MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – April 2012

Welcome, Pledge of Allegiance

Fallen Local Brothers/Riders: MOMENT OF SILENCE none from March

Membership Announcements and other Information

Donations to MMA of California are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes. However, due and fees may qualify as business expenses and may be deductible in limited circumstances subject to various restrictions imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.

Monthly MMA Membership, Announcements and Events

June 8-10: Redwood Run, Riverview Ranch. Percy, CA: $120 June 25-30: Fireworks July 1-4: Fireworks August 18: Protect Our Rights (POR) Rally September 15-16: End of Summer Campout October 28: Division 1 Poker Run November 24: Toy Run Pre-Party, Sacramento November 25: Annual Toy Run, Sacramento December 9: Swap Meet

MAY - National Motorcycle Awareness Month - NCOM Convention May 10-13, 2012 at the J W Marriot located at 10 S. West

St., Indianapolis, Indiana

Calls to Action - Last 30 days

None

Guest Speakers

Page 1 of 33

ASK for Recommendations from members for upcoming meetings

National News

Congressman Pushes National School Bus Ticketing LawAs more and more cities across the country have opted to end photo enforcement programs, the companies that operate red light cameras and speed cameras have desperately sought new business models. One of the most successful of these from a legislative standpoint has been equipping school buses with cameras to entrap drivers. Several states have signed onto the program, and now a member of Congress wants to federalize the school bus ticketing process. 

US Representative Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) last month introduced "Kadyn's Act" which would coerce all fifty states to adopt the same school bus fine program recently signed into law in Iowa. A first offense citation would run $250 and multiple tickets could add up to a maximum of $1875 each, with up to a year in jail.

States unwilling to sign on to this steep penalty schedule would lose ten percent of their annual federal highway funding. For California, that would mean a $400 million hit to the budget; Texas would lose $340 million; Florida would be out $200 million and Ohio $140 million. The legislation does not specify whether the penalty is to be issued by a camera, a police officer, or based solely on the accusation of a bus driver.

Braley named his bill after Kadyn Halverson who was struck and killed by a Chevy Silverado pickup truck in September 2011. According to police reports, the Silverado driver had marijuana in his system at the time of the accident and he claimed not to have seen the school bus or its flashing lights as the seven-year-old girl crossed the street. The man was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for vehicular homicide. 

Such accidents are exceedingly rare. The fatalities that do happen involving a school bus are far more likely to be caused by school bus drivers hitting a child than ordinary motorists, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"Since 2000, 130 school-age pedestrians (younger than 19) have died in school transportation-related crashes," NHTSA's March 2011 fact sheet on School Transportation-Related Crashes explained. "Over two-thirds (67 percent) were struck by school buses, 6 percent by vehicles functioning as school buses."

Page 2 of 33

Harley-Davidson aims to dispel myth of the 'typical' biker

HD's anti-stereotype campaign, using slogans like.. "We are everyone. We are you." just might be useful to us down the road.

The motor company has a new viral marketing promotion - its "No Cages" campaign - that claims there is actually no stereotypical Harley-Davidson rider any more. Called "E Pluribus Unum" - or "out of many, one" - the new strategy is born out of Harley-Davidson's new crowd-sourcing Facebook application called Fan Machine that the company claims allows all those tweeters to review the company's advertising, rate it and submit ideas to improve it.

The centrepiece of the campaign are videos submitted by riders via Twitter, breaking down all those old social barriers to motorcycle ownership. Meander over to Harley-Davidson's microsite via harley-davidson.com and you will find a pink-haired young woman who is actually an honours student, a hard-looking African-American cop, a gourmet chef, a bandannaed Hispanic who is actually a third-grade teacher and a soccer mum.

Interspersed among these against-types are an army intelligence officer, a robotics engineer and the one remaining true blue, surely-this-is-tired stereotype, a rock star trying to look gritty.

Harley's message is simple: we are no longer a niche. We are no longer even that larger-but-equally focused cadre of Boomers that hijacked the brand for most of the last two decades. We are everyone. We are you.

It's working. In the United States, Harley-Davidson is the number one-selling brand for youths shopping in the 651cc and over segment (almost 50 per cent of the American under-35 market according to RL Polk, the automotive information and marketing firm, almost three times its penetration in 2008). In fact, so dramatically has Harley changed its image that Mark-Hans Richer, the company's chief marketing officer, claims that, "in 2010, Harley-Davidson sold more new motorcycles to today's Millennial generation young adults than it did when the Baby Boomers generation (today's "core customers") was 18 to 34 (1988)". Harley-Davidson is also the leader in catering to the burgeoning female market and, in the United States, it sells more bikes to African-Americans and Hispanics than any other brand.

Bursting even more stereotypes - at least for me - is that all these newbies aren't buying the cheap-and-cheerful Sportsers I envisaged. Like most journalists covering the industry, I assumed that the myriad variations of the iconoclastic Sportster were Harley's draw to this one fringe group. Instead, the most popular single model for 18- to 34-year-old Millenials, women, Hispanics and African-Americans is the full-zoot Street Glide (basically a stripped-

Page 3 of 33

down version of the classic Electra Glide), a top-line model far removed from the bargain basement Sportster.

If nothing else, it shows that Harley-Davidson is serious about broadening its reach. As I have often lamented, if the motorcycle industry is to be reborn - and just the quickest perusal of sales statistics is enough to know a rebirth is necessary - it will come from expansion into long-ignored niches - again, youth, women and minorities.

Bikers can roll with 'colors' suit - BY JASON NARK, Philadelphia Daily NewsGETTING PULLED over just for wearing "colors" really ticks off outlaw motorcycle clubs, and now members of two of them can follow through with their lawsuit over just that scenario.

In an opinion issued last week, U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle in Camden said two members of the Pagans' Motorcycle Club and one Tribe Motorcycle Club member can proceed with their suit stemming from a July 30, 2009, traffic stop in Burlington County. During the stop, New Jersey state troopers ordered riders of six motorcycles to remove their "colors," the members' patched jackets.

"The court has basically said, 'Yes you have a right to wear a patch, these logos,' " said Norristown attorney Boyd Spencer, who represents the Eastern Pa. Confederation of Clubs.

The bikers were headed to a beef-and-beer event when pulled over. The bikers were ticketed for not having approved helmets, the original complaint alleges, and were told to remove their colors if they wanted to leave. The whole traffic stop, which lasted more than an hour, was captured by mounted cameras in the police cruisers.

