SEIZURES, WHEN ARE WE UNREASONABLE, WHEN THERE IS NO WARRANT SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION DESCRIBING IN DETAIL THE PLACE, PERSONS AND OR PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED AND OR SEIZED. Obviously our FOREFATHERS HAD SEEN SOME VARIETY OF CHECK LANES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO MENTION IT FOURTH ON THE LIST OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND HEY, HISTORY HAS COME FULL CIRCLE AGAIN!!! DE JEVUE, I DON'T THINK SO!!! The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, the United States Supreme Court says, means the RIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM IN THEIR OWN RIGHT TO POSSESS THE RIGHT WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, RELIGION OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND AND THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED!!!!!!!!! HOW COME THE CITY OF DETROIT IS GOING TO VIOLATE IT BY IMPLEMENTING BROAD SWEEPING CHECK LANES TO OPENLY STOP INNOCENT PARTIES WITHOUT A WARRANT OR PROBABLE CAUSE, TO DO SO AND JUST VIOLATE THERE PERSON, PAPERS AND EFFECTS FOR NO JUST OR LAWFUL REASON?????? WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A CLEAR CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!! FACT!!!! Please see the case NORTON vs. SHELBY COUNTY, 188 US 425, "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS NOT LAW; it confers no rights; it IMPOSES no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as an inoperative as though it had never been passed. It is a mere nullity." Further, anyone who operates under such a LAW OR COLOR OF A LAW DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL!!!!! There is NO IMMUNITY FOR A CRIMINAL TRESPASS OR ANY CRIMINAL ACT FOR THAT MATTER. Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto the record. Also see OWENS vs. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE Mo. 100 S.Ct. 1398, (1982) case and MANE vs. THIBITOUT, 100 S.Ct. 2502, (1982) case and these cases holding that there is NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONALLY RIGHTS and that Officers are deemed to be expert on the LAW and to advise to the LAW and give example of the LAW and could hardly claim ignorance of the LAW for a citizen may not use ignorance of the LAW as an excuse and it makes the LAW look incompetent for a duly sworn OFFICER to claim ignorance of the LAW, SO NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY EXISTS FOR VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Further, Article 3 clause 1 very clearly states " JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND INFERIOR COURTS HOLD THEIR OFFICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION FOR HOLDING THEIR Office during BAD BEHAVIOR, so obviously, officers do NOT HOLD THEIR Office during bad behavior, and as such can claim no immunity from such unlawful act. SO CLEARLY, THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR IGNORING A CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND YOU PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERIL IF YOU FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR LAW UNDER COLOR OF LAW. ERGO, YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR INJURY!!!! Also THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES, 230 F2d 486. The Constitution must be interpreted in favor of the citizen beneficiary and the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!! Are we starting to get the full picture here????? JUST DON'T START CRYING FOWL WHEN YOU GET SUED!!! YOU WERE Warned!!!! THE NEW POLICE CHECK LANE POLICY IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! FACT!!!! YOU KEEP PLAYING AROUND AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET SUED BIG TIME!!!! Now add to this SHAPERIRO vs. THOMPSON, 394 US 618, All Citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations and that it is a basic concomitant of a free society to be able to travel throughout unencumbered, says the US SUPREME COURT and further HURTADO vs. CALIFORNIA, 110 US 516, "THE STATE CAN NOT DIMINISH THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!!!" Oh I know you got POLICE POWERS AND YOU CAN DO ANYTHING FOR THE COMMON GOOD AND WELFARE, AND TO CURB CRIME, AND YOU ALWAYS FORGET ---- WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS SEE THE 10th AMENDMENT!!! You people always forget that punch line within CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS!!! ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS???? OH YEAH!!!! YOU WERE JUST NOT LOOKING VERY HARD!!!
