"Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
False.
He may already have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and or
custodial authority to do so and may merely be "asking" to obtain
the reaction/demeanor/response from the suspect as further evidence
>I recall there was
> information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> about court cases arising out of consent.
It's standard corrupt cop proceedure to ask, then search
regardless of the response. If they find something, they
merely testi-lie in court that the driver gave consent.
--
... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence,
lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness,
bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed
in court houses all over this country every day ...
these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of
the fundamental ethics of the profession.
--Chief Justice Warren Burger
"AlanG" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
news:tc7pfvcen2tge8720qilgcd45rotkknull@no-spam
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:30:38 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> >
> >> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> >> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
> >
> >False.
>
> Make sure you say where you are posting from cos this post is going to
> an alt group as well as to UK, US, Canadian and Aussie groups. Now
> much as the US would like to believe their law applies everywhere else
> it doesn't as yet.
Tell that to the Iraqis, Afghanis, Panamanians, Grenadians, etc ...
> >
> >He may already have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and or
> >custodial authority to do so and may merely be "asking" to obtain
> >the reaction/demeanor/response from the suspect as further evidence
> >
> >>I recall there was
> >> information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> >> I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> >> to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> >> interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> >> consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> >> a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> >> where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> >> can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> >> merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> >> about court cases arising out of consent.
> >
> >It's standard corrupt cop proceedure to ask, then search
> >regardless of the response. If they find something, they
> >merely testi-lie in court that the driver gave consent.
>
>
> --
> Alan G
> "The corporate life [of society] must be
> subservient to the lives of the parts instead
> of the lives of the parts being subservient to
> the corporate life."
> (Herbert Spencer)
AlanG <me@no-spam> wrote in message news:<tc7pfvcen2tge8720qilgcd45rotkknull@no-spam>...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:30:38 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> >
> >> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> >> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
> >
> >False.
>
> Make sure you say where you are posting from cos this post is going to
> an alt group as well as to UK, US, Canadian and Aussie groups. Now
> much as the US would like to believe their law applies everywhere else
> it doesn't as yet.
> >
> >He may already have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and or
> >custodial authority to do so and may merely be "asking" to obtain
> >the reaction/demeanor/response from the suspect as further evidence
> >
> >>I recall there was
> >> information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> >> I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> >> to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> >> interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> >> consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> >> a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> >> where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> >> can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> >> merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> >> about court cases arising out of consent.
> >
> >It's standard corrupt cop proceedure to ask, then search
> >regardless of the response. If they find something, they
> >merely testi-lie in court that the driver gave consent.
I always ask the driver if I can search the car. And if I do ask I
already know that I will be searching the car anyway. It is a good
way to see if you are going to find anything. The last car that I
searched was the best. I stopped the car speeding 65 in a 40. There
are a bunch of kids in the car. I step up to the car I i get hit with
an odor of Marijuana and there are seeds on the floor. At this point
i WILL be searching the vehicle. I already technically have enoght to
arrest. I purposely left all occupants in the vehicle when i was
talking to the driver. I then asked if i could search the car he just
looked at me and the 3 other kids all at the same time looked at the
center console. HMMMMMMMM can you guess what was in the center
console? So asking is just another form of investigation. Body
language is a great tool. And even if you know not to do something
most of the time that you will do it if caught off guard. Like they
should have never looked at the console. I would have found it
anyway, but that is not the point.
If the officer asks you to search and he does not have probably cause,
you can refuse the search at any time. In my dept, if we want to
search a vehicle without probable cause we have the driver sign a
paper that lists their rights. Most people dont read it anyway....
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote
I'll believe those references before your usual rantings (which
contain NO citations). And I found this on FindLaw, which says the
same thing--
FindLaw for the Public
http://public.findlaw.com/traffic_violations/nolo/auntie/7B8C1C59-C365-4443-B5A8C00DFFA8D44D.html
Officer Friendly goes too far
Can a Police Officer Search My Car During a Traffic Stop?
QUESTION:
A cop pulled me over for running a red light and then he searched me
and my car. He didn't find anything, but I felt humiliated and
violated by the whole thing. Was he allowed to do this?
ANSWER:
Probably not. Even if you had been going 100 miles per hour up a "Do
Not Enter" ramp, that wouldn't have given the officer automatic
authority to search you or your car. A traffic stop is normally just a
traffic stop -- unless you make the officer "reasonably suspect" that
you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity. If the
officer does see something suspicious, then the law allows him or her
to do a "pat-down" search of you and of the passenger compartment of
your car. He or she can also "frisk" (feel the outside of) any purses,
bags or other things in the car that could hold a weapon. But when the
officer starts tearing up your lovely leather (or beat-up vinyl)
upholstery, it's time to cry "civil rights violation."
The officer can't set to work on your car just because he has a hunch
that you are a Bad Sort. Before he starts searching, he must notice
something more tangible, like the scent of marijuana smoke. If you're
acting evasively, such as by keeping your hands out of the officer's
view, a judge might also conclude that the officer was justified in
doing the search.
Unfortunately, there is a loophole here that you could drive several
squad cars through. If you let the officer search you or your car,
then the search will normally be considered valid -- even if there
were no solid reasons behind the officer's request. Many people don't
realize that they can refuse a search. As you no doubt know, it's not
easy to say "no" to someone who is wearing a gun and scary reflective
glasses. But when we don't even know our rights, it becomes that much
easier for an authority figure to trample on them.
Copyright 2002 Nolo, Inc.
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdig9f$ec5$1@no-spam
> > "Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> ...
> > > It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > > he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false? I recall there was
> > > information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > > I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > > to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > > interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > > consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > > a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > > where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > > can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > > merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > > about court cases arising out of consent.
> >
> >
> > Unless you give them permission, police may search your car only if they
> > have "probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is in
> > your car....
>
> Wrong. That used to be the standard before the SCOTUS eviscerated
> the 4th Amendment.
>
> Now they can search for all kinds of lesser suspicions, for custodial
> reasons and for "officer safety", then can also bring in a dog, as that is
> not a "search" according to SCOTUS, and if/when the dog "hits" that
> IS probable cause for the full search.
>
> > Of course, a police officer can't single your car out for no
> > reason...There must be sufficient justification to conduct the search in the
> > first place, or it is illegal. The mere fact that you are stopped for...a
> > traffic infraction does not ordinarily justify a search of the car's
> > interior."
> > --M Belli, AP Wilkinson. (Everybody's Guide to the Law. New York: Harper and
> > Row)
>
> Got a year for that publication?
>
> >
> > Your rights in this respect are based on the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
> > Constitution, so must be honored in all states.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> >
> > The American Civil Liberties Union offers these guidelines (available on
> > their Web site www.aclu.org), which are actually fairly conservative.
> >
> > 1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be used
> > against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you, especially
> > if you bad-mouth a police officer.
> >
> > 2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show
> > your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other
> > situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself
> > to a police officer.
> >
> > 3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your
> > house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in
> > court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.
> >
> > 4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police--you can be arrested for
> > it.
> > ------------------------------
> > Many state constitutions give additional protection:
> > "The law permits a police officer to approach a person in a public place to
> > request information if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is
> > committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The officer may
> > demand the person's name, address, and an explanation of his or her actions.
> > The person, however, is NOT required to answer and has the right to remain
> > silent under the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions." The New Jersey Supreme
> > Court has ruled that "a suspect DOES have to know of his or her right to
> > refuse a search before it can be considered consensual."
> > (Quotations from _You and the Law in New Jersey_, MD Miller, LA Holness,
> > Rutgers University Press, 1998.)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The problem is that cops will try to bully people into consenting--implying
> > they'll give you traffic tickets, or more tickets, etc. Or they routinely
> > lie--saying they smell pot or something (one of the most common ploys). But
> > you still don't have any legal obligation to consent to the search.
>
> "Obligation to consent" ? What the fuck are you talking about ...?
"John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
news:787f8b2d.0306271913.792b496e@no-spam
> "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<2i_Ka.75$AE.24892@no-spam>...
> > "Richard" <anom@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdhgu70kqv@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> > > > It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > > > he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false? I recall there was
> > > > information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > > > I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > > > to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > > > interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > > > consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > > > a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > > > where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > > > can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > > > merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > > > about court cases arising out of consent.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice, only an opinion.
> >
> > You really are a fucking idiot, Richard.
>
>
> That's your post--to call someone a fucking idiot?
Not "someone" fool, Richard ... who is a fucking idiot when
it comes to the law and legal matters.
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote in message news:<1n9La.315$AE.85080@no-spam>...
> "John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:787f8b2d.0306272049.4f838095@no-spam
> > "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote
> >
> >
> > I'll believe those references before your usual rantings (which
> > contain NO citations). And I found this on FindLaw, which says the
> > same thing--
>
> Believe that crap at your own peril, moron.
So FindLaw is crap and we should believe your rantings instead. You
really area a dumb asshole.
> > FindLaw for the Public
> >
> http://public.findlaw.com/traffic_violations/nolo/auntie/7B8C1C59-C365-4443-B5A8C00DFFA8D44D.html
> >
> > Officer Friendly goes too far
> >
> > Can a Police Officer Search My Car During a Traffic Stop?
