Skip to main content
search
Tag

civil

Mar 07
Love0

Texas Man Charged with Unlawful Carry Solely for Being a Bandido

By General Posts

The MPP has heavily reported on the recent trend of individuals being arrested for possession of handguns merely for membership in a motorcycle club. This includes individuals with no criminal records and License To Carry holder’s. The MPP has even issued a travel warning to motorcyclists traveling through Texas.

One such case against a member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Ashley Becker) in Lubbock, TX continues with a refiling of charges for Unlawful Carry for mere membership in the club, which authorities label a criminal street gang.

Law enforcement and prosecutors should dismiss all such cases in the name of justice because they rely on an unconstitutional application of statute which ignores the basic principle of personal guilt.

Texas Penal Code 46.02, the statute prohibiting gang members from carrying weapons, is being misapplied to individuals simply for being members of motorcycle clubs. Take Ashley Becker, who was originally charged with Unlawful Carry and suspicion of possessing a controlled substance in Lubbock, Texas in 2018. The weapon wasn’t illegal, and no crime was committed. He was arrested under 46.02 for being a Bandido in possession of an otherwise legal weapon. The alleged controlled substance, after being tested multiple times, turned out to be inconclusive.

While prosecutors make no admission that they misapplied statute 46.02, they filed a motion to dismiss. The motion reads, “The interest of justice cannot be served through further proceedings in this matter.”

Although the 2018 indictment was dismissed without prejudice, on February 9, 2019 charges were refilled against Becker on the Unlawful Carry charges. The affidavit identifies Becker’s membership in the Bandidos as the only probable cause for arrest.

Authorities persist despite absurd, unconstitutional interpretation of law.

Despite the fact that their interpretation of statute is unconstitutional and in violation of established state and federal rules of evidence, law enforcement and prosecutors persist in wasting public resources targeting individuals like Becker for participating in Constitutionally protected expression and association. This absurd interpretation of 46.02 would mean that carrying a weapon is unlawful for any individual that is a member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club, with no other evidence, even with a License to Carry.

“If this seems outrageous, your instincts are correct. The MPP, after conducting cursory research on 46.02, has identified precedent, Ex Parte Flores 483 SW 3d 632 (2015), that clearly articulates how law enforcement is currently misinterpreting and misapplying Texas statute in violation of the basic rules of evidence and the US Constitution.”

“Law Enforcement and prosecutors should immediately cease and desist misapplying Texas statute. Applying Texas Penal Code 46.02 to members of clubs with no criminal records, and even LTC’s, would chill 1st Amendment Association and ignore the doctrine of personal guilt, “a cornerstone of American Jurisprudence.”

In the name of justice, prosecutors in Lubbock should again file a motion to dismiss all charges against Becker, this time with prejudice. Furthermore, prosecutors and law enforcement in El Paso, Dallas, and across the state of Texas should follow suite.

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com

After motorcycle clubs, who’s next?
Everyone should ask themselves, “After motorcycle clubs, who’s next?” Every large identifiable group has individuals that have committed crimes. Should your civil liberties be taken based on the actions of other individuals you associate with even if you had no involvement in criminal activity?

The blatant attempt to disarm the entire community regardless of an individual’s personal involvement in criminal activity will not stop with motorcycle clubs if authorities are successful. Every American should be deeply concerned about this assault on basic civil liberties. Unpopular speech, including unpopular association, is the most important speech to protect. Or so long has held the Supreme Court.

Mar 03
Love0

An Eye on Recent Motorist Rights Court Cases

By General Posts

FROM National Motorists Association https://www.motorists.org

Motorist rights cases have made news and even history recently. There have been so many as of late, we are dedicating two separate newsletters to provide some insight on the legal rulings that are affecting drivers around the country.

This week’s newsletter focuses on recent rulings and pending US Supreme Court and federal court cases. Part 2 next week will outline state court decisions.

TheNewspaper.com, featured prominently in these two newsletters, is a great supplement to the NMA’s Motorists.org site for the latest news and opinions on the politics of driving.

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

Last week’s unanimous decision that curtails excessive government fines and property seizures has provided further impetus for one of the NMA’s primary lobbying initiatives: civil asset forfeiture (CAF) reform. The decision received broad bipartisan praise. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the ruling that the excessive fines clause is a fundamental restriction that applies to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the SCOTUS decision is monumental, the fight is far from over. Some states still allow the seizure of property from citizens — motorists are prime targets — who have never been charged with a crime. Our work for reform at the federal and state levels continues in earnest.

Additionally, SCOTUS accepted a case in January that will decide whether an unconscious drunk person has given implied consent for a blood draw to determine alcohol level. The case might resolve an important constitutional question: Can state legislatures obviate the warrant requirement by “deeming” that citizens can consent to Fourth Amendment searches without explicitly expressing that consent?

Federal Appeals Court Cases

Judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late January that a person driving a registered vehicle on a public road is not “reasonably suspicious.” Federal authorities appealed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a border patrol traffic stop in Freer, Texas. The driver turned onto a public road that happened to bypass a checkpoint 50 miles inland from the Mexican border. The U.S. government has declared anything within 100 miles to be under Border Patrol jurisdiction. The Court ruled that turning onto a road that is “known” for smuggling in a truck registered to an individual is not enough to support reasonable suspicion. If it were, then virtually anyone driving within 100 miles from the border could automatically be deemed suspicious.

