New Britian, Connecticut: Michael Picard, 27, of East Hartford, was charged with creating a public disturbance and reckless use of the highway for letting motorists know of an illegal search and possible seizure that was up ahead.
Picard said he was just standing on a public sidewalk before the 4th Amendment violating DWI checkpoint, close to the on-ramp of I-84 on Park Road. He was just waving a sign that read “Cops ahead. Keep calm and remain silent.” While he was out there, he was legally carrying his self defense tool, Connecticut is an open-carry state and he has a valid permission slip to exercise that right without being arrested or detained. He uploaded several videos to his YouTube page that show multiple state troopers pondering the legality of Picard’s address of grievances.
The video starts off with a trooper telling Picard that recording them is illegal, Picard responds by telling the trooper that he is standing on public property and the hot-headed trooper says that he is on “state property.”
Picard has warned the public about DWI checkpoints before, because he strongly disagrees with their credibility, and says that they are an unnecessary cost to taxpayers. Picard describes himself as someone who “advocates for freedom whenever and wherever.”
One of the troopers was heard saying “Want me to punch a number on this? We gotta cover our asses. Let’s give him something,”
Picard he was out there for near an hour with a partner, when a police cruiser pulled up right towards him and immediately seized his camera and gun.
A trooper is heard saying, “Somebody just said that one of you guys had a gun on him.” Picard was not breaking any laws by simply standing near the checkpoint with his sign. He is legally permitted to have his gun visible on his waist. “They searched us and I asked, ‘What reasonable suspicion do you have? They said you have a gun. And I said, ‘that’s not illegal.’ They said it’s unconcealed. I said, ‘that’s not illegal either.”
Picard was detained for about 40 minutes as they researched to see if his gun permit was still good. A trooper is heard saying it is totally legal to do what Mr. Picard was doing. An additional audible voice states “I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance. And then we claim, um, in backup we had multiple people, um, they didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our course of action.”
The Internal affairs division has been reviewing this debacle.
Trooper Kelly Grant said in an email Thursday.
“We hold our Troopers to the highest standard, and now that this video has come to our attention we will forward it to Professional Standards (IA) for review,”
Andrew Matthews, president of the Connecticut State Police Union, responded as well by saying that he viewed the shorter, edited version of Mr. Picard’s video and said that he could not further discuss any of the specifics regarding it because of the internal investigation, but the union was supporting the troopers involved.
Matthews said. “We support what our troopers did, we respect and understand that people have the right to be in a public place and take photographs or video tape our troopers.”
Matthews continued by spitting out the same regurgitated rhetoric, “always room for education and improvement. What makes our job more difficult is when people try and provoke law enforcement into doing something that isn’t necessary.” This an admission that these men and women who sign on to do this job can’t handle it. Protesting people’s rights being violated “isn’t necessary”? Accountability and documentation of their wrongdoings is growing by leaps and bounds because of years and years of their constant lying.
[adinserter block=”1″]
Mr. Picard was given a $178 extortion notification, and when he went up to court, a prosecutor offered to nullify the charges if he would just give-up $25 of his income instead. Which he refused, and warned them that if the charges weren’t dropped all together, that he will try the case in court.
Picard concluded, “It’s not really a hobby, it is just something that I do feel passionately about because I advocate for freedom. Stopping everyone based on no reasonable suspicions on the off-chance that you might find one or two drunk drivers isn’t freedom.” Lying and slapping the innocent with extortion notes that if are not paid will be dealt with by initiating violence. The Cops that preach to “serve and protect” are in actuality issuing state sponsored terror, if we choose not to pay their mafia shake down fee, they will then send armed men and women to our homes to either round us up or murder us, all in the name of generating revenue.
By Andre’ Gabriel Esparza – DontComply.com
7 Comments
Pingback: 3 Men Disarmed and Detained at Gun Point While Legally Open Carrying | DontComply.com
James Michael
By the way just for informations sake:
No criminal act they witnessed personally, or no sworn warrant, they had
absolutely NO lawful authority to use force and do Anything they did to
you.
They gave YOU a perfect cause of action with standing against them….
Have you sued these freedom hating treasonous felon “sworn servants”
yet?
St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
“…lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not,
by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an
investigatory detention.”
US v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000)
“…it is not a crime to possess a firearm… even when standing in a
crowd. Second, the anonymous tipster who approached the authorities had
said nothing that would indicate that Ubiles possessed the gun
unlawfully (e.g., without registration); that he was committing or about
to commit a crime; or that he posed a threat to the officers or anyone
in the crowd. Therefore, the stop and subsequent search were unjustified
because the precondition for a Terry stop was not present in this
case.”
“Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in
response to a call from Theater manager… Mr. St. John’s lawful
possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself,
create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory
detention.” SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
“More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry
firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an
investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would
eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals
in those states.” – Verbatim, US v Black
US v. Deberry–legal firearms cannot be used as reason for stopping a
person…
Delaware v. Prouse—– cannot be detained without suspicion of criminal
activity
Terry v. Ohio—-leo’s cannot legally seize a weapon without reasonable
suspicion…..
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v.
Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
“Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be
indirectly denied.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
exercise of constitutional rights.”
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of
law”.
“One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free
press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may
not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnett, (1943)
Renov8
Going forward….always have a camera or some kind of recording device….never know when it could be the difference between a jail cell or a good night sleep at home.
ramrodd
Drivers, Beware: The Costly, Deadly Dangers of Traffic Stops in the
American Police State – –
If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed,
intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be. Never
before have “we the people” been so seemingly defenseless in the face of police
misconduct, lacking advocates in the courts and in the legislatures.
Technically, you have the right to remain
silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your
registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You
have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask
to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police
officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put
away your phone or stop recording them.
However, as Bland learned the hard way, there is a
price for asserting one’s rights. “Faced with an authority figure unwilling to
de-escalate the situation, Bland refused to be bullied or intimidated,” writes
Boston Globe contributor Renee Graham. “She understood her rights,
but for African-Americans in encounters with police, the appalling price for
asserting even the most basic rights can be their lives.”
Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the
common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government
having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to
suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy
combatants in a military empire.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/drivers-beware-the-costly-deadly-dangers-of-traffic-stops-in-the-american-police-state/
ramrodd
This system is convenient for the government but contemptuous of our Fourth
Amendment rights. If there is probable cause for a DUI arrest, there should also
be probable cause for a blood or breath test warrant. Asking the government to
take that additional step is hardly unreasonable, especially given how easily it
can be accomplished nowadays. To the contrary, what’s unreasonable, and
therefore unconstitutional, is demanding access to the contents of someone’s
body without a warrant.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/21/want-my-blood-get-a-warrant
youngju
This is what happens when you elect Democrats.
HughJorgan69
Obviously since Republicans couldn’t get elected for dog catcher!