> > QUESTION:
> > A cop pulled me over for running a red light and then he searched me
> > and my car. He didn't find anything, but I felt humiliated and
> > violated by the whole thing. Was he allowed to do this?
> >
> > ANSWER:
> >
> > Probably not. Even if you had been going 100 miles per hour up a "Do
> > Not Enter" ramp, that wouldn't have given the officer automatic
> > authority to search you or your car. A traffic stop is normally just a
> > traffic stop -- unless you make the officer "reasonably suspect" that
> > you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity. If the
> > officer does see something suspicious, then the law allows him or her
> > to do a "pat-down" search of you and of the passenger compartment of
> > your car. He or she can also "frisk" (feel the outside of) any purses,
> > bags or other things in the car that could hold a weapon. But when the
> > officer starts tearing up your lovely leather (or beat-up vinyl)
> > upholstery, it's time to cry "civil rights violation."
> >
> > The officer can't set to work on your car just because he has a hunch
> > that you are a Bad Sort. Before he starts searching, he must notice
> > something more tangible, like the scent of marijuana smoke. If you're
> > acting evasively, such as by keeping your hands out of the officer's
> > view, a judge might also conclude that the officer was justified in
> > doing the search.
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is a loophole here that you could drive several
> > squad cars through. If you let the officer search you or your car,
> > then the search will normally be considered valid -- even if there
> > were no solid reasons behind the officer's request. Many people don't
> > realize that they can refuse a search. As you no doubt know, it's not
> > easy to say "no" to someone who is wearing a gun and scary reflective
> > glasses. But when we don't even know our rights, it becomes that much
> > easier for an authority figure to trample on them.
> >
> > Copyright 2002 Nolo, Inc.
> >
> >
> > > "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:bdig9f$ec5$1@no-spam
> > > > "Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> ...
> > > > > It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > > > > he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false? I recall there was
> > > > > information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > > > > I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > > > > to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > > > > interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > > > > consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > > > > a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > > > > where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > > > > can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > > > > merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > > > > about court cases arising out of consent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unless you give them permission, police may search your car only if they
> > > > have "probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is
> in
> > > > your car....
> > >
> > > Wrong. That used to be the standard before the SCOTUS eviscerated
> > > the 4th Amendment.
> > >
> > > Now they can search for all kinds of lesser suspicions, for custodial
> > > reasons and for "officer safety", then can also bring in a dog, as that is
> > > not a "search" according to SCOTUS, and if/when the dog "hits" that
> > > IS probable cause for the full search.
> > >
> > > > Of course, a police officer can't single your car out for no
> > > > reason...There must be sufficient justification to conduct the search in
> the
> > > > first place, or it is illegal. The mere fact that you are stopped for...a
> > > > traffic infraction does not ordinarily justify a search of the car's
> > > > interior."
> > > > --M Belli, AP Wilkinson. (Everybody's Guide to the Law. New York: Harper
> and
> > > > Row)
> > >
> > > Got a year for that publication?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your rights in this respect are based on the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
> > > > Constitution, so must be honored in all states.
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The American Civil Liberties Union offers these guidelines (available on
> > > > their Web site www.aclu.org), which are actually fairly conservative.
> > > >
> > > > 1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be
> used
> > > > against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you,
> especially
> > > > if you bad-mouth a police officer.
> > > >
> > > > 2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must
> show
> > > > your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other
> > > > situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify
> yourself
> > > > to a police officer.
> > > >
> > > > 3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your
> > > > house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in
> > > > court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police--you can be arrested for
> > > > it.
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > Many state constitutions give additional protection:
> > > > "The law permits a police officer to approach a person in a public place
> to
> > > > request information if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is
> > > > committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The officer may
> > > > demand the person's name, address, and an explanation of his or her
> actions.
> > > > The person, however, is NOT required to answer and has the right to remain
> > > > silent under the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions." The New Jersey
> Supreme
> > > > Court has ruled that "a suspect DOES have to know of his or her right to
> > > > refuse a search before it can be considered consensual."
> > > > (Quotations from _You and the Law in New Jersey_, MD Miller, LA Holness,
> > > > Rutgers University Press, 1998.)
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The problem is that cops will try to bully people into
> consenting--implying
> > > > they'll give you traffic tickets, or more tickets, etc. Or they routinely
> > > > lie--saying they smell pot or something (one of the most common ploys).
> But
> > > > you still don't have any legal obligation to consent to the search.
> > >
> > > "Obligation to consent" ? What the fuck are you talking about ...?
"AlanG" ...
> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote:
> >"Charles Packer" ...
> >
> >> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> >> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
> >
> >False.
>
> Make sure you say where you are posting from cos this post is going to
> an alt group as well as to UK, US, Canadian and Aussie groups. Now
> much as the US would like to believe their law applies everywhere else
> it doesn't as yet.
A Uenet public posting "goes out" into the world of cyberspace and thus
to the entire world. This is one of those "things" about a PUBLIC forum.
It is PUBLIC.
JHall.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
"John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
news:787f8b2d.0306280510.2813534e@no-spam
> "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<1n9La.315$AE.85080@no-spam>...
> > "John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:787f8b2d.0306272049.4f838095@no-spam
> > > "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll believe those references before your usual rantings (which
> > > contain NO citations). And I found this on FindLaw, which says the
> > > same thing--
> >
> > Believe that crap at your own peril, moron.
>
>
> So FindLaw is crap and we should believe your rantings instead. You
> really area a dumb asshole.
Moron!
Supreme Court allows search of car passenger belongings
(4/8/98) The Supreme Court ruled that when police are searching for
criminal evidence against a driver, they may also search the personal belongings
of passengers. This ruling increased the already considerable power of police to
search a driver without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens against
unreasonable search and seizures, generally requires police to obtain search
warrants. However, since vehicles are mobile, the Supreme Court has ruled that
police may search you and your vehicle if they expect to find evidence of a
crime.
The Supreme Court further reduced your rights in 1996 by allowing police
to stop motorists for routine traffic violations even if the officers actually
want to search for drugs. The court's recent ruling now gives police the right
to also search the belongings of passengers.
However, during a search for evidence linked to a driver, police may still
not pat down or search the pockets of passengers. A 1948 Supreme Court ruling
banned these tactics.
The recent court ruling focused on a passenger search during a routine
traffic stop in Wyoming. On July 23, 1995, a highway patrol officer stopped
David Young for speeding and saw a hypodermic syringe in Young's pocket. Young
acknowledged that he used the syringe to take drugs.
At that point, two other officers asked the driver's two passengers to
exit the car. While searching the vehicle, police found drug paraphernalia and
liquid methamphetamine in a purse that belonged to one of the passengers. The
passenger was convicted on a felony charge but appealed.
However, like the many teenagers across the country who are fighting their
curfew convictions, the passenger appealed the decision. The Wyoming Supreme
Court threw out her conviction by ruling that police were justified only in
searching the car for drugs Young may have had with him -- and therefore could
not search Houghton's purse.
The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the nation,
disagreed with the ruling by a vote of 6-3.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision, said, "Effective law
enforcement would be appreciably impaired without the ability to search a
passenger's personal belongings when there is reason to believe contraband or
evidence of criminal wrongdoing is hidden in the car," Scalia said.
"The sensible rule ... is that such a package may be searched, whether or
not its owner is present as a passenger or otherwise, because it may contain the
contraband that the officer has reason to believe is in the car," Scalia said.
He added that car passengers "will often be engaged in a common enterprise
with the driver and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the
evidence of their wrongdoing."
>
>
> > > FindLaw for the Public
> > >
> >
http://public.findlaw.com/traffic_violations/nolo/auntie/7B8C1C59-C365-4443-B5A8C00DFFA8D44D.html
> > >
> > > Officer Friendly goes too far
> > >
> > > Can a Police Officer Search My Car During a Traffic Stop?
> > > QUESTION:
> > > A cop pulled me over for running a red light and then he searched me
> > > and my car. He didn't find anything, but I felt humiliated and
> > > violated by the whole thing. Was he allowed to do this?
> > >
> > > ANSWER:
> > >
> > > Probably not. Even if you had been going 100 miles per hour up a "Do
> > > Not Enter" ramp, that wouldn't have given the officer automatic
> > > authority to search you or your car. A traffic stop is normally just a
> > > traffic stop -- unless you make the officer "reasonably suspect" that
> > > you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity. If the
> > > officer does see something suspicious, then the law allows him or her
> > > to do a "pat-down" search of you and of the passenger compartment of
> > > your car. He or she can also "frisk" (feel the outside of) any purses,
> > > bags or other things in the car that could hold a weapon. But when the
> > > officer starts tearing up your lovely leather (or beat-up vinyl)
> > > upholstery, it's time to cry "civil rights violation."
> > >
> > > The officer can't set to work on your car just because he has a hunch
> > > that you are a Bad Sort. Before he starts searching, he must notice
> > > something more tangible, like the scent of marijuana smoke. If you're
> > > acting evasively, such as by keeping your hands out of the officer's
> > > view, a judge might also conclude that the officer was justified in
> > > doing the search.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is a loophole here that you could drive several
> > > squad cars through. If you let the officer search you or your car,
> > > then the search will normally be considered valid -- even if there
> > > were no solid reasons behind the officer's request. Many people don't
> > > realize that they can refuse a search. As you no doubt know, it's not
> > > easy to say "no" to someone who is wearing a gun and scary reflective
> > > glasses. But when we don't even know our rights, it becomes that much
> > > easier for an authority figure to trample on them.