"Now you're all going to take your jackets off, because on this highway, these are the only colors," one of the state troopers told the group after nearly 50 minutes had passed, referring to State Police blue and gold.

None of the bikers removed his colors, and at a later municipal court hearing, the helmets were found to be legal and a prosecutor dismissed the charges.

The state filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit but Simandle, in his ruling, said the plaintiffs "sufficiently alleged deprivations of a clearly established constitutional right." He dismissed a conspiracy allegation and found claims that the bikers had been denied due process redundant "We had a little wound here and there but definitely, this is a victory," Spencer said.

A spokesman for the state declined to comment Monday.

Page 4 of 33

RICO charges in probation scandal spur debateU.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s brandishing of RICO — a powerful federal weapon used to crush mobsters and violent motorcycle gangs — to prosecute former state officials in the Probation Department for kowtowing to legislators’ patronage demands has triggered a debate that some predict could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, over whether traditional politics in Massachusetts rises to the level of racketeering and a potential 20 years behind bars.

Ex-Commissioner of Probation John “Jack” O’Brien, Elizabeth V. Tavares and William H. Burke III were charged with racketeering and mail fraud in federal indictments unsealed Friday that accuse them of operating a “rigged,” decade-long patronage hiring and promotion scheme to keep happy the politicians on Beacon Hill in charge of the money.

“The indictment speaks for itself,” Ortiz’s office said in a statement yesterday, declining to comment further.

But O’Brien’s attorney Paul K. Flavin said, “To suggest that these three individuals were operating a criminal enterprise because recommendations were made for employment ... This is a culture. When there’s money in an envelope in a handshake, that’s when patronage is illegal.”

Tavares’ attorney, R. Bradford Bailey, vowed they will go to trial. “We’re going to challenge the government every step of the way on their theory of prosecution,” he said.

Decrying the charges against O’Brien and his two top deputies “a fraud on the public,” Cambridge constitutional lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who is not involved in the case, predicted yesterday the explosive case eventually will land before Supreme Court justices, “who will have to draw a line in the sand between politics and crime.”

Silverglate told the Herald that “the idea of pressuring politicians for favors, I’m sure, goes back to George Washington. Guess what the solution is? The voters.”

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 was first used to attack organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia by taking out their leaders. With its significantly enhanced sentences and forfeiture penalties, Silverglate said RICO has the chilling effect of pushing “innocent people” to cop plea deals.

University of Notre Dame professor G. Robert Blakey, a former federal prosecutor and a leading authority on RICO, said he has a bumper sticker, “Fight Organized Crime: Don’t Re-

Page 5 of 33

Elect Anyone.” But he said political corruption is what RICO is used to prosecute most, followed by drugs and fraud in the private sector.

“The statute applies to any person,” Blakey said. “As a general matter, (jurors) aren’t going to think it’s overreaching. Each and every one of them knows how corrupt your politicians are, and now they’re going to have a chance to stand up and be counted on it.”

FEDERAL HIGHWAY BILL PROGRESSESThe U.S. Senate has approved its version of a federal highway appropriations measure (S.1813, "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century" or MAP-21) by a vote of 74-22 on March 14, and the $109 billion highway bill includes motorcycle safety funding for states and would bar federal funds from being used to conduct motorcycle-only checkpoints. The measure now goes to the House of Representatives for further action, where a similar measure is also being considered (H.R. 7, the "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012”). Both bills contain motorcycle safety program funding and both would prohibit motorcycle-exclusive roadblocks, and neither version has any anti-motorcycle provisions, but it’s unclear if the House will take up the Senate bill or advance their own legislation.

MORE STATES MOVE TO BAN MOTORCYCLE-ONLY CHECKPOINTSWhile Congress continues to consider passing a prohibition on motorcycle-only roadside “safety checkpoints” by halting federal funding, several states are moving forward with their own laws to ban the practice. New Hampshire and North Carolina have both passed such legislation, and Virginia has become the latest state to pass a bill to bar law enforcement agencies from setting up safety checks that only stop motorcycles for inspection. Following a motorcycle-only checkpoint set up during last year’s Rolling Thunder POW/MIA rally en route to Washington, D.C. over Memorial Day weekend, Delegate C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) introduced H.B.187, which passed and was signed into law on Feb. 28 by Governor Bob McDonnell. Most recently, New Jersey introduced companion bills in the Senate (S-1685) and the Assembly (A-508) to prohibit police from establishing checkpoints limited to certain types of vehicles and would require that all checkpoints include all types of vehicles.

Page 6 of 33

 Calling motorcycle-only checkpoints discriminatory and unconstitutional, ABATE of California is likewise pushing a bill (AB-1047) that would ban state and federal funding of biker barricades. According to ABATE Lobbyist Jim Lombardo, “We passed out of the Assembly and are awaiting a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee, probably next month, and then on to Governor Brown.” Meanwhile on the legal front, New York A.I.M. (Aid to Injured Motorcyclists) Attorney Mitch Proner told the Associated Press that he is preparing to appeal a federal court decision upholding the constitutionality of motorcycle roadblocks in N.Y., and the issue may eventually be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

BIKER ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL HEARD IN COLORADOColorado legislation to ban discrimination against people wearing motorcyclist gear failed to pass its first committee hearing, but the bill’s sponsor told the AP that he was glad he proposed the bill because it raised awareness. He said bikers are unfairly judged to be criminals. State Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-Denver) says he didn’t propose the measure to get attention but to help constituents who belong to motorcycle clubs and say they are being singled out unfairly. "I'm motivated by doing the right thing," Miklosi said. "They're being discriminated against." Bikers say they're unfairly refused service at hotels, restaurants and stores because of how they dress, and Miklosi’s bill (HB-1128) would have banned businesses from discriminating against motorcyclists based on their style of dress. But his bid to add "unconventional attire" to the state law that bars discrimination in public accommodations and put biker attire alongside such protected classes as race, gender and religious affiliation, fell short in the GOP-controlled House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee which is known for rejecting Democratic proposals.

GREEN MOUNTAIN SENATORS LEARN GANG DESIGNATION INCLUDES VETSMembers of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club may be surprised to find themselves on a list of “security threat groups” recently offered by the Department of Corrections to the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee in Montpelier, VT. 

