MISSISSIPPI WE THE PEOPLE AUDITING

MISSION STATEMENT

WE PEACEFULLY EXCERSISE OUR 1ST. AMENDEMENT RIGHT TO FILM OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THEIR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES, FROM PUBLIC ACCESIBLE AREAS DESIGNATED AND OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO PROMOTE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND HOPING THEY TREAT US WITH THE RESPECT THAT TAX PAYERS AND CITIZEN DESERVES AND ALWAYS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PLACE & MANNER OF EACH AND EVERY CASE ..

WE TEST THEIR U.S CONSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND WILL TO RESPECT US BY RESPECTING OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS , WE DEMAND THOSE IN POSITIONS OF TRUST TO ABIDE BY THE OATH THEY SWORED (TO DEFEND THE U.S CONSTITUTION FROM THOSE WHO TRESSPASS THE BILL OF RIGHTS ) AND WE FIND THEM ACCOUNTBLE WHEN THEIR NOT.

WE ARE HERE TO EXPOSE TYRANTS LIKE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES , BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT FREEDOM IS REACHABLE IF THE PEOPLE THAT ASSIST US CONSSISTENLY AWKNOLEDGE THE PEOPLE S RIGHTS AND FOLLOW PROPER PROCCEDURES .

EDUCATION TRHU ACCOUNTABILITY, WE FILM, WE EXPOSE , AND WE CELEBRATE THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND LIVE UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND .

WE THE PEOPLE IS THE TRUE ASSET OF THIS COUNTRY AND THIS STATE.

FREE SPEECH UNDER MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION

The freedom of speech and of the press shall be held sacred according to the Mississippi Constitution, Art. 3 Sec. 13. This is the strongest free-speech language I am aware of in any law anywhere. This language is far stronger than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states only that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. As discussed in a past blog post, the Courts have interpreted the language Congress shall make no law as limiting the First Amendment to state action.

But the Mississippi Constitution may not be limited to actions of the government. It says, flatly, that this freedom shall be held sacred, and presumably this means it shall be held sacred by everyone. If true, the implications of this could be staggering - unthinkable even. Certainly it is an interpretation well worth serious consideration.

Yet this language has been quoted only about ten times by the courts since 1950. Some of the discussion in the cases suggests support for the idea, e.g, They are not idle and meaningless terms, but signify philosophical concepts of a constitutional republic and of the intellectual independence of every citizen. Evers v. State, 131 So. 2d 653 (Miss. 1961). But the courts have rarely - if ever - deliberately distinguished this broader language in the Mississippi Consitution from the federal First Amendment. They have only said, in passing, that We are of the opinion, without deciding, that Article 3, Section 13, supra, by modern-day standards, appears to be more protective of the individual's right to freedom of speech than does the First Amendment since our constitution makes it worthy of religious veneration.ABC Interstate Theatres, Inc. v. State, 325 So. 2d 123 (Miss. 1976). Accord Gulf Pub. Co., Inc. v. Lee, 434 So. 2d 687 (Miss. 1983).

Mississippi is not a STOP # Id State

Stop and Identify States 2022

Each state in the United States has its laws surrounding crime. Whether it is whether or not marijuana is legal or the maximum penalties for committing a particular crime, state laws vary. In some states, local governments have enacted "stop and identify" statutes.What does "stop and identify" mean? It's a simple concept. In states where this statute is enacted, a person suspected of committing a crime is legally obligated to identify themselves to authorities. Even in states with this statute, a person is not required to provide identification without a reasonable belief that: a crime has been committed, a crime is currently being committed, or a crime was committed.

2022 LIST OF STATES WITH STOP& ID LAWS (POPULATION)

Alabama 5,073,187, Arizona 7,303,398, Arkansas 3 ,030,646, Colorado 5,922,618, Delaware 1,008,350 ,Florida 22,085,563, Georgia 10,916,760, Ilinois12,808,884, Indiana 6,845,874, Kansas 2,954,832, Louisiana 4,682,63 , Missouri 6,188,111, Montana 1,103,187, Nebraska 1,988,536, Nevada 3,185,426, New Hampshire 1,389,741, New Mexico 2,129,190, North Dakota 800,394, Ohio 11,852,036, Rhode Island 1,106,341, Utah 3,373,162, Vermont 646,545, Wisconsin 5,935,064

Know Your Rights: What To Do If You Are Detained For Taking Photographs

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places and harassing, detaining, and arresting those who fail to comply.