You see the 4th FOURTH AMENDMENT IS A LIMITATION AND IT VERY CLEARLY LAYS OUT EXACTLY WHAT MUST BE DONE, AND IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED!!!!! YOU ARE VIOLATING BY PASSING A LAW THAT TOTALLY AVOIDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!! FACT!!!! On top of that you are passing a LAW which takes away other rights which are retained by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN THE (4th) FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE (9th)NINTH AMENDMENT!!! LAST TIME I WENT TO SCHOOL 9 comes before 10th so ANOTHER LIMITATION HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!!! FACT!!! Now getting back to the (10th) TENTH AMENDMENT POLICE POWERS as one can readily see you have exceeded your lawful authority and gone outside the LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY!!! FACT!!! Next, we go to the (14th) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND I ask you can a state deprive ANY CITIZEN of his RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES AND ESPECIALLY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW???? NO, YOU CAN'T, I AND I DON'T CARE HOW HIGH A COMMISSIONER OR MAYOR OR JUDGE YOU ARE IT CAN NOT BE DONE LAWFULLY!!!!! FACT!!! Can you see how some hot shot LAWYER is going to rip you a new tail feather if you continue on this ill fated course of POLICE CHECK LANES. YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE A DEFENSE BY LAW AND IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE AND NO IMMUNITY EXISTS FOR VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE CITIZEN BENEFICIARY AND CAN THE TRUSTEE EVER INJURE THE BENEFICIARY???? HELL NO!!!! REMEMBER YOU ARE A TRUSTEE!!! Please see PEOPLE Ex REL vs. GOVERNOR, 29 MICHIGAN 327, " THE TRUTH IS, NO OFFICER, NO MATTER HOW HIGH, IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!" Clearly, we have a serious problem if you choose to go forward with this POLICE CHECK LANE SCENARIO!!!! YOU PROCEED AT YOUR OWN PERIL AND YOU ARE LIABLE AND CAN BE SUED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED UNDER 18 US Code section 241 and 242 Criminally and Title 42 US Code section 1983, 1985, and 1986 civilly and all I have to do to substantiate a case is verify that on such and such date IT HAPPENED and hell the Court file will verify that and then it is just a matter of getting the ACTORS OR PLAYERS NAMES and hey your names will be in the paper and on the approval of the ordinance and how you voted for or against. Next, I need a sworn complaint of the facts and available witnesses and hey IT IS A DONE DEAL!!!! DO YOU STILL WANT TO PLAY WITH THE CITIZENRY ON THIS RIDICULOUS POLICE CHECK LANE IDEA???? I should tell you the US Supreme Court has ruled that check lanes are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! FACT!!!! I will save that case for you and let you do a little home work on your own!!!! YOU SAY IT WILL NEVER FLY , HEY, DON'T B. S. A KIDDER!!! YOU PEOPLE GAVE THE MALICE GREEN FAMILY AROUND 15 million OUT OF COURT NO QUESTIONS and you had a better case that time than you will have with this check lane program. YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEFENSE!!!! COUNSEL WILL OVER AND OVER STATE CLEARLY YOU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU CONCOCTED THIS CHECK LANE IDEA! YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE THRASHING OF YOUR LIFE, BUT HEY, DON'T LET ME INFLUENCE YOU!!! WARNING, WARNING, DANGER, DANGER, WHERE HAVE YOU HEARD THAT BEFORE?????
You keep playing with fire and you will get your butt burned!!! FACT!!! Now let us take a good look at some of the most recent cases in STARE DECISIS AND GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE YOU ARE AT, JUST IN CASE, YOU ARE STILL NOT CONVINCED OF YOUR PERILOUS TACT WITH THESE CHECK LANES. " For an arrest to be valid under the FOURTH AMENDMENT US CONSTITUTION, PROBABLE CAUSE MUST FIRST EXIST!!!!", Please see FUNAWAY vs. NEW YORK, 445 US 573 (1980) case. "Courts MUST be especially cautious when the evidence that is alleged to establish PROBABLE CAUSE is entirely consistent with innocent behavior." Please see REID vs. GEORGIA, 448 US 438, (1980) case. You have no PROBABLE CAUSE and you can not get any more innocent that going to the grocery store on a sunny after noon or a movie theater or to K MARTS or GOD KNOWS HOW MANY ANY OTHER INNOCENT BEHAVIORS COULD BE COMPARED!!! You are not looking at that defense, I hope!!!! IT IS NO DEFENSE!!! FACT!!! On top of this PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO POLICE. please see MOYA vs. US 761 F2d 322, 7th Circuit (1985), BROWN vs. TEXAS, 443 US 47 (1979) case. " The Constitution protects individuals against invasion of their privacy by the Government." RIMIE vs. CITY OF HEDWIG VILLAGE, TEXAS, 765 F2d 490 (1985) case, WHALEN vs. ROE, 429 US 589 (1977) case. YOU ARE INVADING THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY OF EACH DRIVER WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND YOU ARE ON VERY DANGEROUS GROUND WITHOUT A NET. KEEP DANCING OUT THERE ON THAT LIMB LIKE HUMPTY DUMPTY AND YOU WILL GET YOUR GREAT FALL!!! Absent some SPECIAL EXCEPTION, ALL CONTAINERS AND PACKAGES WILL RECEIVE THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DURING A POLICE SEARCH. US vs. BONITZ, 826 F2d 954 (1987) case. Warrantless search of a grocery bag which provided probable cause for arrest, held not justified incident to arrest. US vs. MOST, 876 F2d 191 (1989) case. If you can NOT even search a grocery bag or a purse or any closed container, how are you going to randomly search twenty or thirty cars at a time????? Even if Police have a warrant, A fact that a person is in the company of person for whom a warrant has been issued does not constitute probable cause for search of that person. US vs. PRIETO-VILLA, 910 F2d 601 (1990) case. You do not even have a warrant, can you see the difficulty here???? Absent exigent circumstances or CONSENT, Officer is NOT to search locked suitcase without a search warrant. see FLORIDA vs. WELLS, 495 US 1 (1990) case. YOU GOT NO CONSENT NOR A WARRANT, HOW DO YOU LAWFULLY SEARCH A COUPLE DOZEN CARS AT A TIME???? Unless exigent circumstances exist, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES ARE IMPERMISSIBLE!!!! FACT!!!! US vs. Almonte, 952 F2d 20 (1991) case. As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required they can ask questions, request to search, and request ID for you always have a right to shut up and walk away. US vs. Childs, 944 F2d 491 (1991) case. Search warrants MUST describe both the place to be searched and things to be seized with particularity. US vs. BROWN 984 F2d 1074 (1993) case. YOU HAVE NO WARRANT FOR YOUR POLICE CHECK LANES FOLLOWING THIS MANDATE!!!! FACT!!! Exercise of right to refuse consent to search can NOT alone be basis of reasonable suspicion supporting detention of suspect. US vs. MANUEL, 992 F2d 272 (1993) case. Excessive force during arrest violates a persons FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. SWOBODA vs. DUBACH, 992 F2d 286 (1993) case. Can you see a MALICE GREEN CASE HERE????? IF YOU GET ONE YOU LOSE!!!! YOU GOT NO WARRANT TO SEARCH, BECAUSE YOU GOT NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND YOU DID NOT GO GET THE WARRANT ERGO YOU LOSE!!!! AGAIN UNREASONABLE SEARCH!!!! FACT!!! You see NO WARRANT AND IT IS AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND IN VIOLATION!!!! FACT!!! YOU LOSE!!!! Probable cause to arrest does not automatically provide probable cause to search. US vs. JONES, 994 F2d 1051, (1993) case. Without evidence or exigent circumstances or consent Police may not search without a warrant. US vs. Parra, 2 F3d 1058 (1993) case, PEYTON vs. NEW YORK, 445 US 573 (1980) case. Obviously POLICE MUST HAVE A WARRANT TO SEARCH OTHERWISE IT IS UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND ALL EVIDENCE GLEANED IS FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE DOCTRINE AND ABSOLUTELY INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PRACTICABLE PURPOSE!!! YOU LOSE AGAIN AND YOU NEVER GOT WARRANTS ANYWAY YOU WANTED TO PULL OVER THREE DOZEN AT A TIME AND OBVIOUSLY THERE JUST WAS NO TIME FOR ALL THOSE WARRANTS. FINE, YOU GOT NO EVIDENCE EVEN IF YOU FIND SOMETHING FOR ANY LAWYER WORTH HIS SALT WILL IMMEDIATELY MOVE TO STRIKE SUCH EVIDENCE AS FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE DOCTRINE!!! NOW WHAT HOLDS YOUR CASE TOGETHER???? NAHDA!!!! FACT!!! YOU LOSE AND GET SUED!!!! DUMB HUH!!!! FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY IN MOVABLE CLOSED CONTAINERS, AND THAT INCLUDES AUTOMOBILES UNLESS YOU GOT A WARRANT!!! YOU GOT A WARRANT???? NO!! TO BAD!!!, US vs. GOOCH 6 F3d 673 (1993) case. Exigent circumstance justifies warrantless entry only where there is probable cause to enter and search. US vs. JOHNSON, 9 F3d 506 (1993) case. Police themselves can NOT create exigent circumstance such that warrant requirements will be suspended under exigent circumstance exception. US vs. HALLIMAN, 923 F2d 873 (1991) case. This is exactly what you are doing wrong on a POLICE CHECK LANE!!!! FACT!!! YOU ARE CREATING EXIGENCY ON THE WHIM OF THE OFFICER TO SEARCH ON SOME SUPPOSED PROBABLE CAUSE AND THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS TREND WE DO NOT want to test!!!! FACT!!! THAT IS HOW MALICE GREEN CASES GET GOING!!!! Government has the burden of proof CONSENT to search by a preponderance of the evidence. US vs. HODGE, 19 F3d 51 (1994) case. YOU GOT NO CONSENT AND YOU GOT NO WARRANT SO WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU GOT TO STOP AND SEARCH EVERY CAR!!! YOU GOT NAHDA!!! YOU LOSE!!! PAY THE PLAINTIFF TO INCLUDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR ABUSE!!!! Because interrogation and search were direct result of ILLEGAL TRAFFIC STOP, ALL EVIDENCE HAD TO BE STRICKEN OR SUPPRESSED. US vs. MILIAN, 36 F3d 886 (1994) case. DID YOU HEAR THAT???? ALL EVIDENCE HAD TO BE STRICKEN!!!! THAT MEANS THE CASE YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD YOU JUST LOST AND NOW YOU GET COUNTER SUED FOR THE DAMAGES!!!! Fourth Amendment FORBIDS UNWARRANTED INTRUSION OR TRESPASS. US vs. HALL 47 F3d 1091(1995) case. A search by Government agents is presumptively UNREASONABLE under the FOURTH AMENDMENT UNLESS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO WARRANT ISSUED BY JUDICIAL OFFICER UPON FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE. BINGO!!! US vs. WARREN, 42 F3d 647 (1994) case. YOU GOT WARRANTS FOR EVERY CAR OUT THERE???? RIDICULOUS ISN'T IT???? YOU LOSE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF!!!! Suspicion is not such " REASONABLE SUSPICION" as will justify investigatory stop if IT IS NO MORE THAN INCHOATE AND UNPARTICULARIZED OR "HUNCH". US vs. GARCIA, 23 F3d 1331 (1994) case. DID YOU HEAR THAT????? A HUNCH WILL NOT DO!!!! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE CHECK LANE IS DOING OUT THERE ON A HUNCH THIS STREET OR THAT STREET WILL PRODUCE BETTER RESULTS OR NON RESULTS!!! MAN CAN YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING???? STRAIGHT TO HELL IN A HAND CART!!! One of the leading cases in Supreme Court history, TERRY vs. OHIO, 392 US 1 (1968) case and it says "FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE STOP TO BE VALID THERE MUST BE ARITICUABLE SUSPICION BEFORE YOU MAY STOP AND SEARCH." Now tell me you got REASONABLE ARITICUABLE SUSPICION FOR EVERY CAR COMING DOWN SAY WOODWARD AVE. ON A CROWDED MONDAY MORNING AND I will tell you what you can do with your case!!!! YOU LOSE!!! NO JURY IN THE WORLD WILL BUY THAT APPLE 'CAUSE THEY SEEN TOP COPS AND WE KNOW WHAT GOES ON OUT THERE ON THE STREET!!!! CHECK MATE!!! YOU LOSE PAY THE PLAINTIFF ALL REASONABLE REAL AND PERSONALLY COMPENSATORY DAMAGES PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS!!!! CLEARLY YOU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE DOING OUT WHEN YOU VIOLATED THAT GOOD CITIZEN AND CLEARLY YOU OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN A WARRANT TO SEARCH WAS INDEED REQUIRED. OH, YOU SAY, "YOU SCREWED UP!!!" BINGO!!! I KNEW THAT FROM THE GET GO!!! Now, Passenger has standing to challenge constitutionality of vehicle stop given that stop results in seizure of passenger. JACKSON vs. VANNOY 49 F3d 175 (1995) case. You see even the passenger has standing to SUE YOU FOR THE ILLEGAL STOP!!!! Government bears entirely burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that consent to search was freely and voluntarily given. US vs. SAADEH 61 F3d 510 (1995). you will love the next one!!! FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW RANDOM SEARCHES OF PERSONS TRAVELING THE NATIONS HIGHWAYS. PLEASE SEE KARNES vs. SKRUTSKI 62 F3d 485 (1995) case. I think that really capped the ice on the whole matter. Can you understand why the TAX PAYERS MAY NOT TO BACK YOUR PLAY ON THIS GAMBLE???? You are going to LOSE IF IT GET TO COURT WITH A GUTSY ATTORNEY AND A CLIENT WHO WILL NOT QUIT!!!! YOU WILL NOT HAVE ONE HONEST DEFENSE, NOT ONE!!!! FACT!!!! Consent encounters and searches are valid only if suspect's consent was freely and voluntarily given. US vs. NOBELS, 69 F3d 172 (1995) case. Warrant MUST be gotten and MUST PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE THE PLACE, THE PERSON TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSON OR THING TO BE SEIZED TO BE VALID. US vs. LAYNE 43 F3d 127 (1995) case. Again no warrant. AGAIN YOU LOSE THE SEARCH IS UNREASONABLE AND YOU HAVE NO CONSENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE. Absent exigent circumstances, POLICE OFFICERS MAY NOT UNDERTAKE WARRANTLESS SEARCH. US vs. BIGGS, 70 F3d 913 (1995) case . Scope of consent search is limited by the breadth of consent given. US vs. WAKER 72 F3d 1453 (1995) case. UNLAWFUL SEARCH CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED BY ITS FRUITS. PARKHURST vs. TRAPP 77 F3d 707 (1996) case. FOURTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS POLICE FROM MAKING WARRANTLESS NONCONSENSUAL ENTRY OR SEARCHES. US vs. COTNAM 88 F3d 487 (1996). Now I trust you can see the precarious position you are placing yourselves in by playing this ridiculous CHECK LANE SCENARIO. IT IS BAD FOR OUR CITY ALL AROUND AND contrary to popular belief it benefits the police posture in the community not even a little. It creates all manner of hostilities between the citizens and the Police which in the long run actually hurt Police community relations and further hamstring the Officers when they have to go out into the community and seek assistance on some special case. The officers are literally spit on and lets face it, a lot of officers do one hell of a job, also contrary to popular belief. There are a few bad apples, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule. I am totally against the tearing down of the Officers or the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens and this check lane plan can only work to do ALL PARTIES IRREPARABLE HARM. I URGE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT AND INTELLIGENT THING. VOTE DOWN THIS CHECK LANE IDEA AS OLD GARBAGE, WE TRIED IT, AND WE SCRAPPED IT, IN 1967. Let us now move THE GREAT CITY OF DETROIT ON TO BIGGER AND BIGGER and forget about looking backwards to a time when burn baby burn was the hue and cry. Tell these PUBLIC POLICY IDIOTS FROM THE CHICAGO THINK TANK TO GO FLY A KITE!!! THEY ARE ALL MORONS ANYWAY AND LET THEM TRY IT IN CHICAGO, WE ALREADY TRIED IT HERE, AND IT SUCKED BIG TIME. TELL THEM TO PUT AN EGG IN THEIR SHOE AND BEAT IT OUT OF OUR FAIR TOWN AND GO BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
IN SUMMATION: I think you have seen enough to sink a battleship but to simply review. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. THE US SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IT AS SUCH AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO!!! FACT!! The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ARE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE EACH AND NOT JUST FOR A MINORITY FEW. THE RIGHTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UPHELD IN FAVOR OF THE CITIZEN SO HE/SHE HAS A HONEST RIGHT TO THEIR VIEW OF THEIR RIGHTS AND THE COURT MUST MOVE TIMELY TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. THE FORTH AMENDMENT CLEARLY FORBIDS THE POLICE CHECK LANES AS BEING UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND YOU HAVE ENOUGH COURT CASES TO SINK THE U.S.S. ALABAMA. YOU WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LAWFUL DEFENSE IF YOU CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT THESE POLICE CHECK LANES IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO SUE YOU, AND YOU ARE PROCEEDING AT YOUR VERY PERIL IF YOU GO FORWARD. I WOULD GRACIOUSLY SUGGEST, YOU NOT GO FORWARD, WITH THIS ILL-ADVISED POLICE CHECK LANE POLICY. OBVIOUSLY IT IS A FREE COUNTRY, BUT CONSIDER WISELY. Remember you are free but there are responsibilities to your neighbor citizens. Lets not return to knuckle dragging Neanderthal days of S.T.R.E.S.S., WE HAVE COME TO FAR. You saw haw bad we got beat up by the NEWS MEDIA ON THAT MALICE GREEN THING, WELL WELCOME TO MANY POSSIBLE MALICE GREEN SCENARIOS. THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF DETROIT OR ITS CITIZENRY!!!!! FACT!!!! WE NEED TO TAKE CAREFUL COUNCIL, AND CHOOSE WISELY FOR OUR FUTURE, AND THE NEW DETROIT WE HOPE TO ONE DAY BRING ABOUT. WE DO NOT NEED A POLICE GESTAPO MENTALITY RUNNING AROUND YELLING FOR YOUR PAPERS PLEASE. ACHTUNG!!! ACHTUNG!!! YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!!! I think you have a grasp of the problem, and I only hope you take to heart a just and serious solution, and not reflex react to some tiny minds who have no hope for the future, and I honestly believe, wish to cap our progress to date. I thank you for your valuable time in regards this matter, I and look forward to hearing that you tabled this subject permanently in the file 13, WHERE IT TRULY BELONGS!!!!
THANK YOU AGAIN AND I REMAIN MOST RESPECTFULLY YOURS:
AMICUS CURAE