> > >
> > > Copyright 2002 Nolo, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bdig9f$ec5$1@no-spam
> > > > > "Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> ...
> > > > > > It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > > > > > he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false? I recall there was
> > > > > > information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > > > > > I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > > > > > to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > > > > > interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > > > > > consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > > > > > a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > > > > > where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > > > > > can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > > > > > merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > > > > > about court cases arising out of consent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless you give them permission, police may search your car only if
they
> > > > > have "probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime
is
> > in
> > > > > your car....
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. That used to be the standard before the SCOTUS eviscerated
> > > > the 4th Amendment.
> > > >
> > > > Now they can search for all kinds of lesser suspicions, for custodial
> > > > reasons and for "officer safety", then can also bring in a dog, as that
is
> > > > not a "search" according to SCOTUS, and if/when the dog "hits" that
> > > > IS probable cause for the full search.
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, a police officer can't single your car out for no
> > > > > reason...There must be sufficient justification to conduct the search
in
> > the
> > > > > first place, or it is illegal. The mere fact that you are stopped
for...a
> > > > > traffic infraction does not ordinarily justify a search of the car's
> > > > > interior."
> > > > > --M Belli, AP Wilkinson. (Everybody's Guide to the Law. New York:
Harper
> > and
> > > > > Row)
> > > >
> > > > Got a year for that publication?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your rights in this respect are based on the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
> > > > > Constitution, so must be honored in all states.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The American Civil Liberties Union offers these guidelines (available
on
> > > > > their Web site www.aclu.org), which are actually fairly conservative.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be
> > used
> > > > > against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you,
> > especially
> > > > > if you bad-mouth a police officer.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must
> > show
> > > > > your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other
> > > > > situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify
> > yourself
> > > > > to a police officer.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or
your
> > > > > house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later
in
> > > > > court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police--you can be arrested
for
> > > > > it.
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > Many state constitutions give additional protection:
> > > > > "The law permits a police officer to approach a person in a public
place
> > to
> > > > > request information if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person
is
> > > > > committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The officer
may
> > > > > demand the person's name, address, and an explanation of his or her
> > actions.
> > > > > The person, however, is NOT required to answer and has the right to
remain
> > > > > silent under the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions." The New Jersey
> > Supreme
> > > > > Court has ruled that "a suspect DOES have to know of his or her right
to
> > > > > refuse a search before it can be considered consensual."
> > > > > (Quotations from _You and the Law in New Jersey_, MD Miller, LA
Holness,
> > > > > Rutgers University Press, 1998.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > The problem is that cops will try to bully people into
> > consenting--implying
> > > > > they'll give you traffic tickets, or more tickets, etc. Or they
routinely
> > > > > lie--saying they smell pot or something (one of the most common
ploys).
> > But
> > > > > you still don't have any legal obligation to consent to the search.
> > > >
> > > > "Obligation to consent" ? What the fuck are you talking about ...?
sgroi@no-spam (Andy) wrote in message news:<aec2032d.0306271723.33d35ac5@no-spam>...
> AlanG <me@no-spam> wrote in message news:<tc7pfvcen2tge8720qilgcd45rotkknull@no-spam>...
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:30:38 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> > >
> > >> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > >> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
> > >
> > >False.
> >
> > Make sure you say where you are posting from cos this post is going to
> > an alt group as well as to UK, US, Canadian and Aussie groups. Now
> > much as the US would like to believe their law applies everywhere else
> > it doesn't as yet.
> > >
> > >He may already have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and or
> > >custodial authority to do so and may merely be "asking" to obtain
> > >the reaction/demeanor/response from the suspect as further evidence
> > >
> > >>I recall there was
> > >> information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > >> I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > >> to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > >> interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > >> consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > >> a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > >> where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > >> can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > >> merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > >> about court cases arising out of consent.
> > >
> > >It's standard corrupt cop proceedure to ask, then search
> > >regardless of the response. If they find something, they
> > >merely testi-lie in court that the driver gave consent.
>
>
> I always ask the driver if I can search the car. And if I do ask I
> already know that I will be searching the car anyway.
OVER fifty percent of my encounters with cops reveal they are prone to
corrupting and otherwise misrepresenting the facts, including
falsifying the basis to conduct a car search, which in my case was car
frisk.
Of course this shouldn't come as a surprise to any motorist/citizen
given the abundance of TRAMP COPS on the loose - not to mention the
garden variety headcase cops on a power trip. Tramps are the bums
who slither away from one department (usually after getting fired or
asking to submit resignation)and end up in another uniform.
I used to live in Indian River County Florida, and during a span of
few years was subject to a bogus car frisk, bogus fire line citation
(pig didn't show up in court)and was ticketed by a deputy who was
later arrested for child molestation. I also a traveled the same
roads as State Trooper Timothy Harris - now serving a life sentence
for stalking and murdering female motorists. Like Ted Bundy he removed
the passenger door handle of his squad car to prevent his victims from
escaping. These are just a few of the unsavory tidbits about those
demented sub-humans that prowl the streets and prey on those they have
sworn to "protect and serve". 1 bad cop out of every 1,000 is one too
many.
It is a good
> way to see if you are going to find anything. The last car that I
> searched was the best. I stopped the car speeding 65 in a 40. There
> are a bunch of kids in the car. I step up to the car I i get hit with
> an odor of Marijuana and there are seeds on the floor. At this point
> i WILL be searching the vehicle. I already technically have enoght to
> arrest. I purposely left all occupants in the vehicle when i was
> talking to the driver. I then asked if i could search the car he just
> looked at me and the 3 other kids all at the same time looked at the
> center console. HMMMMMMMM can you guess what was in the center
> console? So asking is just another form of investigation. Body
> language is a great tool. And even if you know not to do something
> most of the time that you will do it if caught off guard. Like they
> should have never looked at the console. I would have found it
> anyway, but that is not the point.
Congrats on job well done. Maybe we'll see you mugging for the camera
on COPS someday?
Now explain to everyone the rationale behind "professional
courtesy",i.e., cops who do not issue citations to other cops stopped
for speeding while off duty. Why not a little insight to illegal
profiling........a very hot topic back in the 90's in many Florida
jurisdictions and elsewhere when cops would engage in the "I-95
forfeiture lottery". Yes, the forfeiture laws have motivated many of
these IQ deficient public servants to go above and beyond the call of
duty.
>
> If the officer asks you to search and he does not have probably cause,
> you can refuse the search at any time.
NO Problemo,,,,,,they can just LIE about observing a furtive gesture,
like the rookie punk did who wanted to search my car. I was standing
outside leaning on the fender when he asked me to be seated inside the
car. The next minutes this idiot walks up and claims he saw me
reach under the seat- AFTER he told me get inside the car.
Apparently this crap-for-brains clown didn't think I would KNOW what
he was up to?
I spent the next two months hounding the chief and his supervisor, not
to mention authoring a scathing letter to the editor. I was told
piglets are not required to write up a report (or ANYTHING) when the
instigate a car frisk. That didn't come as any surprise since it would
serve to identify any pig who is abusing this "officer safety ruse" as
a tool to conduct illegal searches. Cops know how to circumvent the
law just like criminals.
In my dept, if we want to
> search a vehicle without probable cause we have the driver sign a
> paper that lists their rights. Most people dont read it anyway....
Please note that Vox is a well-known spammer and crosspost abuser. I
have trimmed the followup lines accordingly. Apologies to all the other
fine English-speaking legal newsgroups he has fouled.
As there is no political content, I have also trimmed us.politics.
In us.legal John Graeme <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote:
> "=> Vox Populi " <vox@no-spam> wrote in message news:<1n9La.315$AE.85080@no-spam>...
>> "John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:787f8b2d.0306272049.4f838095@no-spam
>> > "=> Vox Populi " <vox@no-spam> wrote
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll believe those references before your usual rantings (which
>> > contain NO citations). And I found this on FindLaw, which says the
>> > same thing--
>>
>> Believe that crap at your own peril, moron.
> So FindLaw is crap and we should believe your rantings instead. You
> really area a dumb asshole.
Vox is a well-known troll and idiot. However, the part of FindLaw that
you quoted hasn't been updated in a little while, from what I can see.
For example, after Atwater v. Lago Vista, /any misdemeanor/ (including
simply criminal speeding) may be used as a basis for arrest and
impoundment (with subsequent inventory search) of your vehicle.
State law may provide you with more protection, and where the offense
is merely civil (some states set up a civil classification for some
traffic tickets) it isn't so clear, but when I got pulled over by the
Arizona Highway Patrol for going 86 in a 75 mph speed zone (oops), they
could have arrested me in handcuffs, taken me to jail, and impounded my
car. Whenever a police officer is authorized to make an impoundment,
the general rule goes, they may also make an inventory search of the
car.
You can read Atwater v. Lago Vista at the Supreme Court website.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1408.pdf
It concerned a seat belt violation.
--
***************************************************************************
"You turn off the light and turn on the dark, you turn off the dark and
turn on the light --- positively marvillainous!" ---Krazy Kat, 1921
Jason D. Corley | Enderby@no-spam | AIM: Concordancer
"Jason Corley" <corleyj@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efde62f@no-spam
>
> Please note that Vox is a well-known spammer and crosspost abuser.
