RE: [tips_and_tricks] Police Raise the Stakes on Videoing Their Misconduct
- Legalbear included:
"A conviction by a police court having jurisdiction of an offense for
which one is arrested is conclusive on the issue of probable cause even
though the case may later be dismissed in the district court by the
prosecution following an appeal and even though the plaintiff is
acquitted of the charge in the district court on appeal, unless the
conviction in the police court was based upon perjured testimony, fraud,
The reason for this is because if the accused fails to demand a probable
cause hearing at the first opportunity it is waived as an issue, as is
bail-setting if that is not also demanded.
> The conviction of the accused by a magistrate or trial court,And now it is easy to find proof of "fraud, perjury, or other corrupt
> although reversed by an appellate tribunal, conclusively establishes
> the existence of probable cause, unless the conviction was obtained by
> fraud, perjury or other corrupt means.
means", if one's eyes and ears are working with their grey matter.
>  Kansas courts have followed this rule. In Smith v. Parman,Make note of all perjury, fraud and corruption you witness. Take names
> 102 Kan. 787, 172 P. 33 (1918), the court held that a conviction by a
> police judge was conclusive evidence of probable cause, even though
> the conviction was later appealed and plaintiff was then acquitted by
> a jury. In Hill v. Day, 168 Kan. 604, 215 P.2d 219 (1950), the court
> held that a police court conviction constituted conclusive proof of
> probable cause where there was no allegation that the conviction was
> obtained by fraud or perjury.
>  In the case at bar, plaintiff has made no claim of
> perjured testimony, fraud or corruption.
and note accomplices.
> The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbalWhich are we now? I guess it depends upon where you are.
> criticism and challenge directed at police officers. . . . The freedom
> of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without
> thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by
> which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.