Know Your Rights Even if You Are Completely Innocent

Share:
There is a popular myth that floats through some segments of the population that disparages the notion of constitutional protections for the rights of the accused. According to that line of thinking, if you didn’t do anything, you have nothing to hide.

However that misses the fundamental nature of human character embodied in Federalist 51 by James Madison:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Indeed time and time again, people’s failure to understand and exercise their constitutional rights, even when they believe they are innocent or are in fact innocent, pervades this culture. Time and time again, people end up with their lives altered or their liberties curtailed because they failed to heed very simple maxims when dealing with police and authority–the fallibility of human nature. I’m not even necessarily talking about maliciousness, although that certainly enters the picture. I am also speaking simply of human error committed by well intentioned individuals in authority. In the long run, perhaps you can say that people will be vindicated by the truth, but it may be a long process and costly in terms of time, energy, and resources. Innocent people have served decades in jail before release–decades that can never be returned to them. And if you are unfortunate and lack the resources to fight those charges, it may further impair your ability to live life as you once knew it.

The most basic of rights granted by the US Constitution are the right against searches and seizures without a warrant, the right against self-incrimination, which takes the form of the right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney represent their interests.

Simply put people need to understand that they have the right to refuse to a search of their vehicle without probable cause and they have a right to prevent a search or even entry into their home without a warrant.

Moreover, while some people know that they have these very rights, they sometimes fail to exercise their rights. Just recently I was told a story where a man consented to the search of his vehicle. Why did he do this? Because he knew he had nothing to hide. And yet the police found something and he ended up arrested. Why? Because unbeknownst to him, someone innocently placed something into his vehicle that ended up getting him arrested. I am not at liberty to belabor the details of this incident, although it is interesting in its own right. The larger point is that this individual now faces charges and jail time for something that they had no knowledge of being in their vehicle. And yet, it could have been avoided by simply refusing to grant the police permission to search his vehicle.

Is this an extreme example? Probably. But allowing a police officer to search your vehicle when you have the right not to be searched only allows for the possibility that you will be found with something that maybe you failed to even consider or had no knowledge of. It also opens the door for potentially other more nefarious problems. The bottom line however is use your rights even when you think you do not have to.

To further illustrate this point, I will pick on the recent example in the Buzayan Case. Jamal Buzayan allowed police officers into his home. They gained entry based on a simple request to come in. Now Dr. Buzayan’s attorneys will argue in a civil suit that when Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly asked to come in with the clear verbal intention of only talking, but in fact intended to make an arrest, Officer Ly violated the rights of Dr. Buzayan and his daughter by using subterfuge in order to gain entry to a property. This point will be played out in the courts and is the basis for the entire discussion on what an officer can and cannot do without a warrant in cases involving minors.

However, Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home. In the Flex Your Right video, which is also linked on the side column, there is a scenario that is played out twice where officers arrive at a home during a party called out on a noise complaint. In the first version, the officers are allowed into the home, spot illegal activity and then arrest the party goers even though the original complaint was not about drug use but rather noise. In the second and correctly handled version from the citizen’s standpoint, the resident walks outside to talk to the police officer, closing the door behind them thereby preventing the officer entry or vision into the home. The people inside are not arrested in this version.

Had Dr. Buzayan spoken with Officer Ly and Officer Hartz outside of his home, Officer Ly would have needed to have acquired a warrant in order to arrest Dr. Buzayan’s daughter. More likely, he would have simply asked Dr. Buzayan to bring his daughter to the police station in the morning for questioning. This would have avoided many of the problems that ensued from Officer Ly’s arrest of the minor and subsequent interrogation of the minor.

Speaking of which, from the police interview tape we see that the minor in the Buzayan case seems to ask for an attorney upon being read her rights by Officer Ly. Officer Ly should have at the very least ceased the interview until he clarified that the request was indeed one for an attorney. However, the minor also erred here. Now, obviously being a minor we have to give her latitude, and this certainly should not be read as a criticism, but rather a point of learning how to better handle such a situation.

Once the minor requested an attorney, she should have stop speaking and insisted that an attorney be called. At that point, the officer would have again been forced to comply and he would have not have been able to attempt to gain a confession from the minor.

It is often amazing to me how many people in situations such as these do not request to have a lawyer present during questioning. It is my view as a layman that no one should ever enter a situation with the police interrogating you without requesting an attorney be present with the caveat being, as long as it is clear that you are or may at some point be considered a target for the investigation rather than merely a witness. This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: “Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.”

Here are some resources available that will illustrate some of these points as well.

The final point here that I will reiterate because there is so much confusion. You can be perfectly innocent and yet end up getting into trouble simply because you failed to exercise your constitutional rights. But even if you are not innocent, knowing your rights will only aid you in having a strong defense. It is amazing to me how many problems could be avoided if people simply took heed of their rights.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

84 thoughts on “Know Your Rights Even if You Are Completely Innocent”

  1. Anonymous

    It is very difficult for kids to enforce their right not to incriminate themselves, especially with school administrators and police officers or other persons in positions of authority. Parents should practice this with their children and assure them repeatedly that they will not get in trouble for refusing to answer questions until a lawyer arrives.