The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, free from accusations of bias, lying, or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.

We will keep fighting—to ensure that the right to film and photograph the police is respected by law enforcement officials.

CLICK DONATE BUTTOM! Help us flex our Constitutional Rights and help us to continue educating our Public Servants .

GOVERNMENT WARNING against WE THE PEOPLE flexing our Rights:

Keeping Calm With First Amendment Audits

The city clerk is busily preparing council meeting minutes when an unexpected and confrontational visitor arrives. The person gives no reason for the visit or an identification, but instead demands answers: "What is your name? What is your job here? What's in that room over there?" The person is also recording the encounter with a mobile phone and begins to walk down the hallway into the private office areas.

What should the clerk do?

This situation has occurred more and more across South Carolina and the country. Social media activists, armed with mobile devices and a YouTube channel, have been pushing the boundaries of the First Amendment by entering public buildings, disrupting business and recording reactions. These "First Amendment auditors" are loosely organized, but aggressive; and their primary goal is to provoke a reaction.

Legal background

In 1991, George Holliday happened to have a video camera on hand to record an unarmed suspect, Rodney King, being violently beaten by the Los Angeles Police Department. The video captured by Holliday has been broadcast globally and seen millions of times.

Today, nearly every person has a video camera at all times in the form of a mobile phone. After high-profile police encounters in New York, Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, citizen activists are filming encounters between police and suspects. In this context, the federal courts have been highly protective of the rights of citizens to film police officers in public places.

It is clearly established that video recording of police encounters is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The case of Fields v. City of Philadelphia stated that the First Amendment provides the public a "right to record — photograph, film, or audio record — police officers conducting official police activity in public areas."

Although the phenomenon emerged as a way to monitor police activity, First Amendment auditors soon began exploring other possibilities, since the language of the federal cases found a First Amendment right to film "public officials" in "public places." By slightly expanding the original meaning of those words, First Amendment auditors claimed the right to film public employees going about their business in public buildings. For example, auditors now arrive at government buildings in groups to wander around, filming and interfering with workers and residents.

The First Amendment is not absolute. The Supreme Court has recognized that there are certain places, known as "forums," in which the government can limit speech. The most protected areas are "traditional public forums" such as streets, sidewalks, parks and town squares, where governments may impose only very limited speech regulations. Other areas within public property are known as "nonpublic forums," such as military bases, police and fire stations, public schools, courthouse lobbies and hallways, and the interior of government office buildings. In those, governments may impose significantly more restrictive regulations.

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC AND OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS .

Educate employees. All public-facing employees should have some familiarity with First Amendment audits and how to respond. Although the auditors often exceed their rights under the First Amendment, they do have the right to film public employees in public places.
Don't overreact. Auditors are trying to provoke a negative reaction that they can post on social media. A video of a public employee responding calmly is not going to result in much traction. The best defense is simple patience.
Identify and mark nonpublic forums. In many cases, auditors will try to enter private areas, hallways or offices. The municipality has a right to mark these areas as nonpublic and to impose reasonable regulations on the right to film in them. Nonpublic forums can include any areas into which, under ordinary circumstances, visitors must be invited before entering. Examples include hallways, cubicles, offices and workspaces.
Consider rules about harassment. Some auditors may engage in conduct that rises to the level of harassment. They may claim they can demand answers or invade the privacy of private residents. In at least one instance in South Carolina, an individual claiming to be an auditor harassed a female employee by filming her repeatedly and at length. Municipalities can adopt appropriate regulations about such harassment and abusive behaviors.
Before adopting any specific regulations, a municipality should consult with its attorney. The rules are complex and violations of the First Amendment can result not only in an embarrassing YouTube video but also monetary liability. Again, the most important thing to remember is to keep calm.

