"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …"

-U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)

police car

THIS CASE IS BASED ON A ILLEGAL ARREST OF A UNITED STATES AMERICAN

BY AN OFFICER OF THE DUBLIN CALIF POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 3RD 2013

YES RIGHT BEFORE INDEPENDECE DAY

DISPITE VIDEO EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE POLICE REPORT

THE PLEASANTON AND HAYWARD DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES CONSPIRED UTILIZING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY JURISPRUDENCE SYSTEM TO SECURE A GUILTY PLEA SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

 

This Page Is In Efforts To Seek That The Correction Of Manifest Injustice Occurs

 

 

 

the arrested is not an attorney the following information has been provided byonline and law library research

 

this is a documentation of how a police officer in dublin ca gets down when an out of towner doesnt know their way around.

Instead of using GPS the driver waits for traffic to pass then drives, from one parking lot to the next; where a dublin police car was parked. The driver requested directions from the

Officer who under the influence of tobacco gave wrong directions and then followed the driver, on some new west mississppi action through the parking lot; now we have a wep page.....

 

BEFORE COUNT ONE

THE ALLEGED PROBALE CAUSE FABRICATED TO BY PASS THE 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION

1. CVC 22107 – FAILURE TO SIGNAL – When going directly across the street from one parking lot to the next [see image C below for officers view]

2. CVC 26708 (A) TINTED WINDOWS (SAME WINDOWS BELOW) [see image A below for pictures of so-called tint which is not ] [see image below for previous owners of declaration of non-modification]

3. CVC 22400 (a) Minimun Speed Law- [see HIGH WAY LAW Below] N/A How fast is one to drive out of parking lot into intersection. What did radar read ?

Thus making the vehicle stop constitutionally not permissible.

Thus the Officer broke one of the commandments according to EXODUS 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

 

 

 

see effects of chew and other tabacco products below


SEE STREET VIEW THAT OFFICER HAD BELOW In ( C - D )

SEE FOOTAGE OF ARREST ON YOU TUBE OF SO CALLED "SLOW & DELAYED RESPONSES AND DISORITAION"  http://youtu.be/SUpoWoAES9g- SHORT- DUBLIN420

picture (a)



YOU SAW THAT VIDEO ? DID THE DRIVER LOOK UNDER THE INFLUENCE?

 

ONCE YOU TELL 1 LIE WHY STOP WHEN YOUR A COP.....Thus the Officer broke one of the commandments according to EXODUS 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

 

Which Turned Into An Arrest For Driving Under The Influence Of Marijuana

 

AFTER THE ARREST for SO-CALLED VC 23152 (A) Which a citation was never issued

COMES THE SEARCH OF VEHICLE which turned into

VC 23152 (A) M 1 COUNTS , HS 11378 F (1 COUNTS), PC 25400 (A) (1) F (1 COUNTS), PC 25850 (A) M (1 COUNTS )

After So-Called Probable Cause (Count TWO) – DUI Of Marijuana – THE RIGHT TO SEARCH VEHICLE IS QUESTIONED

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), In the case of Arizona v. Gant (April 21, 2009) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police can search a car following arrest only if the person arrested "could have accessed his car at the time of the search." In other words, if the person arrested could conceivably reach into his car for a weapon, then a search based on officer safety is permitted. Otherwise, the old practice of allowing officers to "search [a car] incident to arrest" is no longer allowed.

 

WHEN YOU KNOW THE LAW YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SNITCH OR TAKE A FAKE DEAL THUS DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES AND REPROSECUTIONS

 

  1. Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle.

  2. In State v. Carter the Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled that when the defendant had been "removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and directed to sit on a curb" when the search of the vehicle was conducted, there was "no reason to believe defendant was within reaching distance or otherwise able to access the passenger compartment of the vehicle."42 Accordingly, the court could not justify the search incident to arrest under the first prong of Gant.43

  3. The first prong of the test hinges on access and requires officers to articulate facts demonstrating that there is a real or reasonable possibility that the defendant can access the passenger compartment to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence at the time of the search. When an arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in a police vehicle, the justification for a subsequent search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the arrestee's vehicle no longer is present under the first prong of the test. Clearly,if an individual has been arrested, placed in handcuffs, and secured in a police vehicle,

    the rst prong of Gant does not permit law enforcement officers to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of that individual’s motor vehicle as the individual no longer has access to the vehicle.
Many times when Law Enforcement stops a car and there are multiple people who all have the same access to the drugs. 
This is called Constructive Possession of Drugs. To be convicted of a case where there is constructive possession, the State must prove three elements:
           *(1) Defendant had dominion and control over the contraband. DAVID WAS NOT AWARE
*(2) Defendant knew contraband was present. DAVID WAS NOT AWARE
*(3) Defendant knew of the illicit nature of contraband.
DAVID WAS NOT AWARE

       

Mere proximity to the drugs is usually not enough to convict someone in this type of case. A lawyer will aim for dismissal based on the principles of Constructive Possession
. Possession of a controlled substance occurs whenever a person owns or otherwise possesses a drug or other illegal substance. These charges usually apply when a person is found carrying illegal narcotics. The prosecutor must prove that the driver or passengers knew the drugs were there, or that they were near the driver or in plain view.
no citation was ever written for this alleged violation and no charges formally brought up only threats to pursue if deal wasn't taking EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLE TIME BAIL WAS ALREADY PAID ALL THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS COUNT 2. DUI CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 23152 (a) In order to prove that you were DUI marijuana in California, the prosecutor typically relies on the following:



  1. Your driving pattern....... waited for traffic to clear before crossing roadway to approach police SEE PICTURES E- F - G Approached officer made right left then drove over 1000 yards

    2. Your physical appearance...BLACK MAN, BLACK CAR blue jeans black shirt wearing sun glasses

    3. Your performance on the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), ….. when I took my written and driving test at dmv I was never taught the technique of tight roping and I am not a very acrobatic nor athletic because guys like dwight howard and i dont like the idea after every good play to have my butt cheeks patted by the guys in addition due to waterd down lotions

    I have bad feet from dried skin and a healing Achilles Tendon In addition my legs were cramped from the drive from San Francisco

    thru traffic and a short rest from just speaking to people at the fireworks stand which was a short distance away.

    SEE VIDEO OFFICER LIES ABOUT PERFORMANCE WHY ?

    A chemical test revealing marijuana in your bloodstream. WAS NOT DONE AT SCEANE

This argument is critical to the defense. It means that marijuana use doesn’t render you “unable to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person” -- the very definition of California DUI.
Despite the stereotyped myths, studies reveal that marijuana has no significant impact on driving abilities. Unlike alcohol, it is rarely linked to causing accidents. The consensus is that alcohol promotes risk-taking while marijuana promotes conservative driving.
This is because drivers who are under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate by driving more carefully…something those under the influence of alcohol aren’t able to do.
THC’s effects last only a few hours. THC itself can remain in your body for days, weeks, or even months. As a result… It is virtually impossible to detect when you actually used marijuana. Current chemical tests can only detect that marijuana was used, not when it was used, or whether it was still producing an intoxicating effect when you got pulled over. All that matters is whether you were under the influence of marijuana at the time you drove.
As Michael Scaffidi, one of Riverside’s top DUI attorneys and a former Ontario California Police Officer states, “People are routinely wrongly prosecuted for California DUI marijuana. Simply having marijuana in your system doesn’t make you guilty of driving under its influence.”
4 The Government does not contest that without a valid seizure of the key chain, the officer lacked probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle, and therefore did not have probable cause to seize the laptop bag.
See United States v. Barajas - Avalos, 377 F.3d 1040, 1054 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Wanless, 882 F.2d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir. 1989)); United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 899, amended by 777 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1985).





We are mindful that “evidence which is obtained as a direct result of an illegal search and seizure may not be used to establish probable cause for a subsequent search.”  United States v. Wanless, 882 F.2d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted).   When an affidavit contains evidence illegally obtained, “[a] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.”  United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir.1987) (citation omitted).

In Reference To Declaration And Determination Probable Cause For Warrantless Arrest Page 1 of 2 Made Under

The Declaration Of Perjury Executed In The County of Alameda by Arresting Officer Donald Couch

First paragraph:


Officer Couch: Statements early in lines 4-5 " I also noticed the vehicle had extremely dark tinted windows which made it hard to distinguish the occupants inside ".