Page 7 of 33

According to information offered to the committee, a definition from the Department of Justice says a gang designation is appropriate for a group three or more people with a common identifying sign, symbol or name who, individually or collectively, engage in criminal activity which creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Senator Alice Nitka (D-Windsor) wasn’t so sure that the aging vets of the motorcycle club back in Windsor are a menace to society and warrant being “lumped in” with street gangs like “the Bloods and the Crips,” reported vtdigger.org. If all it takes for a “gang” to make the list is for a few members of a group to commit a crime, Senator Jeanette White (D-Windham) asked, “…will the Boys and Girls Club be next?”

MINNESOTA ROAD GUARDING BILLS ADVANCETwo companion bills to allow trained and certified motorcyclists to road guard during motorcycle runs (SF1719 and HF2008) were approved by the Minnesota Senate and House Transportation Committees, respectively. Mack Backlund, State Coordinator for ABATE of Minnesota, testified in favor before both committees and answered questions from the committee members. While there were questions and concerns brought up during discussion, in the end both bills passed by unanimous voice vote with no amendments. The legislation creates a motorcycle road guard certificate under which a person can stop and hold traffic during a motorcycle group ride: “Permits holders of a motorcycle road guard certificate who are acting as a flagger for a motorcycle ride to stop and hold traffic, and override traffic control devices to direct motorcycle operators or other vehicles. Requires drivers to remain stopped until directed to proceed.” “This language has a long way to go in the process before becoming law, but passage in the Senate and House Transportation Committees is a great start,” said Backlund.

FEDS PROPOSE DISTRACTED DRIVING GUIDELINES FOR AUTOMAKERSU.S. Department of Transportation chief Ray LaHood has announced a new set of proposed distracted driving guidelines for automakers that would limit the use of in-car tech solutions that are “not directly relevant to safely operating the vehicle, or cause undue distraction by engaging the driver’s eyes or hands for more than a very limited duration while driving.” 

Page 8 of 33

From cell phones to GPS screens, distracted driving is an ever-present road hazard in today’s techo-centric world, especially for vulnerable travelers like motorcyclists, but soon video games and Facebook friends could be within arm's reach as drivers hurtle down the highway in the next generation of cars from Detroit. Coming dashboard devices would deliver a whole new level of eye candy and brain entrapment, as more than 90% of cars debuting in the next five years are expected to be equipped with Internet-connected screens and other cutting-edge wonders. Automakers are responding to surveys that show 75% of young adults want touch-screen technology in their cars. But, not if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can hit the "Hold" button. The agency’s proposed guidelines -- which do not carry the weight of law -- call for automobile manufacturers to make some dashboard electronic devices automatically shut down once a car starts moving, unless they're for passengers and cannot be seen by the driver. The guidelines cite six activities that should not occur while driving: text messaging, Internet browsing, using social media, entering addresses in navigation systems, dialing phones and reading display screens with more than 30 characters of text. Studies show that drivers double the risk of a crash if they take their eyes off the road for more than two seconds, yet 41 states still allow using a cellphone hand-set while driving and fifteen allow texting behind the wheel.

CHOPPERS FACE EURO-SION OF RIGHTSThey’re long and lean, and Europe is looking to ban them.  Custom motorcycles are coming under fire across the pond, according to Motorcycles.about.com. Along with proposals to limit motorcycle emissions, force anti-lock brake systems on all bikes, and prohibit engine tuning for increased power; European Parliament is considering a ban on extended forks. The issue will be voted on in April and the limits on modifications could take effect by 2014; ABS rulings and stricter emissions could be enforced by 2016. “The proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance of two and three-wheeled vehicles passed its first reading, Committee stage, on 5th December even though an impact assessment on many elements of the proposal was ongoing,” writes MAG-UK (Motorcycle Action Group), “and the Delegated Acts appear to have moved well outside the scope of the Commission's original proposal.”

Page 9 of 33

California Legislation

2012 Agenda

Lane Sharing BillIn January, there was talk in the Capitol about possible legislation around lane sharing. MMA and ABATE have been keeping a close watch on this. As of 4/4, no lane sharing specific bill was introduced; HOWEVER, bills still have ways of getting introduced. Other bills known as Gut and or Amend and or Spot bills have been used in the past to slip things through. It is still rumored that lane sharing may still be introduced before policy committees start this April or May.

AB 1047 - Motorcycle Only Checkpoints : Passed in the Assembly and is now referred to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The bill may be heard in committee this month (April). Picked up a co-author - Assemblyman Solario. New Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia have already passed state laws against NHTSA funding and all these efforts should help the MRF pass their congressional efforts banning NHTSA funding in any state.

AB 1890 - Toll transponders for motorcycles.Some toll authorities are requiring motorcycle riders to have their transponders out and visible creating a safety issue. This bill will allow riders to just have them on bikers, displayed or not.Some of the display options... Rider's pocket Inside a cycle net that drapes over the gas tank Mount on license plate devices provide by the toll operator

AB1535 - Highway signs for Motorcycle OK in HOV lanes. Was placed on the consent calendar in March and passed the Assembly without opposition. It is now referred to the Assembly Appropriations. If it passes there, it then goes to the Assembly Floor for another vote.

SB 1506 - Reducing Penalties for Drug Possession for Personal UseWith an eye towards ending punitive drug policies that have made the United States the world’s largest incarcerator and cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year, Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in February introduced legislation to reduce the penalty for Californians who possess small amounts of drugs for their own personal use. The bill, SB 1506, co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, Drug Policy Alliance, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the California NAACP, changes the penalty for the simple possession of drugs under state law from a felony, which is punishable by up to three years behind bars, to a misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year behind bars.

Page 10 of 33

2013-2014 Agenda

BRO: Anti-Motorcycle Profiling Bill Coming Soon!Senator Huff’s office and into legislation. Senator Huffs District is the twenty ninth Senate District = Orange Co. and San Bernardino.

Biker Rights Organization has drafted writing for a bill to introduce to our legislation to adopt a written policy to condemn and prevent motorcyclist profiling. It will require law enforcement to review and audit their existing procedures, practices and training. This bill will address the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to condemn profiling of people who ride motorcycles as unjust discrimination and unfair treatment under the law and add this as a statement in their training programs.This Bill will also require police to work with motorcycle clubs in their communities to address the profiling issue This bill will stop bikers from being singled out for police stops without a legitimate reason.