Jason Corley is a well known shit-sucker and liar.
>I have trimmed the followup lines accordingly.
Followups restored.
>
> As there is no political content, I have also trimmed us.politics.
As you personally don't get to decide about the contend, us.politics
restored.
>
> In us.legal John Graeme <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote:
> > "=> Vox Populi " <vox@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<1n9La.315$AE.85080@no-spam>...
> >> "John Graeme" <jdgraeme@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:787f8b2d.0306272049.4f838095@no-spam
> >> > "=> Vox Populi " <vox@no-spam> wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'll believe those references before your usual rantings (which
> >> > contain NO citations). And I found this on FindLaw, which says the
> >> > same thing--
> >>
> >> Believe that crap at your own peril, moron.
>
>
> > So FindLaw is crap and we should believe your rantings instead. You
> > really area a dumb asshole.
>
>
> However, the part of FindLaw that
> you quoted hasn't been updated in a little while, from what I can see.
Translation: Vox was correct as usual.
> For example, after Atwater v. Lago Vista, /any misdemeanor/ (including
> simply criminal speeding) may be used as a basis for arrest and
> impoundment (with subsequent inventory search) of your vehicle.
Ibid.
>
> State law may provide you with more protection, and where the offense
> is merely civil (some states set up a civil classification for some
> traffic tickets) it isn't so clear, but when I got pulled over by the
> Arizona Highway Patrol for going 86 in a 75 mph speed zone (oops), they
> could have arrested me in handcuffs, taken me to jail, and impounded my
> car. Whenever a police officer is authorized to make an impoundment,
> the general rule goes, they may also make an inventory search of the
> car.
>
> You can read Atwater v. Lago Vista at the Supreme Court website.
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1408.pdf
>
> It concerned a seat belt violation.
--
... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence,
lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness,
bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed
in court houses all over this country every day ...
these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of
the fundamental ethics of the profession.
--Chief Justice Warren Burger
some people do....been ther done that
and If a pig sticks a pen in my hand, he just gave me a weapon to defend
myself agaisnt a 9mm--i admit, not much good, but better than nothing
Mike
"Andy" <sgroi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:aec2032d.0306271723.33d35ac5@no-spam
> AlanG <me@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<tc7pfvcen2tge8720qilgcd45rotkknull@no-spam>...
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:30:38 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"Charles Packer" <mailbox@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >news:f88bc493.0306270443.4c317774@no-spam
> > >
> > >> It's illegal for a police officer to search your car if
> > >> he _asks_, and you refuse. True or false?
> > >
> > >False.
> >
> > Make sure you say where you are posting from cos this post is going to
> > an alt group as well as to UK, US, Canadian and Aussie groups. Now
> > much as the US would like to believe their law applies everywhere else
> > it doesn't as yet.
> > >
> > >He may already have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and or
> > >custodial authority to do so and may merely be "asking" to obtain
> > >the reaction/demeanor/response from the suspect as further evidence
> > >
> > >>I recall there was
> > >> information on this question at some state ACLU site, but
> > >> I don't remember which one. A recent thread here ("consent
> > >> to vehicle search") doesn't quite cover the ground I'm
> > >> interested in, which is before you give any kind of
> > >> consent to search. Another thread here, "Best way to refuse
> > >> a search of my car" is so huge and chaotic I didn't know
> > >> where to jump in to find anything relevant. Actually, I
> > >> can't imagine any circumstances where an officer would
> > >> merely ask to search your car, yet I've seen news articles
> > >> about court cases arising out of consent.
> > >
> > >It's standard corrupt cop proceedure to ask, then search
> > >regardless of the response. If they find something, they
> > >merely testi-lie in court that the driver gave consent.
>
>
> I always ask the driver if I can search the car. And if I do ask I
> already know that I will be searching the car anyway. It is a good
> way to see if you are going to find anything. The last car that I
> searched was the best. I stopped the car speeding 65 in a 40. There
> are a bunch of kids in the car. I step up to the car I i get hit with
> an odor of Marijuana and there are seeds on the floor. At this point
> i WILL be searching the vehicle. I already technically have enoght to
> arrest. I purposely left all occupants in the vehicle when i was
> talking to the driver. I then asked if i could search the car he just
> looked at me and the 3 other kids all at the same time looked at the
> center console. HMMMMMMMM can you guess what was in the center
> console? So asking is just another form of investigation. Body
> language is a great tool. And even if you know not to do something
> most of the time that you will do it if caught off guard. Like they
> should have never looked at the console. I would have found it
> anyway, but that is not the point.
>
> If the officer asks you to search and he does not have probably cause,
> you can refuse the search at any time. In my dept, if we want to
> search a vehicle without probable cause we have the driver sign a
> paper that lists their rights. Most people dont read it anyway....
In article <xxmLa.300$_c1.40@no-spam>, "Rico
X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote:
> "Andy" <sgroi@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:aec2032d.0306271723.33d35ac5@no-spam
>
> > In my dept, if we want to
> > search a vehicle without probable
> > cause we have the driver sign a
> > paper that lists their rights.
> > Most people dont read it anyway....
>
>
> Do you mean that it's your SOP to deceive the citizen into
> signing away his rights?
Where did he say he decieved them? According to what he posted, most
people don't read the paper. There's no deception going on there, just
extreme stupdity on the part of people who sign documents without
bothering to read them first.
> Try "Fuck You, you Nazi Pig !" and see how far that gets you.
>
follow that up with an assumptit contract making the pig persnally liable
plus his department jointly liable (named) for each and every single breach
of your rights--if you are smart you put a non-sue, automitic forfeture and
collection clause into it, and a pre-set ( I use $500,000 per day per
violation)..neat trick is you DONT fine them--you cant, but you CAN charge
licencing feees for you rights....
no different than an autheor licencing his copyright, or a musition
licencing his performance right..
sure officer, you can violate my rights to privacy, to property, to
whatever---its one half million dollers per day per violation. Ypu agreed to
those terms the second you took my "doccuments" with the contract included
(you were served)
Neat part is that you DONT have to sue them for violating your rights...you
sue and collect based on breech of contract since they already agreed to
respect your legal right as soon as they touched that piece of paper
Mike
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-2A9124.17184128062003@no-spam
> In article <xxmLa.300$_c1.40@no-spam>,
"Rico
> X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote:
> > "Andy" <sgroi@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:aec2032d.0306271723.33d35ac5@no-spam
> >
> > > In my dept, if we want to
> > > search a vehicle without probable
> > > cause we have the driver sign a
> > > paper that lists their rights.
> > > Most people dont read it anyway....
>> Do you mean that it's your SOP to
>> deceive the citizen into
>> signing away his rights?
> Where did he say he decieved them? According
> to what he posted, most people don't read the
> paper. There's no deception going on there,
> just extreme stupdity on the part of people
> who sign documents without bothering to read
> them first.
But what he didn't say, Sherlock, is what they think they're
signing. His post implies some kind of deception -- if, as you
say, they're extremely stupid, that would imply they're signing
something they shouldn't (assuming they don't want to relinquish
any of their rights). Why would they do that? What does he say
to get them to sign it? People don't sign any random thing a cop
hands them unless it's presented as something they should sign for
some reason. He didn't say what that reason was.
With us now?
In article <S8pLa.416$_c1.11@no-spam>, "Rico
X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <BTR1702@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-2A9124.17184128062003@no-spam
> > In article <xxmLa.300$_c1.40@no-spam>,
> "Rico
> > X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > > "Andy" <sgroi@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:aec2032d.0306271723.33d35ac5@no-spam
> > >
> > > > In my dept, if we want to
> > > > search a vehicle without probable
> > > > cause we have the driver sign a
> > > > paper that lists their rights.
> > > > Most people dont read it anyway....
>
> >> Do you mean that it's your SOP to
> >> deceive the citizen into
> >> signing away his rights?
>
> > Where did he say he decieved them? According
> > to what he posted, most people don't read the
> > paper. There's no deception going on there,
> > just extreme stupdity on the part of people
> > who sign documents without bothering to read
> > them first.
>
>
> But what he didn't say, Sherlock, is what they think they're
> signing. His post implies some kind of deception
Huh? He said "if we want to search a vehicle without probable cause we
have the driver sign a paper that lists their rights".
How is that deceiving anyone? He presents them with a paper that lists
their rights. What more do you want? A neon sign and marching band?
He never said he tried to deceive them about anything, slappy. He merely
said most people don't bother to read it and if they don't bother, their
stupidity is their own.
> -- if, as you
> say, they're extremely stupid, that would imply they're signing
> something they shouldn't
Anyone is stupid for signing *anything* without reading it first. Or
don't you know that, Sherlock?
> (assuming they don't want to relinquish
> any of their rights). Why would they do that? What does he say
> to get them to sign it? People don't sign any random thing a cop
> hands them unless it's presented as something they should sign for
> some reason. He didn't say what that reason was.
And none of that proves or even implies any deception. If presented with
a paper that lists your rights and asks if you want to waive them, and
you choose to sign it without bothering to read it, any negative
consequences that flow from that act are *your* fault. No one else's.