What was there to distinguish ? Race ? Gender ? What was there to profile? If such a violation is VALID does it matter the humans blod type to issue a ciatation or we now finding out IN 2013 tickets are written by " DISTINGUISHMENT "

The Officer admitted the vehicle traveled WESTAWARD towards him which proves

I never TURNED right onto Toyota Dr. going thus no signal was needed this is why I ended up pulled over behind Barnes and Noble because; because I Drove from one parking lot straight over to the next to ask the officer in plain view “ WHICH WAY IS BEST BUY ” My windows were down because of the hotness as well as my sunroof was open and my shades were on (see whether report below) [ Based on Couch statement to pull out and make a right onto toyota drive and still make a left would have be a U-Turn then the vheicle would be going North then West to get to him a very difficult task to attempt in the presence of police and so called traffic behind you into essentially on coming traffic

these two violations vehicle violations for probable cause are fabricated: Thus the Officer broke one of the commandments according to EXODUS 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Dublinpd

looking westward


2nd paragraph: incorrect drivers license number this is not what is in seized evidence ( and where is it now where is the rest of the sized evidence


I am a Social Worker seeking to have a expert witness called on the behalf of my client, who is facing a sentence for credit for timed served. A sentence in which he will serve 5 years probation. If he is to violate his probation he will face up to four years.


Facts:


My Client was driving with a passenger in a previously registered taxi that was recently purchased and was still in the process of being registered.

The arresting officer stated in their report that 3 probable causes to pull over my client and rape him of his 4th Amendment right to be searched was based on " tinted windows " (which evidence shows were not tinted as stated in report ) [see attachment] and not signaling when making a right turn. And a speed violation coming out of a shopping center


Prior to my client being pulled over they drove to where the officer was parked to ask for directions. After giving my client directions, my client was pulled over and a series of tests were conducted and my client was arrested for a driving under the influence of marijuana. After the arrest the officer Searches the entire vehicle including trunk which resulted in 1. Possession of a firearm and controlled substance 2. ex-felon in possession of a firearm 3. prior conviction of controlled substance charge 4. Carrying a concealed weapon in public. 5 Possession Of Marijuana


My client claims that they had no knowledge of any of the contraband the controlled substance was directly behind his seat down in the seat pocket the weapon buried in the trunk inside the lining. My client has a valid medical marijuana card. My client was never cited or officially charged with a DUI of Marijuana. Yet his 185,000 Bail included the DUI. The first offer was one 1yr with 1/2 time no credit for timed served 5 yr probation, a week later 9 months with half time and credit for 25 days timed served with 5 yr probation. After bailing out now the offer became Credit for timed served with 5 years of probation. Pleading guilty to possession of a fire arm and controlled substance.


My client was previously threatened with a 10 to life sentence and lost at that trial and went to prison for two years on a case based on circumstantial evidence; this Post Traumatic experience effects his decision process because he has strong beliefs that even with good evidence he was not Under the influence will still be found guilty he has been to trial over three times and has never had a black juror and he has lost every trial and feels he will ultimately end up doing up to 4 years or more the way the charges were filed.


I am advocating that the PLEA agreement was made under duress despite their claim it was not. My client was required to recite A CRUZ waiver saying they are making a PLEA on their own will, the only way in order to be near certain of remaining free of being incarcerated.


I am basing my claim on the obvious fear of the court system failing to uphold justice as it failed before as well as his legal representation not finding the key evidence; is not as such and would be ignored, as well as the arresting officers false statements. I imagine that the obvious affects of dealing with such dynamic choices during a decision making process such as sentencing would have a toll ones true feelings. Such a claim if proven in this case will become precedence and cause for the judicial jurisprudence to be reconsidered.


EXPERT WITNESS would have to answer how if: These factors mentioned above and seen below would have a psychological and an emotional effect on my client making a plea agreement.  Making his choice free and willing; when its obvious Officer Couch Lies Thru Out His Statements Which The State Uses To Prosecute.

see this lie caught at 9:50 on this short clip

 

 

on long clip


CLICK IMAGE TO SEE ACTUAL TEST AS IT WAS IN PROGRESS

SEE FOOTAGE OF ARREST ON YOU TUBE OF SLOW SO CALLED DELAYED RESPONSES AND DISORITAION

YOUTUBE CHANNEL CALIABY415 VIDEO IS TITLED:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR_z9D2iDaw - SHORT- DUBLIN420

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXgm_avIBKU - LONG - Driving Under The Influence Of Marijuana


see video @ 8:40 – 8:55 to hear clearly the arrested counting to 10 seconds in front of arresting officer ( so why would he lie ? )


HOW DARK CAN WINDOW TINT BE IN CALIFORNIA?