Donate to Mississippi We the People AuditingHelp support Mississippi We the People Auditing by donating or sharing with your friends.

PROBABLE CAUSE VERSUS REASONABLE SUSPICION

Definition of Probable Cause - Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.

Legal Repercussions of Probable Cause - Probable cause is enough for a search or arrest warrant. It is also enough for a police officer to make an arrest if he sees a crime being committed.

Definition of Reasonable Suspicion - Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as "the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely." Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an "unarticulated hunch." It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

Legal Repercussions of Reasonable Suspicion - If an officer has reasonable suspicion in a situation, he may frisk or detain the suspect briefly. Reasonable suspicion does not allow for the searching of a person or a vehicle unless the person happens to be on school property. Reasonable suspicion is not enough for an arrest or a search warrant.

Stop and Frisk - In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the court recognized that a limited stop and frisk of an individual could be conducted without a warrant based on less than probable cause. The stop must be based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion based on articulable facts, and the frisk is limited to a pat-down for weapons. An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a stop and frisk. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

Florida v. Bostick 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) - A person's refusal to cooperate is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25 (2000). - A person's flight in a high crime area after seeing police was sufficient for reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The same requirement of founded suspicion for a "person" stop applies to stops of individual vehicles. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002). The scope of the "frisk" for weapons during a vehicle stop may include areas of the vehicle in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). The police may order passengers and the driver out of or into the vehicle pending completion of the stop. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). The passengers may not be detained longer than it takes the driver to receive his citation. Once the driver is ready to leave, the passengers must be permitted to go as well. During a stop for traffic violations, the officers need not independently have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot to justify frisking passengers, but they must have reason to believe the passengers are armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S Court. 781, 784 (2009).

The Difference Between the Two - The terms probable cause and reasonable suspicion are often confused and misused. While both have to do with a police officer's overall impression of a situation, the two terms have different repercussions on a person's rights, the proper protocol and the outcome of the situation.

Reasonable suspicion is a step before probable cause. At the point of reasonable suspicion, it appears that a crime may have been committed. The situation escalates to probable cause when it becomes obvious that a crime has most likely been committed.

Probable Cause to Search

In order to obtain a search warrant, the court must consider whether based on the totality of the information there is a fair probability that contraband, evidence or a person will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

Probable Cause to Arrest

In order to arrest a suspect the officer must have a good faith belief that a crime has been committed and the individual he is arresting committed the crime. In Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). In Pringle, an officer was permitted to arrest three individuals in a vehicle where marijuana was discovered. The court reasoned that, even though the officers did not have evidence that any one of the three occupants was responsible for the drugs, probable cause existed as to all of them because co-occupants of a vehicle are often engaged in a common enterprise and all three denied knowing anything about the drugs.

Texas - Goldberg v. State, 95 SW.3d 345 (Tex. App. 2002).

An arrest is proper when it is based upon article 14.03 (a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the person is found in a suspicious place and under circumstances that reasonably show that such person has been guilty of some felony or breach of the peace.

Facts: Mr. Goldberg was accused of entering a wig store, punching one attendant in the throat, and cutting the other attendant's wrist and stabbing her when she attempted to call for help. The assailant quickly left the store. A witness in the parking lot followed the assailant to his vehicle. The witness provided police with a license plate number for the vehicle. The police traced the vehicle and located the defendant, the son of the owner of the vehicle. The police handcuffed Mr. Goldberg, performed a pat down and informed him of his rights. Mr. Goldberg stated he was willing to talk to the officers. He was later uncuffed.

The officer felt the hood of the vehicle and it was still warm. Mr. Goldberg denied driving the vehicle or knowledge of the crime. The officers also noticed a blood stain on Mr. Goldberg's shirt and a red mark on his chest. Goldberg consented to a search of the house, his apartment and the vehicle. The officers found fibers matching the wigs at the wig shop. Mr. Goldberg claimed that the vehicle had been stolen several times but the person always returned the vehicle to the residence. Mr. Goldberg was taken to the police station and consented to a police interrogation. He later was released to his mother. Mr. Goldberg challenged the arrest as unlawful.