  2. Anonymous

    It is very difficult for kids to enforce their right not to incriminate themselves, especially with school administrators and police officers or other persons in positions of authority. Parents should practice this with their children and assure them repeatedly that they will not get in trouble for refusing to answer questions until a lawyer arrives.

  3. Anonymous

    It is very difficult for kids to enforce their right not to incriminate themselves, especially with school administrators and police officers or other persons in positions of authority. Parents should practice this with their children and assure them repeatedly that they will not get in trouble for refusing to answer questions until a lawyer arrives.

  4. Anonymous

    It is very difficult for kids to enforce their right not to incriminate themselves, especially with school administrators and police officers or other persons in positions of authority. Parents should practice this with their children and assure them repeatedly that they will not get in trouble for refusing to answer questions until a lawyer arrives.

  5. Yolo Judicial Watch

    “This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: ‘Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.'”

    Even if not under arrest one should also be very careful when speaking to the police, especially if it is apparent they are investigating an incident or complaint.

  6. Yolo Judicial Watch

    “This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: ‘Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.'”

    Even if not under arrest one should also be very careful when speaking to the police, especially if it is apparent they are investigating an incident or complaint.

  7. Yolo Judicial Watch

    “This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: ‘Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.'”

    Even if not under arrest one should also be very careful when speaking to the police, especially if it is apparent they are investigating an incident or complaint.

  8. Yolo Judicial Watch

    “This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: ‘Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.'”

    Even if not under arrest one should also be very careful when speaking to the police, especially if it is apparent they are investigating an incident or complaint.

  9. Rich Rifkin

    It doesn’t shock me that a person who feels he has nothing to hide would permit a police search of his car, though I agree with David that it is unwise and unnecessary. What surprises me are the guys I see now and then on COPS who were pulled over for failing to use their turn signals, have a hundred pounds of dope in their trunks, and say, “yeah, sure, go ahead and search my car if you want.” The cop then inevitably finds bags and bags of pot or cocaine or whatever narcotics the idiot was transporting. The 20 year old criminal then, at the last minute, decides to run, and a 50 year old overweight police officer chases him down. All of that raises the critical question: if you are going to be a dope dealer, why don’t you at least stay in good enough shape to outrun a fat old cop?

  10. Rich Rifkin

    It doesn’t shock me that a person who feels he has nothing to hide would permit a police search of his car, though I agree with David that it is unwise and unnecessary. What surprises me are the guys I see now and then on COPS who were pulled over for failing to use their turn signals, have a hundred pounds of dope in their trunks, and say, “yeah, sure, go ahead and search my car if you want.” The cop then inevitably finds bags and bags of pot or cocaine or whatever narcotics the idiot was transporting. The 20 year old criminal then, at the last minute, decides to run, and a 50 year old overweight police officer chases him down. All of that raises the critical question: if you are going to be a dope dealer, why don’t you at least stay in good enough shape to outrun a fat old cop?

  11. Rich Rifkin

    It doesn’t shock me that a person who feels he has nothing to hide would permit a police search of his car, though I agree with David that it is unwise and unnecessary. What surprises me are the guys I see now and then on COPS who were pulled over for failing to use their turn signals, have a hundred pounds of dope in their trunks, and say, “yeah, sure, go ahead and search my car if you want.” The cop then inevitably finds bags and bags of pot or cocaine or whatever narcotics the idiot was transporting. The 20 year old criminal then, at the last minute, decides to run, and a 50 year old overweight police officer chases him down. All of that raises the critical question: if you are going to be a dope dealer, why don’t you at least stay in good enough shape to outrun a fat old cop?

  12. Rich Rifkin

    It doesn’t shock me that a person who feels he has nothing to hide would permit a police search of his car, though I agree with David that it is unwise and unnecessary. What surprises me are the guys I see now and then on COPS who were pulled over for failing to use their turn signals, have a hundred pounds of dope in their trunks, and say, “yeah, sure, go ahead and search my car if you want.” The cop then inevitably finds bags and bags of pot or cocaine or whatever narcotics the idiot was transporting. The 20 year old criminal then, at the last minute, decides to run, and a 50 year old overweight police officer chases him down. All of that raises the critical question: if you are going to be a dope dealer, why don’t you at least stay in good enough shape to outrun a fat old cop?

  13. Anonymous

    May I politely suggest that the Buzanyans trouble really started when their teenaged daughter struck a parked car, fled the scene of the accident, and then both mother and daughter initially lied to the police, contradicting eye witness accounts.
    They have alreay lost on several counts in court of law, they’ll lose on this one, too.

  14. Anonymous

    May I politely suggest that the Buzanyans trouble really started when their teenaged daughter struck a parked car, fled the scene of the accident, and then both mother and daughter initially lied to the police, contradicting eye witness accounts.
    They have alreay lost on several counts in court of law, they’ll lose on this one, too.