"Merlin" <mag@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0581f4.305363@no-spam
> foggytown@no-spam (Mike Girouard) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> *****************************************************************
> >> * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
> >> * *
> >> * BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
> >> * Attorneys at Law *
> >> * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
> >> * lawyer@no-spam *
> >> * http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
> >> * *
> >> * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
> >> *****************************************************************
> >>
> >> The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It
> >> isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such.
> >> If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with
> >> your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law
> >> applicable to your situation.
> >> *****************************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hey, Brett ol' buddy. Is there just the skinniest chance that the
> >above might be construed as advertising - the practice of which is
> >totally contrary to the protocol of these NGs?
> >
> >I note the ad says "small business". Is it so small you're reduced to
> >trolling NGs for scraps?
> >
> >FoggyTown
>
> You're an idiot, froggywits. Brett's sig is within bounds of law
Are you sure?
> and doesn't violate any group "protocol",
It violates accepted Usenet protocol for sigs.
> it serves the important
> purpose of giving notice that he is a lawyer, identifies his subject
> and geographical area of practice, provides information allowing
> easy verification that he is who he says and signals to the rest of
> us that his comments are to be given greater weight
Greater weight? Because he's a lawyer? Here are some lawyers you can
fawn over and worship too ...
BRYAN RAY KAZARIAN [#152804], 39, of Santa Ana was summarily disbarred Feb. 14,
2003, following a conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine. He was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the
California Rules of Court.
Kazarian's misconduct met the two criteria for summary disbarment: he was
convicted of a felony and his crime involved moral turpitude
MIGUEL GADDA [#64832], 60, of San Francisco was disbarred Feb. 21, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.
The State Bar Court's review department upheld a hearing judge's recommendation
that Gadda be disbarred for multiple acts of misconduct, including failing to
perform legal services competently 10 times, refund unearned fees, communicate
with clients or return their files, and for commingling funds and committing
acts of moral turpitude by issuing trust account checks against insufficient
funds.
He sought review, arguing that because he practices immigration law only, the
State Bar has no jurisdiction over him. He also contended that the disciplinary
proceeding was an attempt by the state to regulate the practice of law in
federal courts.
The review department acknowledged that neither the Supreme Court nor the State
Bar Court could restrict Gadda's federal practice. However, it said it is
through his California license, granted by the Supreme Court, that he is
eligible to practice in California.
Gadda had an immigration practice with a caseload of 500 to 600 cases. Clients
were seen at his office on a first come, first served basis, often waiting
several hours for a 10 to 20 minute appointment.
Immigration judges who testified at Gadda's trial said he frequently missed
court appearances and often seemed unprepared. Gadda often hired other attorneys
to appear for him and he gave a signature stamp to another attorney. Between
1998 and 2000, he worked mostly at home, due to illness, and came to his office
two days a week.
The hearing judge found that Gadda committed 17 acts of misconduct in eight
client matters and a trust account matter. Five of his clients were deported in
absentia due to his actions.
Gadda also was disciplined previously for similar misconduct.
"Under the circumstances reflected by this record," wrote Judge Madge Watai, "we
. . . doubt that any discipline less than disbarment can adequately protect the
public against future acts of misconduct of the type which respondent has
repeatedly committed . . . .
"There is no evidence that (Gadda) is cognizant of the seriousness of his
misconduct. Instead, (he) continues to rationalize his conduct by blaming
others. He refuses to take responsibility for his conduct."
NEWLAND CHENOWETH SHEPARD [#132824], 47, of Long Beach was disbarred Feb. 23,
2003, and ordered to comply with rule 955.
Shepard was disciplined in 2001 with an order that included a requirement that
he comply with rule 955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties of
his suspension and then submitting to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating
that he had done so.
He did not file the required affidavit.
Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.
In the underlying discipline, the State Bar Court found in a default proceeding
that Shepard failed to communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar's
investigation and he improperly withdrew from employment.
CHRISTOPHER COGLEY [#79263], 55, of Phoenix was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.
Cogley did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2001 discipline order.
That discipline was imposed because Cogley did not comply with conditions
attached to a private reproval. The reproval was based on discipline imposed in
Arizona.
KRISTOPHER ADAM HOLLANDS [#170714], 39, of Mission Hills was summarily disbarred
Feb. 23, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.
He was convicted in 2002 of one count of mail fraud. Because the conviction
entailed a felony and an element of the offense was the intent to deceive,
defraud, steal or suborn perjury, it met the requirements for summary
disbarment.
DARICK WAYNE HOLT [#117879], 48, of Los Angeles was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and
was ordered to comply with rule 955.
Holt did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2001 discipline order.
He was disciplined as a result of misconduct in five client matters, including
failing to perform legal services competently, return client files, refund
unearned fees, deposit client funds in a trust account, communicate with clients
or cooperate with the bar's investigation. He also was convicted of felony
possession of rock cocaine.
JOHN COLLIER PYLE [#98212], 56, of Lodi was disbarred Feb. 23, 2003, and was
ordered to comply with rule 955.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Pyle committed numerous
acts of misconduct, including engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,
collecting an illegal fee, making misrepresentations to two clients, and failing
to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate
with the bar's investigation. He committed multiple acts of moral turpitude, the
court said.
Pyle held himself out to be an attorney despite being ineligible to practice law
since 1999.
He represented a defendant in a criminal matter and received advance fees of
$1,000. At the time he collected part of the fee, he knew he had been enrolled
as an inactive lawyer. At 6 p.m. on a Friday evening before a Monday hearing, he
told the client he could not represent him. He never refunded the unearned fee.
In another case, he represented the defendant in a civil action that began in
1994. The client paid him fees of $4,180 and, for two years, he actively pursued
the case. Beginning in 1996, however, he essentially abandoned the case and the
court entered a judgment against his client for nearly $13,000 and fees and
costs of more than $2,700. The court also ordered the client to vacate her
property.
Pyle told the client he had filed a motion to vacate the order and gave her a
future court date. He had filed no such motion and the client was forced from
her home.
Pyle was disciplined three times previously.
SUSPENSION/PROBATION
HERBERT DAVID WHITE [#163930], 49, of Stanton was suspended for four years,
stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and
was ordered to prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003.
White failed to comply with a 2001 disciplinary order by not filing with the
Supreme Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients and other
pertinent parties of his suspension.
The underlying discipline was the result of his failure to perform legal
services competently, promptly refund unearned fees, communicate with clients or
cooperate with the bar's investigation. He was ordered to comply with rule 955
as part of his probation.
In mitigation, White took steps to close his law office in 1999, but there is no
evidence the State Bar ever received a change of address. He never received one
of the disciplinary notices and when he eventually learned his default had been
entered, he took no further action, believing he had no remedy.When he finally
was in touch with the bar, he filed a responsive pleading and his 955 affidavit
and has been cooperative.
FRANK DENNY WINSTON [#28599], 69, of San Francisco a former member of the State
Bar Board of Governors was suspended for two years, placed on two years of
probation with a five-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003. The actual suspension was delayed,
and began April 20.
Winston stipulated to misconduct in four consolidated matters.
In the first, a client hired Winston to re-evaluate his non-immigrant visa and
get an extension of his authorized stay with the INS. The client paid $3,000 in
two installments, both deposited by Winston in his personal checking account.
Four years later, the client hired a new attorney.
Winston never filed the necessary papers, did not truthfully answer the client's
questions about the status of his case, and did not refund unearned fees for
more than four years.
In another INS matter, Winston sent a letter to the agency inquiring about his
client's green card application. However, he did not respond to the client's
phone calls and letters.
In another matter, Winston wrote checks against insufficient funds in his client
trust account.
Winston was disciplined in 2000, but failed to comply with a rule 955
requirement. He was granted a stay of his actual suspension by the State Bar
Court review department, and was ordered again to comply with rule 955, but he
filed the required affidavit late.
Winston also was privately reproved in 1994 for improperly withdrawing from
employment, and he was suspended in 2000 for failing to return client files,
refund unearned fees or respond to client inquiries and he withdrew from
employment improperly.
In mitigation, he contracted with a San Francisco law firm in the management of
his trust account, he is receiving ongoing medical treatment for diabetes and he
is involved with a wide range of legal and general community organizations.
LAWRENCE MARK GOTLIEB [#165462], 38, of Beverly Hills was suspended for 24
months, stayed, placed on 24 months of probation with a 12-month actual
suspension, and was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with
rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 5, 2003.
Gotlieb represented a client in a personal injury case on a contingency fee
basis. The client had received more than $11,000 from her own insurer; the
carrier was to be indemnified out of any settlement funds received on a property
damage claim. The client also owed two doctor bills for $4,400 and $750.
Gotlieb settled the case for $9,000, but let the balance in his trust account
fall below the required amount. He contacted his client's insurance company,
informing them of his receipt of settlement funds and inviting them to negotiate
the amount sought. The company never responded and Gotlieb made no further
effort to make contact. Nor did he disburse any money to his client or her
doctors.
When the client was contacted by a collection agency, Gotlieb wrote a $300 check
as partial payment of a medical lien. He made no further effort to pay the
balance or negotiate a reduced lien. He did negotiate a reduced lien for the
other doctor and paid that amount.
He never gave the client any money.
Gotlieb stipulated that he misappropriated client funds and failed to
communicate with a client, perform legal services competently or maintain client
funds in a trust account.
In mitigation, he has no record of discipline in nine years of practice, he
cooperated with the bar's investigation, he was having financial difficulties at
the time and he now works as an in-house counsel and has no clients of his own.
LEO BENSON WILKES [#114253], 48, of Mountain View was suspended for two years,
stayed, placed on five years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and
was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Feb. 5, 2003.
Wilkes stipulated to misconduct in two cases.
In the first, he represented a client in a federal lawsuit, but other than
filing the action, he did not actively prosecute the case or conduct any
discovery. The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment and then was
awarded attorneys' fees and sanctions totaling $5,000.
Wilkes did not appear at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment,
sanctions and fees. The court found the case was baseless, that Wilkes pursued
it after it was clear the lawsuit had no merit, that he failed to diligently
pursue the case and that he showed disrespect for the judicial process.
He never paid the defendant and did not report the sanction to the bar.
Wilkes was suspended in 2001, but he continued to represent his clients in a
lawsuit. He also was privately reproved in 1996.
In mitigation, Wilkes cooperated with the bar's investigation.
LEE ALLEN McCOY [#153631], 39, of Santa Barbara was suspended for one year,
stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Feb. 7, 2003.
McCoy practiced law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues. He represented
a client in a criminal matter.
Although McCoy paid his bar fees, he owed an additional penalty fee of $86.25.
He was suspended for about seven weeks.
In mitigation, he was managing his office without a secretary or support staff
and although he intended to pay the penalty fee, he was preparing for a trial.
He has no record of prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar's
investigation.
BRADFORD ERIC HENSCHEL [#141888], 58, of Los Angeles was suspended for five
years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an 18-month actual
suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955 and prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2003.
Henschel stipulated to misconduct in four matters, including practicing law
while suspended, violating a court order and failing to perform legal services
competently, return client files or take steps to avoid prejudice to a client.
He filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for a client that was dismissed
because he had not filed some required schedules. The court barred Henschel's
client from filing another petition for 180 days.
Henschel advised the client to file a joint Chapter 7 petition with his wife;
the couple agreed and Henschel filed the petition three months after the first
one was dismissed. The court did not accept the petition because the money order
for filing fees named the wrong payee.
However, Henschel knew the client was barred from filing the matter. He
stipulated that he committed an act of moral turpitude.
During the course of the case, Henschel was suspended from practice, but he
continued to negotiate with one of his client's creditors without notifying the
party of his suspension.
In another bankruptcy matter, Henschel failed to appear for four hearings. His
client called him repeatedly to notify him of the dates of the hearings, but
Henschel did not return the phone calls. The court ordered Henschel to refund
$700 of the $800 advance fee, but he didn't do so.
Henschel also represented a couple, who paid him $5,000, in a proceeding to
determine whether a debt listed in their previously filed bankruptcy matter was
dischargeable. He filed an opposition to a motion for summary judgment late and
then failed to appear at a hearing. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Henschel failed to return his clients' file when requested.
In another matter, Henschel represented a woman and her son in a personal injury
case. He eventually sent a letter to the clinic that treated the woman saying he
no longer represented her or her son. He stated that the clients had determined
they were not injured in the accident and did not need further treatment, which
was not true.
In mitigation, Henschel had financial problems which led to depression, and he
changed his law office practices.
DAVID ROSS OLICK [#72152], 61, of Benicia was suspended for two years, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect Feb. 14, 2003.
Olick appealed the findings of a hearing court judge, but the review department
upheld the findings and increased the recommended discipline.
Olick substituted in to a wrongful death suit. After he amended the suit, the
previous law firm intervened to protect its claim for attorney fees. Olick then
accused the firm of breach of fiduciary duty and infliction of emotional
distress.
Although he agreed to distribute most of the $100,000 settlement to his minor
clients upon approval of their compromise, he did not effect the compromise for
30 months. He filed two more actions in different counties against the law firm
that previously represented his clients. One was dismissed and Olick was
sanctioned $15,000, and Olick himself dismissed the second.
The review department found that Olick failed to perform legal services
competently by not completing the original case and filing a cross-complaint on
behalf of litigants who had no standing. The court also found he pursued an
unjust action.
In a second matter, an individual who had been fired from his job consulted with
Olick about an agreement the employer wanted him to sign in order to receive
severance payment. He provided documents to Olick.
The client also met with an agent for the state Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, who wanted to speak to Olick before deciding whether to issue a
"right to sue" letter. Ten months later, on the last possible day to file suit,
Olick called the agent and simultaneously told the client he didn't want to
handle his case. He did not return what he said was the client's file until the
client contacted a radio consumer affairs reporter. The file consisted of a
single sheet of paper bearing the man's name and phone number.
The review department said Olick failed to communicate with the client, act
competently or return his papers.
In a third matter, he also failed to return a client's papers.
In mitigation, Olick practiced since 1976 without any discipline and he
performed community service activities.
RICHARD MICHAEL ELINSKI [#112892], 53, of Camarillo was suspended for six
months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual
suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb.
23, 2003.
Elinski failed to comply with the terms of a 2000 probation: he did not attend
ethics school or the client trust account school on time and he failed to
provide seven required reports from a certified public accountant.
The underlying discipline was the result of commingling funds in his trust
account and committing acts of moral turpitude by writing checks against
insufficient funds.
In mitigation, no clients were harmed, Elinski demonstrated remorse, he had
financial problems and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.
STEPHEN E. LAWTON [#25705], 77, of Congress, Arizona was suspended for one year,
stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
Lawton stipulated that he willfully disobeyed a court order by not refunding
$7,500 in unearned fees to a client.
He was retained to represent a defendant in several criminal matters and
demanded a $16,000 advance payment. The client's father paid the fee.
Although he and his law partner asked to be relieved as attorneys of record,
their request was denied three months prior to a scheduled jury trial. The day
the trial was to begin, the judge ordered Lawton and his partner to refund
$7,500 before being relieved as counsel. When they didn't refund the money, the
court refused to relieve them.
The client hired a new attorney and the court then relieved Lawton and his
partner as counsel, again ordering them to refund the money. Lawton's partner
eventually did so. Lawton said he didn't comply with the court order because he
believed it was invalid.
In mitigation, Lawton has no prior record of discipline, he suffered from
physical difficulties at the time of the misconduct and he cooperated with the
bar's investigation.
STEPHEN PAUL WAINER [#156197], 37, of Bakersfield was suspended for one year,
stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and
was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE within one year and comply with
rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
Wainer stipulated to two counts of misconduct: failing to perform legal services
competently and committing acts of moral turpitude by falsifying pleadings and
other documents, executing documents on behalf of others without their
knowledge, making repeated misrepresentations to his employer and client, and
fraudulently affixing superior court filing stamps and case numbers to
pleadings.
Wainer was a junior partner with a Bakersfield firm when in 1999 he was assigned
to work on a matter involving water rights. He was to draft and file a
complaint, achieve service, consolidate the matter with a complaint filed by
another client and to initiate discovery.
He drafted but did not file the complaint. He then told his employer and the
client that he had filed the complaint, put a fabricated case number on the
papers he drafted using an unauthorized Kern County Superior Court file stamp,
prepared a fabricated summons and placed the documents in the client's file.
Wainer also sent a memo to the firm's partners indicating that the case was
progressing as they wished and prepared fictitious answers and letters which had
not been mailed. He also indicated he had circulated a stipulation in the case
to consolidate it with another action.
When the partners learned Wainer had not done the work, he resigned. The firm
credited the client for the work that had been billed on Wainer's behalf. Wainer
wrote to the State Bar of his own accord to inform it of his actions.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation, he has no record of
discipline in 10 years, he was suffering from depression due to pressures at
work and the illness of his mother-in-law, and he has sought counseling.
ANN LONERGAN SMITH [#94331], 75, of Van Nuys was suspended for one year, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered
to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
Smith stipulated to misconduct in two matters.
She settled a personal injury case for $7,000 and deposited the check in her
client trust account. Smith wrote a check for $2,800 to the client, who because
of illness did not cash the check for two months. It bounced twice, and Smith
paid the client in cash.
Smith allowed the balance in her trust account to fall below the required amount
at least 18 times over a two-month period. She also commingled personal and
client funds.
In a second case, she represented the defendant in a dog bite case. The client
gave her $750 to settle the matter, but when the plaintiff tried to cash the
check, it bounced. Smith issued a cashier's check for $770, providing $20 to
cover the bank charges incurred by the plaintiff.
Smith also was disciplined last year for failing to perform legal services
competently or pay court-ordered sanctions.
In mitigation, Smith's husband of more than 30 years died shortly before the
misconduct. Her husband also was an attorney who handled all the business and
law firm account records. Smith is taking office management courses and enrolled
in the bar's client trust accounting school.
DANIEL FREDERICK ORTNER [#67045], 57, of Burson was suspended for five years,
stayed, actually suspended for two years and until he makes restitution, proves
his rehabilitation and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the
actual suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955.
The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Ortner committed
misconduct in five cases, including failing to perform legal services
competently, respond to clients' status inquiries, return unearned fees, return
client papers or deposit money for costs in a client trust account, and he
improperly withdrew from employment and committed an act of moral turpitude.