In December, judges in the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that it is appropriate for officers to use force to ram a driver with an expired registration sticker off the road. The driver sued the Arkansas state trooper for using excessive force and a US District Judge agreed with the plaintiff that the officer was out of line. She felt that at the time the trooper turned on his lights to make the stop, she could not reasonably do so on the shoulder which was unlit, dark and narrow. She continued to drive 20 mph under the speed limit for 42 seconds to find a safer spot, but after she passed an exit the trooper used a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver to push her vehicle into a ditch. She and her young daughter were both injured. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the same district judge who now must determine if the lawsuit can proceed on the basis of malicious intent.

In early February, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need a reason to place American citizens on a ‘Suspicious Person’ list. Judge Milan Smith wrote, “Tips and leads required only ‘mere suspicion,’ a lower standard than the reasonable suspicion required for criminal intelligence data and is up to the discretion of law enforcement and other government officials. This case is chilling in the sense that the government can put anyone on the list for not much more than a whim.

The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in January that police cannot demand ID from car or truck passengers without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. The judges agreed that in this Arizona case, the US Supreme Court ruling in Rodriquez v. US, which prohibits police from prolonging a traffic stop by asking unrelated questions, established precedent.

In January, the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld a traffic stop over a fast blinker. Apparently, driving with a turn signal that flashes “too fast” is potentially a criminal act in Georgia. The blinker was actually working properly; the Georgia Code does not stipulate how fast a turn signal should blink, only that all equipment be kept in “good working condition.” The appellate panel suggested that the plaintiff’s blinker was not in compliance because it was in working condition, just not “good” working condition. American jurisprudence at its best.

Check out Part 2 next week when we showcase recent state cases that could impact motorists.

The National Motorists Association is a membership-based organization dedicated to protecting the rights of the motoring public.

Mar 03
Love0

Motorcycle Profiling is Official Daytona PD Policy

By General Posts

Video footage obtained by the MPP from the North Florida Council of Clubs confirms that motorcycle profiling is not only widespread in Daytona Beach, but it is also official law enforcement policy. In the words of Daytona PD Chief Craig Capri, “If you wear your colors [in Daytona Beach], you’re going to get stopped.” This official policy is unconstitutional and exposes the entire Daytona PD to civil liability. This video evidence also justifies a cost-free legislative solution in the form of a simple prohibition against motorcycle profiling combined with relief for victims.

Chief Capri’s Statement Proves Unconstitutional Practices Are Policy

Without any other evidence, Chief Capri’s Statement alone proves that the Daytona PD profiles motorcycle club members as a matter of policy. This official policy irrefutably violates the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Federal courts have confirmed that motorcycle club colors are protected by the 1st Amendment. To punish an individual through seizure in the form of a profiling stop anyone “who wears the insignia of [a 1% motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. see Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)

Chief Capri’s statement also violates the 14th Amendment because it represents Selective Enforcement of the law. Capri’s statement proves that the strategy to use traffic stops as a way to punish those exercising their rights of expression and association is premeditated and selective. In terms of the 4th Amendment, any minor traffic pretext used to stop a club member in Daytona Beach should be presumed invalid.

Exposure To Civil Liability

Motorcycle profiling as a matter of policy implicates the entire Daytona PD at an organizational level. Independent of individual officers and incidents, each profiling stop exposes the Daytona PD as an entity to civil liability. Chief Capri is the highest authority at the Daytona PD and clearly articulates a policy of discrimination and Selective Enforcement. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.“

An Epidemic In Florida

The National Motorcycle Profiling Survey validates the Florida’s profiling epidemic. The 2018 NMPS lists Florida as one of the top motorcycle profiling concerns in America. According to the 2018 NMPS, 65% of Florida survey participants reported being the victims of motorcycle profiling at least once since 2012. These survey statistics are 99% reliable with less than a 2% margin of error. (See NMPS Executive Summary 2018).

Despite promises, Daytona PD has failed to address motorcycle profiling

There is a long history and pattern of evidence establishing that motorcycle profiling is engrained in the Daytona Beach PD. And the Daytona PD has made empty promises when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

While attending the 2017 Biketoberfest rally in Daytona Beach, Florida, members of the Iron Horsemen Motorcycle Club (IHMC) were the target of blatant profiling and discrimination at the hands of the Daytona Beach PD. The incident, caught on videotape as a result of quick thinking, is irrefutable. The impact on civil liberties motivated the combined efforts of the North Florida Council of Clubs, the National Council of Clubs, and the Motorcycle Profiling Project to immediately respond with a formal complaint and public record requests. These inquiries, based on the video, sparked an investigation into the actions of the officers involved and a review of Daytona PD policies regarding motorcycle clubs, said a source inside of Chief Craig Capri’s office. As a result of the State Attorney’s inquiry, a curriculum was supposed to be constructed and all Daytona PD officers were to be re- trained relating to motorcycle profiling.

Unfortunately, almost 2 years later, motorcycle profiling is alive and well in Daytona Beach. As articulated, motorcycle profiling is still official policy.

A Legislative Solution

Motorcycle profiling is a legitimate national policy discussion. In December, the US Senate unanimously approved S.Res.154 which directs all states to follow the lead of Washington State and Maryland by legislatively addressing and condemning the practice of motorcycle profiling. A prohibition combined with injunctive and actual relief for victims is a simple solution with no fiscal impact. A legislative prohibition would immediately increase exposure to the issue therefore reducing incidents of profiling.

The post Motorcycle Profiling is Official Daytona PD Policy appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com/‘

https://councilofclubs.org