  15. Anonymous

    May I politely suggest that the Buzanyans trouble really started when their teenaged daughter struck a parked car, fled the scene of the accident, and then both mother and daughter initially lied to the police, contradicting eye witness accounts.
    They have alreay lost on several counts in court of law, they’ll lose on this one, too.

  16. Anonymous

    May I politely suggest that the Buzanyans trouble really started when their teenaged daughter struck a parked car, fled the scene of the accident, and then both mother and daughter initially lied to the police, contradicting eye witness accounts.
    They have alreay lost on several counts in court of law, they’ll lose on this one, too.

  17. Vincente

    May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car, until that can be established the rest of your statement is pretty much meaningless. And from the photos I have seen there is just no way that one car hit the other.

  18. Vincente

    May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car, until that can be established the rest of your statement is pretty much meaningless. And from the photos I have seen there is just no way that one car hit the other.

  19. Vincente

    May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car, until that can be established the rest of your statement is pretty much meaningless. And from the photos I have seen there is just no way that one car hit the other.

  20. Vincente

    May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car, until that can be established the rest of your statement is pretty much meaningless. And from the photos I have seen there is just no way that one car hit the other.

  21. Richard

    May I politely suggest that the Buzayans trouble began when they encountered a provincial small town police department that had failed to confront its history of racist law enforcement practices, a vindictive police chief that didn’t appreciate public criticism of his officers, and a deputy district attorney, ironically known for her civil rights activism when it involved people other than Muslims, who rubberstamped the filing of a criminal case without exercising her independent prosecutorial discretion?

    –Richard Estes

  22. Richard

    May I politely suggest that the Buzayans trouble began when they encountered a provincial small town police department that had failed to confront its history of racist law enforcement practices, a vindictive police chief that didn’t appreciate public criticism of his officers, and a deputy district attorney, ironically known for her civil rights activism when it involved people other than Muslims, who rubberstamped the filing of a criminal case without exercising her independent prosecutorial discretion?

    –Richard Estes

  23. Richard

    May I politely suggest that the Buzayans trouble began when they encountered a provincial small town police department that had failed to confront its history of racist law enforcement practices, a vindictive police chief that didn’t appreciate public criticism of his officers, and a deputy district attorney, ironically known for her civil rights activism when it involved people other than Muslims, who rubberstamped the filing of a criminal case without exercising her independent prosecutorial discretion?

    –Richard Estes

  24. Richard

    May I politely suggest that the Buzayans trouble began when they encountered a provincial small town police department that had failed to confront its history of racist law enforcement practices, a vindictive police chief that didn’t appreciate public criticism of his officers, and a deputy district attorney, ironically known for her civil rights activism when it involved people other than Muslims, who rubberstamped the filing of a criminal case without exercising her independent prosecutorial discretion?

    –Richard Estes

  25. Anonymous

    I agree completely with David that nobody should ever consent to a search, but for different reasons. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most citizens don’t have friends that might “stash” some illegal goodies in their car. Rather, the question should be: Do you want a police officer going through your personal belongings? Seeing the F you got on your test, or the Prozac you were prescribed for depression, or maybe the size of your wife’s dress size? (or husband’s, should he lean that way).
    Not to be too dramatic, but I have a feeling that when *anybody* consents to a search, the people who hammered out those rights roll over in their graves. But, it doesn’t matter I guess. Most people are too intimidated by the police to stand up to them in this way.

  26. Anonymous

    I agree completely with David that nobody should ever consent to a search, but for different reasons. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most citizens don’t have friends that might “stash” some illegal goodies in their car. Rather, the question should be: Do you want a police officer going through your personal belongings? Seeing the F you got on your test, or the Prozac you were prescribed for depression, or maybe the size of your wife’s dress size? (or husband’s, should he lean that way).
    Not to be too dramatic, but I have a feeling that when *anybody* consents to a search, the people who hammered out those rights roll over in their graves. But, it doesn’t matter I guess. Most people are too intimidated by the police to stand up to them in this way.

  27. Anonymous

    I agree completely with David that nobody should ever consent to a search, but for different reasons. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most citizens don’t have friends that might “stash” some illegal goodies in their car. Rather, the question should be: Do you want a police officer going through your personal belongings? Seeing the F you got on your test, or the Prozac you were prescribed for depression, or maybe the size of your wife’s dress size? (or husband’s, should he lean that way).
    Not to be too dramatic, but I have a feeling that when *anybody* consents to a search, the people who hammered out those rights roll over in their graves. But, it doesn’t matter I guess. Most people are too intimidated by the police to stand up to them in this way.

  28. Anonymous

    I agree completely with David that nobody should ever consent to a search, but for different reasons. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most citizens don’t have friends that might “stash” some illegal goodies in their car. Rather, the question should be: Do you want a police officer going through your personal belongings? Seeing the F you got on your test, or the Prozac you were prescribed for depression, or maybe the size of your wife’s dress size? (or husband’s, should he lean that way).
    Not to be too dramatic, but I have a feeling that when *anybody* consents to a search, the people who hammered out those rights roll over in their graves. But, it doesn’t matter I guess. Most people are too intimidated by the police to stand up to them in this way.

  29. Rich Rifkin

    “May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car…”

    May I politely suggest that it’s largely irrelevant at this point if the Mazda was damaged by the Buzayan’s Highlander?

    The Buzayans paid off the owner of the car that was damaged (regardless of who caused the damage), and the juvenile court judge dismissed the hit-and-run charges against Halema. For purposes of public interest, the accident no longer matters.

    What does matter is if the Buzayans are able to prove their allegations of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation and battery in civil court.

    As I’ve said before on this site, I don’t believe that they have much of a chance on any of their allegations, other than with ‘abuse of process.’ But only time (and possibly a trial) will tell.

  30. Rich Rifkin

    “May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car…”

    May I politely suggest that it’s largely irrelevant at this point if the Mazda was damaged by the Buzayan’s Highlander?

    The Buzayans paid off the owner of the car that was damaged (regardless of who caused the damage), and the juvenile court judge dismissed the hit-and-run charges against Halema. For purposes of public interest, the accident no longer matters.

    What does matter is if the Buzayans are able to prove their allegations of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation and battery in civil court.

    As I’ve said before on this site, I don’t believe that they have much of a chance on any of their allegations, other than with ‘abuse of process.’ But only time (and possibly a trial) will tell.

  31. Rich Rifkin

    “May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car…”

    May I politely suggest that it’s largely irrelevant at this point if the Mazda was damaged by the Buzayan’s Highlander?

    The Buzayans paid off the owner of the car that was damaged (regardless of who caused the damage), and the juvenile court judge dismissed the hit-and-run charges against Halema. For purposes of public interest, the accident no longer matters.

    What does matter is if the Buzayans are able to prove their allegations of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation and battery in civil court.

    As I’ve said before on this site, I don’t believe that they have much of a chance on any of their allegations, other than with ‘abuse of process.’ But only time (and possibly a trial) will tell.

  32. Rich Rifkin

    “May I politely suggest that there is no evidence that Ms. Buzayan hit another car…”

    May I politely suggest that it’s largely irrelevant at this point if the Mazda was damaged by the Buzayan’s Highlander?

    The Buzayans paid off the owner of the car that was damaged (regardless of who caused the damage), and the juvenile court judge dismissed the hit-and-run charges against Halema. For purposes of public interest, the accident no longer matters.

    What does matter is if the Buzayans are able to prove their allegations of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation and battery in civil court.

    As I’ve said before on this site, I don’t believe that they have much of a chance on any of their allegations, other than with ‘abuse of process.’ But only time (and possibly a trial) will tell.

  33. Richard

    my view has been, as expressed in the past, that claims against the Davis Police Department will be difficult, because of judicial deference to the discretion of law enforcement officers in the field, but that claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute, as well as by order of Judge Warriner

    there are few things more perilous in government than releasing information about policy contrary to a statutory and judicial expression about the importance of privacy

    –Richard Estes

  34. Richard

    my view has been, as expressed in the past, that claims against the Davis Police Department will be difficult, because of judicial deference to the discretion of law enforcement officers in the field, but that claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute, as well as by order of Judge Warriner

    there are few things more perilous in government than releasing information about policy contrary to a statutory and judicial expression about the importance of privacy

    –Richard Estes

  35. Richard

    my view has been, as expressed in the past, that claims against the Davis Police Department will be difficult, because of judicial deference to the discretion of law enforcement officers in the field, but that claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute, as well as by order of Judge Warriner

    there are few things more perilous in government than releasing information about policy contrary to a statutory and judicial expression about the importance of privacy

    –Richard Estes

  36. Richard

    my view has been, as expressed in the past, that claims against the Davis Police Department will be difficult, because of judicial deference to the discretion of law enforcement officers in the field, but that claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute, as well as by order of Judge Warriner

    there are few things more perilous in government than releasing information about policy contrary to a statutory and judicial expression about the importance of privacy

    –Richard Estes

  37. Rich Rifkin

    “Claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute.”

    You may well be right, Richard. However, my opinion is that impartial jurors will be most troubled by this fact: the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council, and the officer (apprarently) ignored her request and continued his interrogation.

    I think most people are familiar with Miranda Rights. And if the jurors believe that the Davis police violated Halema’s Miranda Rights, they will decide that is ‘abuse of process.’

    I suppose, ultimately, that the objectivity and makeup of the jury will be of supreme importance. Some people are predisposed to believe the cops no matter what, and others come in with the opposite bias. Which way they lean in advance may determine which way they vote in the end.

    That said, I still would not be surprised that this lawsuit is dropped before trial, with the parties settling on some kind of compensation for covering the plaintiff’s legal bill. I really do think that in every area outside of ‘abuse of process,’ the case is very weak.

    My own suggestion to the plaintiffs would be to amend their lawsuit, dropping all of the allegations except for ‘abuse of process.’ If they did that, and the jury was not predisposed to find for the cops (and DA), they would stand a good chance to win in court. However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.

  38. Rich Rifkin

    “Claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute.”

    You may well be right, Richard. However, my opinion is that impartial jurors will be most troubled by this fact: the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council, and the officer (apprarently) ignored her request and continued his interrogation.

    I think most people are familiar with Miranda Rights. And if the jurors believe that the Davis police violated Halema’s Miranda Rights, they will decide that is ‘abuse of process.’

    I suppose, ultimately, that the objectivity and makeup of the jury will be of supreme importance. Some people are predisposed to believe the cops no matter what, and others come in with the opposite bias. Which way they lean in advance may determine which way they vote in the end.

    That said, I still would not be surprised that this lawsuit is dropped before trial, with the parties settling on some kind of compensation for covering the plaintiff’s legal bill. I really do think that in every area outside of ‘abuse of process,’ the case is very weak.

    My own suggestion to the plaintiffs would be to amend their lawsuit, dropping all of the allegations except for ‘abuse of process.’ If they did that, and the jury was not predisposed to find for the cops (and DA), they would stand a good chance to win in court. However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.

  39. Rich Rifkin

    “Claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute.”

    You may well be right, Richard. However, my opinion is that impartial jurors will be most troubled by this fact: the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council, and the officer (apprarently) ignored her request and continued his interrogation.

    I think most people are familiar with Miranda Rights. And if the jurors believe that the Davis police violated Halema’s Miranda Rights, they will decide that is ‘abuse of process.’

    I suppose, ultimately, that the objectivity and makeup of the jury will be of supreme importance. Some people are predisposed to believe the cops no matter what, and others come in with the opposite bias. Which way they lean in advance may determine which way they vote in the end.

    That said, I still would not be surprised that this lawsuit is dropped before trial, with the parties settling on some kind of compensation for covering the plaintiff’s legal bill. I really do think that in every area outside of ‘abuse of process,’ the case is very weak.

    My own suggestion to the plaintiffs would be to amend their lawsuit, dropping all of the allegations except for ‘abuse of process.’ If they did that, and the jury was not predisposed to find for the cops (and DA), they would stand a good chance to win in court. However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.

  40. Rich Rifkin

    “Claims against the District Attorney’s Office have more merit because the release of information from Halima Buzayan’s juvenile court file is expressly prohibited by statute.”

    You may well be right, Richard. However, my opinion is that impartial jurors will be most troubled by this fact: the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council, and the officer (apprarently) ignored her request and continued his interrogation.

    I think most people are familiar with Miranda Rights. And if the jurors believe that the Davis police violated Halema’s Miranda Rights, they will decide that is ‘abuse of process.’

    I suppose, ultimately, that the objectivity and makeup of the jury will be of supreme importance. Some people are predisposed to believe the cops no matter what, and others come in with the opposite bias. Which way they lean in advance may determine which way they vote in the end.

    That said, I still would not be surprised that this lawsuit is dropped before trial, with the parties settling on some kind of compensation for covering the plaintiff’s legal bill. I really do think that in every area outside of ‘abuse of process,’ the case is very weak.

    My own suggestion to the plaintiffs would be to amend their lawsuit, dropping all of the allegations except for ‘abuse of process.’ If they did that, and the jury was not predisposed to find for the cops (and DA), they would stand a good chance to win in court. However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.

  41. ACLU Supporter

    Actually some good points raised by both Rich and Richard on this one. I don’t get the sense that this lawsuit will be settled, but I think good points are raised on the issues.

    For me there are several key points where I think the police and DA operating poorly.

    First, you have the arrest itself. I still think it is problematic. After the fact, the DA’s surrogates specifically Tim Day and lawyers for the police argued that they relied on the California Welfare and Institutions code. But as we’ve already discussed if they did it, they didn’t follow proper procedure for it.

    Where I disagree with Richard is I don’t think many parents, if they happen to be jurists are going to be happy with the nighttime arrest of the minor and the police’s explanation of why her father couldn’t drive her in the morning. Hence I think a jury made up of parents (and most people are parents at one time or another) is going to look very closely at whether the police officer acted properly.

    This is where the false imprisonment comes into play–it’s basically an argument that it is an illegal arrest.

    Second, you have the interrogation by Officer Ly and I think you have a clear violation of Miranda.

    Third, you have the interrogation by Sgt Anderson where she uses the internal investigation process to threaten Halema and here you can probably get negligent infliction of emotional distress if not intentional. And they’ll play the tapes there and they’ll hear the minor crying. I think that’s a solid one.

    Fourth, you will have threats made by the police department against the family. This is something I don’t think has really gone public but it could end up ramping up some of the more (for of lack of a better term) monied charges.