In one matter, his clients paid an advance fee of $825 for Ortner to prepare
wills, trusts, a related deed and durable powers of attorney for health care.
When the clients met with him a month later, the documents he had prepared were
replete with errors and he had not prepared the transfer deed of trust. Despite
his assurances to the contrary, he never corrected the errors or prepared the
transfer deed.
When he did not return the clients' numerous phone calls, they asked for a
refund, but Ortner did not return any of the advance fee.
In another matter, Ortner agreed to prepare a dissolution of marriage and
accepted $535 in advance fees and costs. The client signed various papers, but
Ortner never filed the dissolution petition. He did not return more than 50
phone calls or respond to the client's request for her file.
The client eventually sued Ortner in small claims court, winning a judgment for
$535 plus $50 in costs.
He abandoned three other clients, accepting advance fees but not performing the
work he was hired to do.
EDWARD STUART LEVINSON [#61886], 54, of Oakland was suspended for two years,
stayed, actually suspended for 90 days, and was ordered to take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove
his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Levinson committed
misconduct in two cases.
In a civil lawsuit in which the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against
Levinson's client, he moved to set aside the judgment. The court agreed on
condition that Levinson's client pay the plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney
fees.
Levinson did not notify the client of a trial date, ignored interrogatories,
ignored the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to the interrogatories, and did
not notify his client that she had been ordered to pay $450 to the plaintiff as
attorney fees.
The client was sanctioned and ordered to pay $1,240, but Levinson did not notify
her.
She did not appear for trial and judgment was entered against her for $22,896
plus $156 in costs. She learned about the judgment when her bank told her her
account had been attached. Levinson did not return her phone calls.
A new lawyer succeeded in setting aside the default judgment, but the client was
ordered to pay attorney fees and costs of $4,258 to the plaintiff.
In a second matter, Levinson represented a client in a guardianship proceeding
in which he sought custody of his two minor children. He appealed an order
granting guardianship to the children's grandparents.
Levinson did not take adequate steps to provide the appellate court with the
superior court reporter's transcript, so the appellate court did not have an
adequate record to assess the client's claims. The court ruled in favor of the
grandparents.
The bar court found that Levinson failed to perform legal services competently,
keep a client informed of developments in a case or cooperate with the bar's
investigation.
W. THOMAS NOTHERN [#82542], 58, of Sherman Oaks was suspended for one year,
stayed, and was actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court
grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds 90
days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his
rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found Nothern practiced law while
suspended, sought to mislead a judge and his clients about his eligibility to
practice, and failed to maintain a current address with the bar or cooperate
with the bar's investigation.
Nothern was suspended Sept. 10, 1999, for failing to pay his 1999 bar dues and
has remained suspended ever since. In 2001, he appeared in Sacramento Superior
Court on behalf of two defendants in an unlawful detainer action.
In mitigation, he has no prior discipline in 22 years of practice.
IRA SYLVESTER BRACKENS [#79807], 55, of Fresno was suspended for three years,
stayed, placed on four years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and
was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect
Feb. 23, 2003.
Brackens stipulated to three counts of misconduct, but then sought review of a
hearing judge's recommendation that he be suspended. Brackens argued that a
public reproval would be appropriate.
The review department increased the hearing judge's recommendation of a
six-month suspension to an 18-month suspension.
Brackens stipulated that between 1996 and 1998, he wrote at least 177 checks
against insufficient funds in his client trust account for personal and
non-client related business expenses. He also admitted commingling client and
non-client funds.
Although he testified that he assumed there were funds in the trust account when
he wrote the checks, the hearing judge found he abdicated his responsibility to
control his trust account, which constituted an act of moral turpitude.
Brackens was suspended in 1996 and submitted quarterly probation reports
representing under penalty of perjury that he complied with all ethical rules
governing his practice. However, he was violating those rules by using his trust
account as his personal account. He stipulated that his actions constituted acts
of moral turpitude.
In mitigation, Brackens cooperated with the bar's investigation.
RAYMOND KIRK KOLTER [#152579], 40, of Los Angeles was revoked, the stay of
suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years, placed on
probation for two years and was ordered to make restitution and pay certain
medical liens. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
Kolter was suspended and placed on probation in 2001. In a probation revocation
hearing that Kolter did not participate in, the bar court found he failed to
submit two quarterly probation reports and an affidavit showing proof of payment
of medical liens to three doctors.
The underlying discipline involved eight client matters and included failure to
perform services competently, communicate with clients, maintain in his trust
account funds received for the benefit of clients or promptly pay lienholders
and clients the funds they were owed, and he committed acts of moral turpitude.
BETTYE JEWEL BARNARD [#65129], 56, of Inglewood was suspended for six months,
stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
A client paid Barnard $1,500 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order
(QDRO) to grant her a share of her former husband's military pension. She
prepared and filed the pleadings, but was unable to serve the former husband,
who lives in South Carolina.
The hearing was continued and the client gave Barnard $150 to pay for service
costs. The hearing was continued a second time so Barnard could serve the
ex-husband.
On the date of the hearing, Barnard asked the court to take the matter off
calendar, and she reset the hearing four months later. Barnard failed to appear
at the hearing and the case was never completed.
Barnard stipulated that she failed to perform legal services competently and
improperly withdrew from employment.
In mitigation, Barnard has no record of discipline, was under a doctor's care at
the time for bladder cancer and was working part time.
PAUL ERIC GOLD [#105457], 46, of Redondo Beach was suspended for 18 months,
stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within
one year. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2003.
Gold filed and settled a personal injury lawsuit for $35,000, guaranteeing his
client a net of $20,000, leaving him $15,000 for attorney fees and outstanding
third party costs. He negotiated a $1,150 medical bill down to $400, and when it
was not paid, the doctor contacted Gold three times. Gold did not respond, so
the doctor billed the client for the original amount. Gold assured her he would
pay. When he did not, the client called him at least 10 times and visited his
office and sent several letters.
Gold did not respond to the letters, but finally sent the client a check for
$1,000. Sixteen months passed between the time of settlement and Gold's payment.
He stipulated that he failed to respond to a client's inquiries or promptly pay
out client funds.
Gold also was privately reproved in 1996.
In mitigation, Gold underwent two major surgeries and his subsequent
convalescence disrupted his practice. He also moved his office and had
difficulty receiving mail and telephone messages.
ROBERT TODD SUMMA [#147141], 42, of St. Louis, Mo. was suspended for two years
and was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and
comply with rule 955. He must remain suspended until the State Bar Court grants
a motion to end the suspension. The order took effect March 3, 2003.
Summa was disbarred in Missouri for misconduct in four cases. He either did not
do any of the work he was hired to do or did only a partial job, he didn't
respond to his clients' requests for information, and he misrepresented the
status of one case, telling the client his claim had been filed when it had not.
In a default proceeding in California in which bar prosecutors sought Summa's
disbarment here, the bar court determined that his acts, had they been committed
in California, would entail failing to provide competent legal services,
communicate with a client, refund unearned fees, or cooperate with the bar's
investigation, and he would have improperly withdrawn from employment and
committed an act of moral turpitude.
H. GREIG FOWLER [#37462], 66, of San Francisco was suspended for two years,
stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and
was ordered to make restitution, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the
actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order
took effect March 2, 2003.
The State Bar Court found that Fowler committed multiple acts of misconduct,
including misrepresenting the existence of a trial date, failing to perform
competently or refund unearned fees, improperly withdrawing from employment and
improperly using his trust account.
Fowler represented an elderly man who filed a lawsuit to recover money another
individual had taken from his checking account. When the other individual filed
for bankruptcy, the lawsuit was automatically stayed. Fowler and his client
agreed that he would perform preliminary work on the bankruptcy matter without
charge, and he filed a claim against the other individual.
He later met with the client and the client's cousin, who agreed to pay another
$4,500 to complete the case.
When the bankruptcy was dismissed, Fowler did not file any more documents in the
original lawsuit and took no further action. He was diagnosed with diabetes and
had financial and personal problems.
When contacted by his client's cousin, he falsely told him a trial date had been
set in the original case. A few days before the purported trial date, Fowler
informed the client he'd taken the matter off calendar due to his health
problems. He then stopped communicating with his client and essentially
abandoned the case. He filed for bankruptcy a few months later.
When the client sought a refund of $4,475 in fees, Fowler sent the letter back,
unopened, and said he did not think it was appropriate for them to communicate.
In another matter, he commingled personal and client funds in his trust account
and used the account for personal and non-client related expenses.
In mitigation, Fowler practiced for 32 years without any discipline and has
extensive involvement in bar and legal community activities. He has been a
speaker at continuing education programs, was president of the trial lawyers bar
on both a local and statewide level and served on the boards of the Bar
Association of San Francisco and the San Francisco Lawyers Club.
He also suffered extreme emotional difficulties due to health and financial
problems.
BRIAN L. BUCKLEY [#116705], 48, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year,
stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until the State Bar Court grants a
motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the
suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two
years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect March 2, 2003.
In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Buckley failed to perform
competently, communicate with a client or promptly return a client file.
He represented a client in a wrongful termination lawsuit that settled for
$600,000. One quarter was to be attorney fees. Fowler agreed to dismiss the suit
after full satisfaction of payment, which was to be delivered in installments.