American Bikers are law abiding citizen in his or her community as soon as they put on their riding gear; they are instantly profiled as a lawbreaker. Especially if they have a club patch on their vest or any type of riding paraphernalia. It does not matter if you are a member of the Harley Owners Group, a member of a  Christian Motorcycle Club or a sport bike club or if  you wear a patch from one of our Iconic historical motorcycle clubs born out of the 40’s and 50’s ; you are instantly profiled as a lawbreaker. Profiled and stopped by police to be questioned and searched for no legal reason other than you fit a miss-conceived image, a myth from the 50’s that if you ride a motorcycle you are outside of society.    

1. Local law enforcement, California Highway Patrol and all other law enforcement agencies that operate in California shall:

A. Adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent motorcycle profiling;B. Review and audit their existing procedures, practices and training to ensure that they do not enable or foster the practice of motorcycle profiling.C. Institute training to address the issues related to motorcycle profiling. Officers should be trained in how to better interact with persons they stop so that legitimate police actions are not misperceived as motorcycle profiling.D. Work with motorcycle groups as in their communities to appropriately address the issue of motorcycle profiling.E. Our Sheriffs, CHP Commisioner and Police Chiefs shall coordinate with the criminal justice training commission ( California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training) to ensure that issues related to motorcycle profiling are addressed in basic law

Page 11 of 33

enforcement training and offered in regional training for in-service law enforcement officers at all levels.

Election Year Information

The deadline for final filling of candidates for the June Primary election was March 15. There are 80 Assembly Districts, 20 State Senate Districts and 53 Congressional Districts. ABATE of CA as well as Repeal Machine are assessing the candidates based on their view of biker rights. ABATE will then create and circulate a voter guide with recommendations on motorcyclist friendly candidates and Repeal Machine will list their candidates on their website.

Active Judicial Cases in California - Criminal and Civil

CaliforniaPolice Harassment and Rights Violations

Monterey Bay COC - Santa Cruz County Gang Task Force Henchmen MC San Jose Chapter - San Jose Police Department Mayhem MC - Santa Cruz County

Discuss active member and or club traffic stop cases and civil lawsuit cases - Get case numbers for all

Government & Law Enforcement Tools, Misconduct and Abuse

Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine ToolLaw enforcement tracking of cellphones, once the province mainly of federal agents, has become a powerful and widely used surveillance tool for local police officials, with hundreds of departments, large and small, often using it aggressively with little or no court oversight, documents show.

The practice has become big business for cellphone companies, too, with a handful of carriers marketing a catalog of “surveillance fees” to police departments to determine a suspect’s location, trace phone calls and texts or provide other services. Some departments log dozens of traces a month for both emergencies and routine investigations.

Page 12 of 33

With cellphones ubiquitous, the police call phone tracing a valuable weapon in emergencies like child abductions and suicide calls and investigations in drug cases and murders. One police training manual describes cellphones as “the virtual biographer of our daily activities,” providing a hunting ground for learning contacts and travels.

But civil liberties advocates say the wider use of cell tracking raises legal and constitutional questions, particularly when the police act without judicial orders. While many departments require warrants to use phone tracking in nonemergencies, others claim broad discretion to get the records on their own, according to 5,500 pages of internal records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from 205 police departments nationwide.

The internal documents, which were provided to The New York Times, open a window into a cloak-and-dagger practice that police officials are wary about discussing publicly. While cell tracking by local police departments has received some limited public attention in the last few years, the A.C.L.U. documents show that the practice is in much wider use — with far looser safeguards — than officials have previously acknowledged.

The issue has taken on new legal urgency in light of a Supreme Court ruling in January finding that a Global Positioning System tracking device placed on a drug suspect’s car violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. While the ruling did not directly involve cellphones — many of which also include GPS locators — it raised questions about the standards for cellphone tracking, lawyers say.

The police records show many departments struggling to understand and abide by the legal complexities of cellphone tracking, even as they work to exploit the technology.

In cities in Nevada, North Carolina and other states, police departments have gotten wireless carriers to track cellphone signals back to cell towers as part of nonemergency investigations to identify all the callers using a particular tower, records show.

In California, state prosecutors advised local police departments on ways to get carriers to “clone” a phone and download text messages while it is turned off.

In Ogden, Utah, when the Sheriff’s Department wants information on a cellphone, it leaves it up to the carrier to determine what the sheriff must provide. “Some companies ask that when we have time to do so, we obtain court approval for the tracking request,” the Sheriff’s Department said in a written response to the A.C.L.U.

And in Arizona, even small police departments found cell surveillance so valuable that they acquired their own tracking equipment to avoid the time and expense of having the phone

Page 13 of 33

companies carry out the operations for them. The police in the town of Gilbert, for one, spent $244,000 on such equipment. 

Cell carriers, staffed with special law enforcement liaison teams, charge police departments from a few hundred dollars for locating a phone to more than $2,200 for a full-scale wiretap of a suspect, records show.

Most of the police departments cited in the records did not return calls seeking comment. But other law enforcement officials said the legal questions were outweighed by real-life benefits.

The police in Grand Rapids, Mich., for instance, used a cell locator in February to find a stabbing victim who was in a basement hiding from his attacker.

“It’s pretty valuable, simply because there are so many people who have cellphones,” said Roxann Ryan, a criminal analyst with Iowa’s state intelligence branch. “We find people,” she said, “and it saves lives.”

Many departments try to keep cell tracking secret, the documents show, because of possible backlash from the public and legal problems. Although there is no evidence that the police have listened to phone calls without warrants, some defense lawyers have challenged other kinds of evidence gained through warrantless cell tracking.

“Do not mention to the public or the media the use of cellphone technology or equipment used to locate the targeted subject,” the Iowa City Police Department warned officers in one training manual. It should also be kept out of police reports, it advised.

In Nevada, a training manual warned officers that using cell tracing to locate someone without a warrant “IS ONLY AUTHORIZED FOR LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES!!” The practice, it said, had been “misused” in some standard investigations to collect information the police did not have the authority to collect.

“Some cell carriers have been complying with such requests, but they cannot be expected to continue to do so as it is outside the scope of the law,” the advisory said. “Continued misuse by law enforcement agencies will undoubtedly backfire.”

Another training manual prepared by California prosecutors in 2010 advises police officials on “how to get the good stuff” using cell technology.

The presentation said that since the Supreme Court first ruled on wiretapping law in 1928 in a Prohibition-era case involving a bootlegger, “subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government.”

Page 14 of 33

Technological breakthroughs, it continued, have made it possible for the government “to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.”

In interviews, lawyers and law enforcement officials agreed that there was uncertainty over what information the police are entitled to get legally from cell companies, what standards of evidence they must meet and when courts must get involved.

A number of judges have come to conflicting decisions in balancing cellphone users’ constitutional privacy rights with law enforcement’s need for information.

In a 2010 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, said a judge could require the authorities to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before demanding cellphone records or location information from a provider. (A similar case from Texas is pending in the Fifth Circuit.)

“It’s terribly confusing, and it’s understandable, when even the federal courts can’t agree,” said Michael Sussman, a Washington lawyer who represents cell carriers. The carriers “push back a lot” when the police urgently seek out cell locations or other information in what are purported to be life-or-death situations, he said. “Not every emergency is really an emergency.”

Congress and about a dozen states are considering legislative proposals to tighten restrictions on the use of cell tracking.

While cell tracing allows the police to get records and locations of users, the A.C.L.U. documents give no indication that departments have conducted actual wiretapping operations — listening to phone calls — without court warrants required under federal law.

Much of the debate over phone surveillance in recent years has focused on the federal government and counterterrorism operations, particularly a once-secret program authorized by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. It allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on phone calls of terrorism suspects and monitor huge amounts of phone and e-mail traffic without court-approved intelligence warrants.

Clashes over the program’s legality led Congress to broaden the government’s eavesdropping powers in 2008. As part of the law, the Bush administration insisted that phone companies helping in the program be given immunity against lawsuits.

Since then, the wide use of cell surveillance has seeped down to even small, rural police departments in investigations unrelated to national security.

Page 15 of 33

“It’s become run of the mill,” said Catherine Crump, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who coordinated the group’s gathering of police records. “And the advances in technology are rapidly outpacing the state of the law.”

How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?

Posted by Gabe Rottman, Washington Legislative Office at 11:56am

Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).

The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Page 16 of 33

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

Don’t Let Congress Use "Cybersecurity" Fears to Erode Digital Rights

Congress is considering legislation that would give companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications, including huge amounts of personal data like your text messages and emails, and share that data with the government and anyone else. All a company has to do is claim its privacy violations were for "cybersecurity purposes." Tell Congress that they can’t use vaguely-defined "cybersecurity threats" as a shortcut to bypassing the law.

H.R. 3523, also known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a "cybersecurity" exemption to all existing laws.

There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by "cybersecurity purposes." That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.

Worst of all, the stated definition of "cybersecurity" is so broad, it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would "degrade the network." The bill specifically mentions that cybersecurity can include protecting against the "theft or misappropriation of private or government information" including "intellectual property."

Page 17 of 33

Such sweeping language would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.

Congress wants to use the threat of "cybersecurity" to undermine our digital rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing in this bill or any bill like it.

Proposed Law Would Restore Local Control Over Intelligence GatheringSan Francisco - Supervisor Jane Kim introduced legislation before the Board of Supervisors today that would prohibit members of the San Francisco Police Department working with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) from collecting intelligence on San Franciscans unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are involved in significant criminal activity.     The goal is to prevent San Francisco police officers from becoming involved in FBI intelligence abuses, including racial profiling and the improper use of informants. The ordinance is the result of the work of the Coalition for Safe San Francisco, which has documented extensive community concerns over intelligence gathering and worked with local officials to come up with a series of recommendations. The Coalition worked with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to hold a major hearing in 2010. The result was a comprehensive report, endorsed by the Board of Supervisors last year.

The power and size of the FBI has expanded greatly since 9/11. Federal standards on FBI intelligence gathering are weaker than standards adopted by San Francisco in the early 1990s, and weaker than those in the CA Constitution. For many San Franciscans, longstanding protections for political and religious expression – as well as personal privacy - are a source of pride. "The purpose of this legislation is to restore local control, civilian oversight and transparency over the SFPD's participation in FBI intelligence-gathering," stated attorney Nasrina Bargzie of the Asian Law Caucus, which is part of the Coalition effort. "It's important that a clear prohibition against policing based on race, ethnicity, national origin or religion applies to all of our officers, all of the time," added John Crew of the ACLU of Northern California.

Page 18 of 33

More than 30 civil rights and community organizations have signed on to support Supervisor Kim's proposal. City supervisors are expected to vote on the whether to adopt the ordinance in the spring.

"I have worked to support the Safe SF Civil Rights Ordinance because it will help combat the culture of fear plaguing my community," said Mokhtar Alkhanshali, a Yemeni American resident of San Francisco and activist with the Coalition. "Since 9/11, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, South Asian communities have endured pervasive discrimination and bias at the hands of law enforcement officials. We want our local police officers to protect and serve us, not to sign secret MOU agreements to intimidate and surveil us." "The introduction of this ordinance sends a clear message that the protection of civil liberties is of utmost importance, and that the rights afforded by the California Constitution and local law will not be compromised," said Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), also a part of the Coalition effort. As things stand currently, there is no effective way to prevent SFPD inspectors assigned to the JTTF from joining FBI agents in collecting intelligence on San Franciscans without any "particular factual predication," and without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center “Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center [UDC] is being built for the National Security Agency.  A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade.  Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.  The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013.  Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trail – parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital ‘pocket litter.’  It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration…”

DNA Sampling at Traffic Stops: Ways to Protect Your Privacy

Page 19 of 33

Traffic, Safety & Standards

TransCore acts as integrator on project in CaliforniaTransCore has acted as the lead integrator in a major project for the SantaClara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to convert High OccupancyVehicle (HOV) lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes with variable(dynamic) pricing. The first phase of the US$11.8 million, 290km (180 miles)VTA Express Lanes Program has been launched, and is centered on theintersection of the north-south I-880 with the east-west SR 237 freeway.Single-occupant vehicles (SOV) will be permitted to access the previous HOVlanes for a variable-priced toll that varies, depending on the time of dayand level of congestion. Through the use of dynamic pricing, VTA can managethe amount of traffic in the HOT lanes and maintain free-flowing speeds,even when the general purpose lanes are congested. Motorists who use the HOTlanes will benefit from faster and more reliable travel times, while therevenue is reinvested in the corridor and to fund other transportationimprovements in the area.