The court found that even if the detention rose to the level of an arrest when the defendant was transported to the police station it was proper. Probable cause exists where the police have reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe a particular person has committed or is committing an offense. Guzman v. State, 955 SW.2d at 87; Amores v. State, 816 SW.2d 407, 413 (Tex. Crim. App.1991). Probable cause deals with probabilities; it requires more than mere suspicion but far less evidence than that needed to support a conviction or even that needed to support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Guzman, 955 SW.2d at 87.

Police do not have an automatic right to qualified immunity, court rules

Reformers say the decision is a step toward ending the practice

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously agreed to allow a wrongful arrest and imprisonment lawsuit against two Newark police officers to proceed, rejecting the city’s repeated efforts to shield the officers from liability.

Reformers welcomed the ruling as a small step toward advancing their battle to end qualified immunity, a legal defense municipalities use to prevent public officials from facing lawsuits for civil rights violations.

The case centered on whether public officials can continue to claim qualified immunity if a judge has already denied that protection. The state Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anne Patterson, affirmed lower courts’ rulings that held police officers accused of misconduct do not have an automatic right to appeal an order denying qualified immunity.

Karen Thompson, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the decision represents “an important step toward repairing the injustices that qualified immunity has created.”

“Using procedural quirks to assert qualified immunity, delay litigation, and avoid accountability — even after a court has told an officer they are not entitled to it — is a practice that works against the public interest and harms New Jerseyans trying to obtain justice,” said Thompson, who filed an amicus brief in the case.

Attorney Brooke M. Barnett argued the case for plaintiff Hamid Harris, whom she has represented since 2015. Had the state’s top court sided with Newark instead, Barnett said, people who sue police for civil rights violations would likely see their cases grind to a halt, as municipalities endlessly claim immunity.

“It basically would stop the whole process and drag these cases out longer and force people to make settlements for pennies on the dollar, because people just want closure after these cases drag on so many years,” Barnett said. “But the Supreme Court said, ‘No, no bueno. Not happening.’ Because they recognize that’s going to clog the system and discriminate against these plaintiffs and prevent them from getting closure.”

Supporters of qualified immunity say it protects public officials from unwarranted lawsuits, and getting rid of it could discourage officers from acting if they fear they’ll be held liable. Critics say the practice makes it impossible to hold law enforcement officers accountable when they use excessive force or otherwise violate someone’s civil rights.

Wednesday’s ruling stems from a case dating back to 2015, when Newark Police Det. Donald Stabile arrested Harris for four armed robberies that occurred in Newark in January 2015, according to the ruling.

Harris denied his involvement, he didn’t look like the robber caught on surveillance video, and a victimized store owner told police Harris wasn’t the robber, according to a civil rights lawsuit Harris later filed. Harris further claimed Newark Police Officer Angel Romero told Harris’ mother — in a phone conversation she recorded — that he and Stabile knew another man was the armed robber, but Stabile didn’t bother charging him because Irvington police had tied him to a homicide.

Still, Harris spent three months in prison and lost his job before charges against him were dropped, Barnett said.

He sued in 2016 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, unlawful search and seizure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A trial judge twice sided with Harris and allowed his case to proceed, dismissing Stabile’s and Romero’s immunity claims because their actions were “objectively unreasonable.”

Wednesday’s ruling is the second time the Supreme Court has decided a case involving Stabile. In 2019, justices affirmed a lower court’s ruling suppressing the identification of an armed robbery suspect because Stabile failed to follow procedures on how crime victims identify suspects from a digital database of mug shots.

Barnett said Wednesday’s ruling should send a message to municipalities quick to claim qualified immunity to “stop it.” She called Stabile’s actions “shameful.”

“I can’t wait to get him in front of an Essex County jury,” Barnett said. “He’s a stain on the Newark Police Department’s reputation. Qualified immunity should never be applied to somebody like Det. Stabile.”

Gary S. Lipshutz, an attorney for Newark, said he couldn’t comment because the case is ongoing.

A bill that would end qualified immunity in New Jersey failed to advance in the last legislative session, but lawmakers introduced the measure again in January.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse