Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Police Raise the Stakes on Videoing Their Misconduct

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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,
      or corruption."

      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,
      > 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.

      And now it is easy to find proof of "fraud, perjury, or other corrupt
      means", if one's eyes and ears are working with their grey matter.

      > [40] Kansas courts have followed this rule. In Smith v. Parman,
      > 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.

      > [43] In the case at bar, plaintiff has made no claim of
      > perjured testimony, fraud or corruption.

      Make note of all perjury, fraud and corruption you witness. Take names
      and note accomplices.

      > The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal
      > 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.

      Which are we now? I guess it depends upon where you are.

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.