Carpools and multi-occupant vehicles, as well as clean air vehicles,motorcycles, and transit buses will continue to use the HOT lanes free ofcharge. The 'Express Lane' fees will be collected electronically, using theradio frequency identification (RFID)-based electronic toll collectiontechnology that is already in use on the San Francisco Bay Area Bridges andelsewhere in California. Enforcement will be provided by the CaliforniaHighway Patrol (CHP). TransCore's work as system integrator included thedesign and installation of AVI (Automatic Vehicle Identification) equipment,variable message signs (VMS), traffic monitoring detectors and CCTV cameras.All of the sites are integrated with the VTA's wide area network via awireless communications network. The company also developed the systemsoftware that includes the dynamic pricing algorithm, which evaluates theoperation of the HOT lanes and the general purpose lanes. The siteinterfaces with the BATA Regional Customer Service Center for back-endtransaction processing and applying tolls to customer accounts.

Other/Misc Topics/News

Page 20 of 33

United Kingdom: Gas station cameras to automatically stop fueling of uninsured cars?The British sure love their surveillance cameras, don't they? As if living in the police state that is modern Great Britain isn't bad enough for motorists, what with all the speed cameras and the like, there's a new plan afoot: Keep the uninsured from pumping gas.

According to The Mirror, a new government proposal would have surveillance cameras at gas stations determine whether a vehicle carries valid insurance and registration before turning on the pumps. Automatic license plate recognition is already in place at thousands of British fueling stations, acting as a deterrent to driving off without paying. The new measure would be as simple as allowing the systems to cross-reference databases of the national Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, according to the report.

One in 25 drivers in the UK are uninsured, according to The Mirror – some 1.4 million motorists. While the report calls this rate "one of the worst records in western Europe," it's far better than here in the United States.

According to data from 2009, published by USA Today, nearly 14 percent of U.S. drivers, or one in seven, has no insurance. In that report, the south stood atop the list of U.S. states with the highest rates of uninsured drivers, with Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Florida, Oklahama and Alabama all topping 20 percent.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling Brings New Questions About Long-Term Surveillance San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation and the ACLU Foundation of Texas Friday in backing a judge who required a search warrant before approving the seizure of two months of cell phone location data by law enforcement.

In this case, the government asked a magistrate judge to approve a request to two cell phone companies for 60 days of cell phone location records as part of a routine law enforcement investigation. The judge denied the request, saying it was necessary for the government to get a warrant based on probable cause before it could obtain the records. In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, EFF argues that the judge was correct, as getting a warrant is essential to ensuring Fourth Amendment protections.

"The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in United States v. Jones that the GPS tracking of a vehicle without a warrant violates the reasonable expectation of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This is a very similar situation," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "People carry their cell phones with them wherever they go, all day long. Records of where we've been can reveal information about our health, our religion,

Page 21 of 33

our hobbies, and our politics. As technology advances, these records will become only more detailed and intrusive."

The government claims that cell phone users voluntarily disclose their physical location to their service provider every time their phone connects to a cell phone tower, meaning they give up their privacy rights under the "third-party doctrine." However, this theory would undermine privacy in nearly any networked communication. In fact, in the Jones case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern about the third-party doctrine, writing that it was "ill-suited to the digital age."

"The judge in this case has a right to demand probable cause before allowing access to this sensitive information," Fakhoury said. "This is a powerful tool that police should be able to use in criminal investigations, but only after they can get a warrant based on probable cause."

Presentations / Special Topic / Exercise

BOLT - Guerrilla Lawfare: 4th Amendment Search and Seizure

Open Discussion and fact gathering – Local Issues (Get forms filled out right there)

o Police Harassment / Profilingo Discrimination at local business establishmentso Traffic Lights o Road Conditions

<BREAK>Events

Raffle, 50/50

Closeo Next Month’s Agenda

Discuss BRO's motorcycle profiling bill

Page 22 of 33

Discuss topics for the NCOM National Convension Discuss any activities related to Motorcycle Awareness Month

o Watch Out for Cops riding out!

Appendix - Details

National Motorists Association BlogHow To Handle Yourself During A Traffic Stop

It’s more likely than it’s probably ever been that you’ll get pulled over by a cop at some point in the near future.

Not only are there more penny-ante laws and violations on the books than ever, state and local governments are dealing with major cash flow problems, just like the rest of us. They can’t raise taxes directly; that would spark a revolt of the masses at this point. But they can turn loose the cops — whose ticket books and radar guns serve as a very effective means of indirect taxation.

So, first, be on the alert.

Second, be prepared. Do you know how to handle yourself during a traffic stop? How you behave can be the key factor that determines whether you can successfully beat the ticket later on — or maybe (if you’re really lucky) get off with a warning right now.* Pull over the right way.Yes, there is a definite right way to pull over during a traffic stop.

When the cop turns on his lights, you should immediately slow the vehicle and put your turn signal on. Then pull off the road — to a shoulder or side street — as quickly as possible. Do not stop in the middle of the road. The idea is to park your car so it’s out of the way of traffic — which makes the stop safer for the cop. Which makes him happy. Which is good policy, because aggravating the cop — or conveying the impression that you’re an addled idiot — will not help you.

Page 23 of 33

Next, put the car in Park, shut down the engine, turn on the hazard blinkers and turn on the interior light (if it’s dark outside). Put both hands on the top of the steering wheel and sit quietly. Do not root around for stuff.

Again, the idea here is to make the cop feel safe by conveying the impression that you’re an Honest Joe or Jane — and not some thug.

Important: If you have a concealed handgun permit, keep it with your driver’s license (a paper clip works well). Do not reach for or produce your weapon.

When the cop comes to your window, hand him your license and your permit and tell him, “Officer, I have a concealed carry permit.” If you are carrying a weapon or have one in the vehicle, tell him exactly where it is but do not reach for it.

Usually, cops relax around CWP holders because CWP holders are by definition not criminals (having undergone state and federal background checks) and rarely cause trouble. But it’s very important to let the cop know you have the CWP before he discovers you have a gun on you.

* Be polite and cooperative but not talkative.

The cop is not your friend. Remember this. He is there to give you a ticket and anything you say can and will be used against you in court.

The cop is taking notes and trained to ask you leading and entrapping questions, such as “Do you know how fast you were going”? To which, you should reply along the lines of “I’m sure you have an opinion, officer.” Never incriminate yourself — unless you feel you did do something wrong and want to pay the fine. It’s best to keep the conversation as short, sweet — and forgettable — as possible.