Once Buckley received his fee, he was to execute the necessary documents so the
remaining payments would go directly to his client's family attorney. However,
he did not do so, and instead continued to receive settlement checks without
notifying his client. He eventually delivered 20 checks to his client, but one
bounced.
Buckley received four final installments without notifying the client, dismissed
the lawsuit before the client was paid, and waited another year to give the
client the full settlement.
He did not return his client's numerous phone calls or release his file to the
client's new lawyer. After several months, he provided a portion of the file to
the other attorney.
GREGORY HARPER [#146119], 46, of Berkeley was suspended for one year, stayed,
placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was
ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order
took effect March 8, 2003.
Harper stipulated to misconduct in three cases. He commingled funds in his
client trust account, failed to adequately supervise an employee who was able to
steal $10,000 of entrusted client funds and he failed to deliver funds to a
client for nearly six years.
In the first matter, two checks issued against his client trust account were not
honored due to insufficient funds. Harper deposited non-trust funds into his
trust account, which he used to write personal and general office expense
checks.
In the second case, an employee forged endorsements of both Harper and his
client on a settlement check and deposited the money in Harper's general
account. Harper filed a police report accusing the employee of stealing $10,000
in entrusted funds. After two years, the client complained to the State Bar that
he never received any settlement funds. Harper received another settlement check
from the insurance company and the client received the funds the following year.
In a third matter, another client hired Harper to collect on an unsecured
promissory note. He and the client agreed Harper would keep one-third of any
funds collected. However, it took him nearly six years to give the client the
balance of the funds Harper received.
Harper stipulated to similar misconduct in a 1994 discipline case.
> than nutwits like
> yourself. In addition, everybody but you, the group social and
> mental debilitate, knows how to trim the sig in reply.
>
> If you want to run the world, go start your own moderated group,
Is that how one "runs the world" ? Think how much less damage the idiot
GW Bush could do if we just gave him his own moderated NG ...
> alt.soc.pinwits.moderated and elect yourself president for life.
> Then you can run things the way you like.
>
> However, I, for one, would appreciate YOUR continured use of
> the "Foggytown" sig advertising your presence, so as to permit
> me to identify and give due regard to the comments you make.
>
> -Merlin
Still a sock-puppeting sidekick, eh Merlin?
--
"the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion"
-- US Treaty of Tripoli 1797
"=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote:
>"Merlin" <mag@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f0581f4.305363@no-spam
>> foggytown@no-spam (Mike Girouard) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> *****************************************************************
>> >> * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
>> >> * *
>> >> * BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
>> >> * Attorneys at Law *
>> >> * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
>> >> * lawyer@no-spam *
>> >> * http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
>> >> * *
>> >> * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
>> >> *****************************************************************
>> >>
>> >> The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It
>> >> isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such.
>> >> If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with
>> >> your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law
>> >> applicable to your situation.
>> >> *****************************************************************
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hey, Brett ol' buddy. Is there just the skinniest chance that the
>> >above might be construed as advertising - the practice of which is
>> >totally contrary to the protocol of these NGs?
>> >
>> >I note the ad says "small business". Is it so small you're reduced to
>> >trolling NGs for scraps?
>> >
>> >FoggyTown
>>
>> You're an idiot, froggywits. Brett's sig is within bounds of law
>
>Are you sure?
Stop embarrasing yourself, Voximus minimus.
Have you mistaken me for someone who guesses?
>> and doesn't violate any group "protocol",
>
>It violates accepted Usenet protocol for sigs.
Really? I'm so shocked and dismayed!
What protocol and in what respect does it aledgedly
violate the protocol?
>> it serves the important
>> purpose of giving notice that he is a lawyer, identifies his subject
>> and geographical area of practice, provides information allowing
>> easy verification that he is who he says and signals to the rest of
>> us that his comments are to be given greater weight
>
>Greater weight? Because he's a lawyer? Here are some lawyers you can
>fawn over and worship too ...
<snip 500 lines of cases of disbarrment notices- none relevent>
Greater weight because, among other things, he is a practicing
attorney, not a disbarred one.
In addition, according to his website, Mr. Weiss is a member of the
Maryland and District of Columbia federal (general and Bankruptcy
Court) and state bars, the United States Tax Court bar, the Fourth
Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals bars and the
United States Supreme Court bar. He is a signatory to the Montgomery
County Bar Association Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism.
He has over eighteen years of practical legal experience, has tried
hundreds of cases, and regularly appears before the United States
Bankruptcy Court, state and federal courts throughout the State of
Maryland and the District of Columbia,
>> than nutwits like
>> yourself. In addition, everybody but you, the group social and
>> mental debilitate, knows how to trim the sig in reply.
>>
>> If you want to run the world, go start your own moderated group,
>
>Is that how one "runs the world" ? Think how much less damage the idiot
>GW Bush could do if we just gave him his own moderated NG ...
Amen. Where do I sign.
>> alt.soc.pinwits.moderated and elect yourself president for life.
>> Then you can run things the way you like.
>>
>> However, I, for one, would appreciate YOUR continured use of
>> the "Foggytown" sig advertising your presence, so as to permit
>> me to identify and give due regard to the comments you make.
>>
>> -Merlin
>
>Still a sock-puppeting sidekick, eh Merlin?
You meant 'kickass'?
You still a pox-vupulating suckass, voxie?
[You may want to invole the fifth on that question, eh?]
mag@no-spam (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f09099b.441832@no-spam>...
> "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote:
> >"Merlin" <mag@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:3f0581f4.305363@no-spam
> >> foggytown@no-spam (Mike Girouard) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *****************************************************************
> >> >> * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
> >> >> * *
> >> >> * BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
> >> >> * Attorneys at Law *
> >> >> * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
> >> >> * lawyer@no-spam *
> >> >> * http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
> >> >> * *
> >> >> * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
> >> >> *****************************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >> The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It
> >> >> isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such.
> >> >> If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with
> >> >> your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law
> >> >> applicable to your situation.
> >> >> *****************************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Hey, Brett ol' buddy. Is there just the skinniest chance that the
> >> >above might be construed as advertising - the practice of which is
> >> >totally contrary to the protocol of these NGs?
> >> >
> >> >I note the ad says "small business". Is it so small you're reduced to
> >> >trolling NGs for scraps?
> >> >
> >> >FoggyTown
> >>
> >> You're an idiot, froggywits. Brett's sig is within bounds of law
> >
> >Are you sure?
>
> Stop embarrasing yourself, Voximus minimus.
> Have you mistaken me for someone who guesses?
>
> >> and doesn't violate any group "protocol",
> >
> >It violates accepted Usenet protocol for sigs.
>
> Really? I'm so shocked and dismayed!
> What protocol and in what respect does it aledgedly
> violate the protocol?
Here's a quote from Google's FAQ section:
"Please do not use Usenet as an advertising medium.
Advertisements on Usenet are rarely appreciated. In general, the
louder or more inappropriate the ad is, the more antagonism it stirs
up. Just think how annoying it is to you to have your evening meal
interrupted by a telemarketer. The feeling is the same when someone
posts inappropriate commercial messages in a newsgroup. If in doubt,
don't do it."
So Brett isn't violating any "laws" as such, but it is a clear breach
of Usenet ethics and courtesy. (Obviously Google wasn't taking into
account unabashed sycophants like yourself at the time.) For Brett's
sake, it is also easily interpreted as the desperate act of a failing
practice. Does he really think clients are going to flock to hire a
lawyer who is reduced to advertising in an NG? Why doesn't he just
flood us with spam instead? That's always a credible medium!
>
> >> it serves the important
> >> purpose of giving notice that he is a lawyer, identifies his subject
> >> and geographical area of practice, provides information allowing
> >> easy verification that he is who he says and signals to the rest of
> >> us that his comments are to be given greater weight
You ARE a simple creature, aren't you. Some day (when I think you can
handle it) I'm going to have to disabuse you of your probable beliefs
in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
> >Greater weight? Because he's a lawyer? Here are some lawyers you can
> >fawn over and worship too ...
>
> <snip 500 lines of cases of disbarrment notices- none relevent>
>
> Greater weight because, among other things, he is a practicing
> attorney, not a disbarred one.
Even practicing attorneys can be cosmically incompetent. At the risk
of offending every other reader with simple logic, are you aware of
any disbarred lawyers who weren't practicing before they were
disbarred?
> In addition, according to his website, Mr. Weiss is a member of the
> Maryland and District of Columbia federal (general and Bankruptcy
> Court) and state bars, the United States Tax Court bar, the Fourth
> Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals bars and the
> United States Supreme Court bar. He is a signatory to the Montgomery
> County Bar Association Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism.
>
> He has over eighteen years of practical legal experience, has tried
> hundreds of cases, and regularly appears before the United States
> Bankruptcy Court, state and federal courts throughout the State of
> Maryland and the District of Columbia,
>
So what?
> >> In addition, everybody but you, the group social and
> >> mental debilitate, knows how to trim the sig in reply.
> >>
Then why does "Google" discourage advertising if everone can trim it
anyway?
> >>
> >> -Merlin
> >
> >Still a sock-puppeting sidekick, eh Merlin?
>
Now THERE'S an apt description. But I still prefer the term
lickspittle.
"MERLIN - LICKSPITTLE TO THE LAWYERS" Very catchy.
FoggyTown