    Fifth, you have the DA’s office violation of the judge’s order to not release the information. The question is what that will entail. I don’t think they get slander, libel, or defamation on that one.

    I think you have to look at the case like this: if they prove any of those five points, that by itself will not necessarily get them money they have then show actual damage.

    “However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.”

    I think you have this backwards in terms of how it actually works. What generally will happen is that if you prove the big points then the jury looks to see what damages that have occurred and that’s what you call extraneous.

    As I said, I think you are really looking at false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and probably that’s it. They won’t likely get racial discrimination, although Ly’s words don’t help him there, I don’t think they can prove this occurred merely out of malice for their religion, they won’t get battery or assault, and they won’t get the slander or libel. Defamation maybe in reach if they prove their points of law.

    Tough case, the city tried to settle this for a million, I think it only goes up from there.

  42. ACLU Supporter

    Actually some good points raised by both Rich and Richard on this one. I don’t get the sense that this lawsuit will be settled, but I think good points are raised on the issues.

    For me there are several key points where I think the police and DA operating poorly.

    First, you have the arrest itself. I still think it is problematic. After the fact, the DA’s surrogates specifically Tim Day and lawyers for the police argued that they relied on the California Welfare and Institutions code. But as we’ve already discussed if they did it, they didn’t follow proper procedure for it.

    Where I disagree with Richard is I don’t think many parents, if they happen to be jurists are going to be happy with the nighttime arrest of the minor and the police’s explanation of why her father couldn’t drive her in the morning. Hence I think a jury made up of parents (and most people are parents at one time or another) is going to look very closely at whether the police officer acted properly.

    This is where the false imprisonment comes into play–it’s basically an argument that it is an illegal arrest.

    Second, you have the interrogation by Officer Ly and I think you have a clear violation of Miranda.

    Third, you have the interrogation by Sgt Anderson where she uses the internal investigation process to threaten Halema and here you can probably get negligent infliction of emotional distress if not intentional. And they’ll play the tapes there and they’ll hear the minor crying. I think that’s a solid one.

    Fourth, you will have threats made by the police department against the family. This is something I don’t think has really gone public but it could end up ramping up some of the more (for of lack of a better term) monied charges.

    Fifth, you have the DA’s office violation of the judge’s order to not release the information. The question is what that will entail. I don’t think they get slander, libel, or defamation on that one.

    I think you have to look at the case like this: if they prove any of those five points, that by itself will not necessarily get them money they have then show actual damage.

    “However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.”

    I think you have this backwards in terms of how it actually works. What generally will happen is that if you prove the big points then the jury looks to see what damages that have occurred and that’s what you call extraneous.

    As I said, I think you are really looking at false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and probably that’s it. They won’t likely get racial discrimination, although Ly’s words don’t help him there, I don’t think they can prove this occurred merely out of malice for their religion, they won’t get battery or assault, and they won’t get the slander or libel. Defamation maybe in reach if they prove their points of law.

    Tough case, the city tried to settle this for a million, I think it only goes up from there.

  43. ACLU Supporter

    Actually some good points raised by both Rich and Richard on this one. I don’t get the sense that this lawsuit will be settled, but I think good points are raised on the issues.

    For me there are several key points where I think the police and DA operating poorly.

    First, you have the arrest itself. I still think it is problematic. After the fact, the DA’s surrogates specifically Tim Day and lawyers for the police argued that they relied on the California Welfare and Institutions code. But as we’ve already discussed if they did it, they didn’t follow proper procedure for it.

    Where I disagree with Richard is I don’t think many parents, if they happen to be jurists are going to be happy with the nighttime arrest of the minor and the police’s explanation of why her father couldn’t drive her in the morning. Hence I think a jury made up of parents (and most people are parents at one time or another) is going to look very closely at whether the police officer acted properly.

    This is where the false imprisonment comes into play–it’s basically an argument that it is an illegal arrest.

    Second, you have the interrogation by Officer Ly and I think you have a clear violation of Miranda.

    Third, you have the interrogation by Sgt Anderson where she uses the internal investigation process to threaten Halema and here you can probably get negligent infliction of emotional distress if not intentional. And they’ll play the tapes there and they’ll hear the minor crying. I think that’s a solid one.

    Fourth, you will have threats made by the police department against the family. This is something I don’t think has really gone public but it could end up ramping up some of the more (for of lack of a better term) monied charges.

    Fifth, you have the DA’s office violation of the judge’s order to not release the information. The question is what that will entail. I don’t think they get slander, libel, or defamation on that one.

    I think you have to look at the case like this: if they prove any of those five points, that by itself will not necessarily get them money they have then show actual damage.

    “However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.”

    I think you have this backwards in terms of how it actually works. What generally will happen is that if you prove the big points then the jury looks to see what damages that have occurred and that’s what you call extraneous.

    As I said, I think you are really looking at false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and probably that’s it. They won’t likely get racial discrimination, although Ly’s words don’t help him there, I don’t think they can prove this occurred merely out of malice for their religion, they won’t get battery or assault, and they won’t get the slander or libel. Defamation maybe in reach if they prove their points of law.