If you are confrontational or sarcastic, not only will the cop remember you, he is much more motivated to see you’re convicted. If, on the other hand, you’re remembered as a nice, polite, cooperative person, the cop is more likely to not object come court time when the judge considers a reduced charge or “driving school” to nix the ticket.

* Take notes yourself.

Page 24 of 33

If you are going to contest the ticket, you should be prepared to present facts in court — or have facts to give your attorney.

For example, was the speed limit sign clearly posted? If it was obscured by a leafy tree, and you can show this in court (keeping a small disposable camera with you in the car for this purpose is a smart idea) that is an objective fact that may just get you out of the ticket.

You want to record and keep track of any fact that either puts into question the offense you’ve been charged with or which serves as what they call in legal lingo a mitigating circumstance — such as the fact that you were rushing your pregnant wife to the emergency room.

At court, unless you have a driving record peppered with previous violations, you can almost always get the judge/commonwealth’s attorney to agree to a lesser charge, or even a reduced charge — or to drop the moving violation in return for agreeing to attend one of those day-long DMV driving schools many states offer.

The main thing they want is your money; the main thing you want to avoid is “points” on your driver’s record, because they can lead to hiked insurance costs for several years vs. the one-time hit of a fine.

A Practical Guide For Dealing With Traffic Stops

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to dealing with a cop during a traffic stop (or “safety” checkpoint). One of them is disgustingly obsequious, unworthy of a free people. The other is absolutely correct — in principle — but elements of it, if followed to the letter, can and probably will lead to unnecessary trouble.

The first school says Yes Sir and No Sir the cop, accede to his every request; be “cooperative” (that is, surrender all your rights) and Do As You Are Told. The problem with this approach is you’re counting on the cop to be decent, which he may not be. And if he’s not — if he’s a bully with a badge (and yes, they exist) then your supine submission may actually egg him on. There are times when it’s critical to stand your ground. I don’t mean be aggressive. I do mean don’t be passive. If you make it clear

Page 25 of 33

that people — cops or otherwise — can walk all over you – well, usually they will do just that.

Ok, so what’s the sensible middle ground? The practical, real-world smart way to handle a traffic stop?

First, make sure you never — ever — leave your driveway without your vehicle in legally faultless condition. All lights working, stickers up to date, etc. If you don’t give them a reason to pull you, you’ve won before it’s begun.

Second, never leave your driveway without your license and whatever other paperwork the Clovers (government) have decreed we must always possess.

I don’t like it any more than you. But you’re a noggin in search of a wood shampoo if you get stopped by a cop and assert “Sovereign Citizen” doctrine or some such.

I’m with you in principle. We should not have to carry “papers” in a free country and all the rest of it. But you will get exactly nowhere arguing this point with a cop. No, wait. That’s not quite true. You will get taken somewhere. To jail. This is to be avoided, if at all possible — unless you are that ardent about making a point, at least. Which if you are — bully. But most of us would prefer to just get away and go home for now.

Next, if Johnny Law appears on your bumper with his wig-wags flashing immediately slow, put on your turn signal and pull off the road — and as far off the road — as you reasonably can. Whether the stop is righteous or vicious, doesn’t matter. He’s got the gun, the badge and the Authoritay. By pulling off as far as you can onto the shoulder, you’ll be showing consideration for “officer safety,” which may soften the cop’s attitude.

For the same reason, turn on the dome light if it’s night, shut off the engine regardless — and put both hands on top of the steering wheel. Wait quietly.

Save the argument for later. Crack your window just enough to slip your license and registration paperwork through. Keep the door locked. Be civil — but not submissive. Don’t let yourself be baited by the cop into any discussion that will lead to an admission of guilt — or admission of anything, for that matter. If he asks you questions, just shrug or, if you prefer, respond with a neutral, noncommittal statement.

Page 26 of 33

It is your right — but probably not wise — to quote the Bill of Rights. Probably it will just aggravate the cop — and while I don’t give a damn about his feelings, I do understand that I am at his mercy in a situation like this. You should understand it, too.

If it comes down to it, you should absolutely decline permission to search either your person or your vehicle. Say it loudly enough so that it will be picked up by the visual/auditory recording equipment almost all cops now have.

Make a recording. They are recording you — and whatever they record will be used against you. Make sure you can tell your side of things later on with the same incontrovertible “there it is, right on the tape” verisimilitude. But, don’t make a big deal of it. In fact, try your best to make the recording without the cop knowing. It could mean all the difference if the cop is a bad apple — one of the alarmingly common control freak types, possibly hopped up on steroids and looking for a punching bag, that can be found all over YouTube and other citizen protest venues of late. Save the evidence for later, when you will be at a much reduced risk of street justice — and at the ugly mercy of a cop’s word vs. yours.

And don’t sweat the legality of recording a public official performing his public duties. While a few proto-Stalinist enclaves such as Illinois and Maryland have arrested citizens for recording cops, these cases have uniformly been tossed by the courts.

The bottom line goal is to get done with the stop and be on your way again as quickly as possible. To be as forgettable and anonymous as you can be. To avoid escalation. To improve your chances of beating the wrap later on in court — or by gaming the bureaucracy.

Always remember that as much as it sucks — as much as we value our natural rights as free men — when the deck is stacked against you, discretion can be the smarter part of valor.

10 Practical Tips For Avoiding Traffic Tickets

Not many of us know someone who’s been in the clink for a serious crime — but almost everyone knows someone who’s been on the receiving end of a traffic ticket, or received one themselves.

Page 27 of 33

This fact tells us that good, honest conduct is no sure guarantee of avoiding interaction with the police — at least when it comes to traffic violations.

But you can improve your odds; here’s how:

1) Try not to drive faster than 9 mph over the posted limit on the highway and about 5-6 mph above the posted limit on secondary roads. In most places, most cops will not ticket you if you’re within this range. Part of the reason is simply that most car speedometers are not perfectly calibrated and so it’s easier to challenge such a trivial ticket in court. The other is the unwritten rule most cops follow that “spots” traffic a few mph over the posted limit — because the cops know (even if they won’t say so publicly) that the speed limits are generally under-posted, too — and for the most part don’t like to harass people for exceeding them by just a little bit. Exceptions to this include 25 mph/school zones — where you should never drive even a single mph faster than the posted limit.