Darkness of tint is measured by Visible Light Transmission percentage (VLT%). In California, this percentage refers to percentage of visible light allowed in through the combination of film and the window.

Windshield

Non-reflective tint is allowed on the top 4 inches of the windshield.

Front Side Windows

Must allow more than 70% of light in.

Back Side Windows

Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window

Any darkness can be used.


Foot Notes



a. Turning Movements and Required Signals

22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

b. Minimum Speed Law 22400. a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law. Note { HIGHWAY LAW NOT COMING OUT OF SHOPPING MALL LESS THAN 100 feet from intersection }

 

PICTURE B. Officers View When Making Observations

A intersection that needs no need to signal when going straight across not seen is a blind spot on right from stores

 



View Of Toyota Drive Facing WEST towards Best Buy And Hacienda Crossings

Straight Is going WEST To The Right Is Going NORTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE PICTURE

C & D


 

see pic (b)

 

 

 

 


Tailgaters

Right Claim

 

 

 

 

 

 

how can one

be 200 ft away

when parked

at 100 ft when

driver never

went 200 ft


1000 ft away

see pics (e)


see pic (e) (f) (g)

 


 

 

 

 

 

report  

BECAUSE OF THIS FACT BEING NOTED THE ACTUALL LICENSE PRESENTED IS MISSING FROM EVIDENCE

 

 




PICTURE ( D ) from google maps



picture ( e )



HACIENDA CROSSINGS

picture ( f )




 

picture (g )




 

A little white lie caused tax payers money this is why society is in debt.

UnderWorldLaw.ComCourts have acknowledged that plea bargaining is "an integral part of the administration of justice in the United States," Barber v. Gladden, 220 F.Supp. 308 (D.Ore. 1963), "essential to the expeditious and fair administration of justice" People v. Williams, 269 Cal.App.2d 879 (1969).

But the reported decisions and statutory enactments on the subject highlight a tension in the law of plea bargaining. The law recognizes the need for the efficiency of plea bargaining, but it also recognizes both concerns for protection of defendants from undue pressure and coercion, and concerns for protection of the public from the leniency afforded to potentially dangerous criminals by some judges and prosecutors.

The concern for defendants is reflected in court decisions addressing the special problems when the judge participates in plea negotiations. The cases look at the judicial activity and ask whether it results in undue coercion of defendants or promotes understanding and voluntary pleas. People v. Weaver, 118 Cal.App.4th 131 (2004).

 

DO YOU KNOW THE DRIVER MADE THE REQUEST FOR THE TEST OF PISS USED TO DETERMINE IF HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE TO BE GIVEN TO HIM

THIS WAS AFTER THE DEAL WAS MADE YET BEFORE SENTENCING AND IT SHOWED THE LAW CAN NOT DETERMINE IF AND WHEN MARIJUANA WAS

USED OR HOW MUCH.

 

 

WHY WOULD AN ATTORNEY BLANTANTLY IGNORE REQUEST OF A CLIENT?

BECAUSE A PUBLIC DEFENDER IS PAID BY THE SAME OFFICE THAT PAYS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

THEY REALLY CANT GO AGAINST THE STATE HOW WOULD THAT LOOK THATS TREASON!!!

ALL THIS BECAUSE A DRIVER ASKED DIRECTIONS WOWSERS PRE 4TH JULY INDEPENDENCE DAY

 

 

 

WHY WOULD A JUDGE IGNORE A DEFENDANT ?


PLEA NOT VALID BASED ON NEGOTIONS BASED A FABRICATIONS

 

 

EVEN THOUGH PROPERTY WAS STOLEN PERJURY WAS EVIDENT THE DEFENDANT

REMAINS UNABLE TO DO NOTHING BUT ACCEPT THE SOCIAL RAPE


AND EXTORTION HOW CAN THIS BE JUSTICE

 

end