    Tough case, the city tried to settle this for a million, I think it only goes up from there.

  44. ACLU Supporter

    Actually some good points raised by both Rich and Richard on this one. I don’t get the sense that this lawsuit will be settled, but I think good points are raised on the issues.

    For me there are several key points where I think the police and DA operating poorly.

    First, you have the arrest itself. I still think it is problematic. After the fact, the DA’s surrogates specifically Tim Day and lawyers for the police argued that they relied on the California Welfare and Institutions code. But as we’ve already discussed if they did it, they didn’t follow proper procedure for it.

    Where I disagree with Richard is I don’t think many parents, if they happen to be jurists are going to be happy with the nighttime arrest of the minor and the police’s explanation of why her father couldn’t drive her in the morning. Hence I think a jury made up of parents (and most people are parents at one time or another) is going to look very closely at whether the police officer acted properly.

    This is where the false imprisonment comes into play–it’s basically an argument that it is an illegal arrest.

    Second, you have the interrogation by Officer Ly and I think you have a clear violation of Miranda.

    Third, you have the interrogation by Sgt Anderson where she uses the internal investigation process to threaten Halema and here you can probably get negligent infliction of emotional distress if not intentional. And they’ll play the tapes there and they’ll hear the minor crying. I think that’s a solid one.

    Fourth, you will have threats made by the police department against the family. This is something I don’t think has really gone public but it could end up ramping up some of the more (for of lack of a better term) monied charges.

    Fifth, you have the DA’s office violation of the judge’s order to not release the information. The question is what that will entail. I don’t think they get slander, libel, or defamation on that one.

    I think you have to look at the case like this: if they prove any of those five points, that by itself will not necessarily get them money they have then show actual damage.

    “However, if they fail to prove all of the extraneous charges (racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, libel, defamation and battery) then the jury is likely to not believe anything they say which has actual merit.”

    I think you have this backwards in terms of how it actually works. What generally will happen is that if you prove the big points then the jury looks to see what damages that have occurred and that’s what you call extraneous.

    As I said, I think you are really looking at false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and probably that’s it. They won’t likely get racial discrimination, although Ly’s words don’t help him there, I don’t think they can prove this occurred merely out of malice for their religion, they won’t get battery or assault, and they won’t get the slander or libel. Defamation maybe in reach if they prove their points of law.

    Tough case, the city tried to settle this for a million, I think it only goes up from there.

  45. sharla

    I read in the Davis Enterprise tonight that the School District is having the Davis Police do “truancy sweeps” of 20 or so High School students and 15 Junior High students each month. The “sweeps” (the first one scheduled for Sept. 19) will include visits to the student’s homes.

    So, what should the parent do if the Police come?

    There will be a report on this “Truancy Management Plan” will be made by the new Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, Pam Mari, at the upcoming School Board Meeting. She is already discussing taking legal sanctions against the students, such as suspension of their driver’s licenses or prevent them from getting one.

    This apparently is satisfying D.A. Reisig’s goal of reducing truancy in Yolo County.

  46. sharla

    I read in the Davis Enterprise tonight that the School District is having the Davis Police do “truancy sweeps” of 20 or so High School students and 15 Junior High students each month. The “sweeps” (the first one scheduled for Sept. 19) will include visits to the student’s homes.

    So, what should the parent do if the Police come?

    There will be a report on this “Truancy Management Plan” will be made by the new Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, Pam Mari, at the upcoming School Board Meeting. She is already discussing taking legal sanctions against the students, such as suspension of their driver’s licenses or prevent them from getting one.

    This apparently is satisfying D.A. Reisig’s goal of reducing truancy in Yolo County.

  47. sharla

    I read in the Davis Enterprise tonight that the School District is having the Davis Police do “truancy sweeps” of 20 or so High School students and 15 Junior High students each month. The “sweeps” (the first one scheduled for Sept. 19) will include visits to the student’s homes.

    So, what should the parent do if the Police come?

    There will be a report on this “Truancy Management Plan” will be made by the new Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, Pam Mari, at the upcoming School Board Meeting. She is already discussing taking legal sanctions against the students, such as suspension of their driver’s licenses or prevent them from getting one.

    This apparently is satisfying D.A. Reisig’s goal of reducing truancy in Yolo County.

  48. sharla

    I read in the Davis Enterprise tonight that the School District is having the Davis Police do “truancy sweeps” of 20 or so High School students and 15 Junior High students each month. The “sweeps” (the first one scheduled for Sept. 19) will include visits to the student’s homes.

    So, what should the parent do if the Police come?

    There will be a report on this “Truancy Management Plan” will be made by the new Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, Pam Mari, at the upcoming School Board Meeting. She is already discussing taking legal sanctions against the students, such as suspension of their driver’s licenses or prevent them from getting one.

    This apparently is satisfying D.A. Reisig’s goal of reducing truancy in Yolo County.