2) Don’t drive significantly faster (or slower) than the traffic around you. If you do, you’ll stick out — and if there’s a cop around, he will notice and focus on you. Learn from the prey animals of the African savannah: There is safety in numbers. Even if you are driving faster than the speed limit, if you’re one of a dozen cars in a pack, there’s only a one in twelve chance the cop will target you.

3) Never speed at night, especially after midnight. There are more cops on the road during these hours — and fewer cars. You will stand out. And the cops are looking for any excuse to pull you over, because night-time is DWI time and every car a cop comes across will be closely scrutinized. Give him a reason — any reason — to pull you over and he will pull you over.

4) Make sure your car’s registration, license plates and state inspection are always up to date. Cops are trained to look for passed-due inspection stickers (and also things like cracked windshields and dead headlights/brake lights, etc.) and if you’re speeding, even a little bit, your car will be the one that gets pulled over. And once pulled over, odds are you will end up with a ticket. The number one goal is to avoid getting pulled over in the first place.

Page 28 of 33

5) Pay close attention to the behavior of other drivers, especially if you’re driving in an unfamiliar area. If you see cars ahead suddenly slowing down for no apparent reason (or oncoming cars are flashing their lights at you) it’s likely there’s a radar trap up ahead. Slow down now.

6) Be on your guard driving through small towns you don’t know, especially small towns just off an Interstate or when a major road goes directly through a small town. Speed traps are a reality of life and you’re most likely to encounter one when driving through a small town in the middle of nowhere. Some towns get a large percentage of their budget from traffic tickets and the local yokel cops are on the lookout for cars with out of state plates because they know the driver is not likely to come all the way back there to try to fight the ticket in court — no matter how trumped-up the ticket might be. It’s unfair, but it’s the reality on the ground.7) Be on the alert for sudden (and often poorly indicated) reductions in the posted speed limit. On many roads, the maximum will drop from say 55 to 45 for no obvious reason — and sometimes, there’ll be a cop just after the sign change, waiting for you with his radar gun. Watch for work zones — where the limit may drop by half (and the fines double).

8) Educate yourself about photo radar, or automated tickets. If you’re traveling to say Phoenix, AZ or Washington, DC — be forewarned that these areas use automated cameras to ticket people for both red light running and speeding. You may get no warning — and have no idea you just got a ticket — until it arrives in the mail a few weeks later.

9) Familiarize yourself with the makes/models of cars that cops tend to drive. The most commonly used cop cars (marked and unmarked) are the Ford Crown Victoria, the Chevy Impala and the Dodge Charger. The nice thing about the Vic is that it’s very easy to pick out because it’s very large and pretty much only cops and older people drive them. The Impala’s harder to sniff out because they are anonymous-looking and really blend into the crowd. The Charger’s even worse because it’s a popular car and also a car that younger, sporty drivers favor. But in general, be on the alert whenever one of these cars is around; be extra wary if you see telltale signs such

Page 29 of 33

as multiple low-profile antennas, large tires with inexpensive-looking trim rims/hub caps and a spotlight on the driver’s side door.

10) Don’t exceed the posted in adverse weather such as heavy rain or when it’s snowy. Not only is it unsafe, it may also be a moving violation even though you may not have been driving faster than the posted maximum. Keep in mind that the speed limit is just that — the lawful maximum — under ideal conditions. If a cop sees you driving faster than he deems safe for conditions, he can still pull you over and give you a ticket. And besides, this is a case where slower really is safer. Even if you have a 4WD vehicle, it takes longer to stop (and the vehicle is more prone to skidding out) if the roads are wet or slicked from snow/ice.

Finally, be courteous and calm if you do get pulled over. You’ve still got a 50-50 chance of not being ticketed. Sometimes, a cop will let you off with a verbal warning — but your odds of getting one plummet to Absolute Zero if you’re confrontational, uncooperative or disrespectful.

Even if you believe the cop is being unfair, it does you no good to argue with him. He has all the power; you’ve got none — and any belligerence on your part will only make things worse. You don’t have to bow and scrape — or incriminate yourself. Just answer his questions politely and provide your ID/insurance/registration paperwork. A friendly attitude can go a long way.

The Definition of Freedom I was having a conversation with a good friend the other day who is widely loved and respected in our community. He is an wise old man. I really cant stress the old part enough, I mean this dude is older than old but wise, well sorta wise. He asked me a question I have thought about almost daily since he asked me three months ago. "What is the definition of freedom?" he pontificated.  After thinking about it, I can say that I do not have an answer. I think its a lot of things to a lot of people. I think it is relative to everyone and totally limitless. But can also disappear completely in a second.

Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose. Certainly, freedom does mean the right to do as one pleases—to think, believe, speak, worship (or not worship), move about, gather, and generally act as you choose—but only until your choices start to infringe on another person's freedom.

Page 30 of 33

Abuse of freedom leads to its demise, think about some yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Think about laws that limit sound emissions for motorcycles. Some say the sharpest interpretation of freedom is the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. I guess I could go along with that.For me, freedom is about living my life the way I want too, having a government that is not oppressive (or too oppressive anyway), the freedom to own firearms, and riding a motorcycle without the possibility of mandatory roadside checkpoints. Right now I don't have all of those freedoms.

So ask yourself, what is your definition of freedom and do you actually have it?

USA - Color of Law Abuses

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

Excessive force; Sexual assaults; False arrest and fabrication of evidence; Deprivation of property; and Failure to keep from harm.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain

Page 31 of 33

their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.Filing a ComplaintTo file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

All identifying information for the victim(s); As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency

employed; Date and time of incident; Location of incident; Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es); A complete chronology of events; and Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written complaint to:Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionCriminal Section950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NorthwestWashington, DC 20530FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.Civil ApplicationsTitle 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions; Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

Page 32 of 33

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.Report Civil Rights Violations

File a Report with Your Local FBI Office File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line Visit Our Victim Assistance Site

Resources Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf) Addressing Police Misconduct Brochure Law Enforcement Misconduct FAQs

ey Civil Rights Links

Civil Rights HomePriority Issues- Hate Crime- Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude- “Color of Law” Abuses- Freedom of Access to Clinic EntrancesReport Civil Rights Violations- File a Report with Your Local FBI Office - File a Report on Our Internet Tip Line  ey Civil Rights Links

Civil Rights HomePriority Issues- Hate Crime- Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude- “Color of Law” Abuses- Freedom of Access to Clinic EntrancesReport Civil Rights Violations- File a Report with Your Local FBI Office - File a Report on Our Internet Tip Line 

Page 33 of 33