  49. Anonymous

    DPD makes the essential point in his original weblog article:
    “Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home.”
    —–
    There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens as to the human rights to which all we Americans are entitled thanks to the enduring wisdom of our Founding Fathers the implementation whereof, in the forms of the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights, was made possible by the heroic, immeasurably costly and desperate warfare against heartless kings and other tyrants waged by American patriots in the cause of Liberty that began in April, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts and will not end until angels rule all our better natures.

  50. Anonymous

    DPD makes the essential point in his original weblog article:
    “Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home.”
    —–
    There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens as to the human rights to which all we Americans are entitled thanks to the enduring wisdom of our Founding Fathers the implementation whereof, in the forms of the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights, was made possible by the heroic, immeasurably costly and desperate warfare against heartless kings and other tyrants waged by American patriots in the cause of Liberty that began in April, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts and will not end until angels rule all our better natures.

  51. Anonymous

    DPD makes the essential point in his original weblog article:
    “Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home.”
    —–
    There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens as to the human rights to which all we Americans are entitled thanks to the enduring wisdom of our Founding Fathers the implementation whereof, in the forms of the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights, was made possible by the heroic, immeasurably costly and desperate warfare against heartless kings and other tyrants waged by American patriots in the cause of Liberty that began in April, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts and will not end until angels rule all our better natures.

  52. Anonymous

    DPD makes the essential point in his original weblog article:
    “Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home.”
    —–
    There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens as to the human rights to which all we Americans are entitled thanks to the enduring wisdom of our Founding Fathers the implementation whereof, in the forms of the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights, was made possible by the heroic, immeasurably costly and desperate warfare against heartless kings and other tyrants waged by American patriots in the cause of Liberty that began in April, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts and will not end until angels rule all our better natures.

  53. Anonymous

    ….the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council….”

    Rich – It’s counsel, not council. Don’t let Dunning catch you making this mistake; he’d drone on for three columns ridiculing you over it.

  54. Anonymous

    ….the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council….”

    Rich – It’s counsel, not council. Don’t let Dunning catch you making this mistake; he’d drone on for three columns ridiculing you over it.

  55. Anonymous

    ….the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council….”

    Rich – It’s counsel, not council. Don’t let Dunning catch you making this mistake; he’d drone on for three columns ridiculing you over it.

  56. Anonymous

    ….the officer told the girl she had a right to council, she (apparently) requested the presence of council….”

    Rich – It’s counsel, not council. Don’t let Dunning catch you making this mistake; he’d drone on for three columns ridiculing you over it.

  57. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich – It’s counsel, not council.”

    Thank you. I stand corrected. FWIW, I spotted my mistake after I posted it, but lacked the energy to post my own correction…. On some blogging sites, they have “edit post” software, which allows a poster to correct his mistakes or typos after he hits “send.” … Homonyms tend to be my weakness. Even though I well know the difference between “there” and “their,” I inevitably type “their” at the wrong time. Must be latent brain damage.

  58. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich – It’s counsel, not council.”

    Thank you. I stand corrected. FWIW, I spotted my mistake after I posted it, but lacked the energy to post my own correction…. On some blogging sites, they have “edit post” software, which allows a poster to correct his mistakes or typos after he hits “send.” … Homonyms tend to be my weakness. Even though I well know the difference between “there” and “their,” I inevitably type “their” at the wrong time. Must be latent brain damage.

  59. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich – It’s counsel, not council.”

    Thank you. I stand corrected. FWIW, I spotted my mistake after I posted it, but lacked the energy to post my own correction…. On some blogging sites, they have “edit post” software, which allows a poster to correct his mistakes or typos after he hits “send.” … Homonyms tend to be my weakness. Even though I well know the difference between “there” and “their,” I inevitably type “their” at the wrong time. Must be latent brain damage.

  60. Rich Rifkin

    “Rich – It’s counsel, not council.”

    Thank you. I stand corrected. FWIW, I spotted my mistake after I posted it, but lacked the energy to post my own correction…. On some blogging sites, they have “edit post” software, which allows a poster to correct his mistakes or typos after he hits “send.” … Homonyms tend to be my weakness. Even though I well know the difference between “there” and “their,” I inevitably type “their” at the wrong time. Must be latent brain damage.

  61. Rich Rifkin

    “There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens…”

    Not a bad idea. However, I don’t think Jamal Buzayan is new to the United States. And the decision he made to let the cop into his house, which arguably was a mistake, likely would have been made by 98% of native born American citizens. In other words, all of us could use that educational outreach.

  62. Rich Rifkin

    “There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens…”

    Not a bad idea. However, I don’t think Jamal Buzayan is new to the United States. And the decision he made to let the cop into his house, which arguably was a mistake, likely would have been made by 98% of native born American citizens. In other words, all of us could use that educational outreach.

  63. Rich Rifkin

    “There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens…”

    Not a bad idea. However, I don’t think Jamal Buzayan is new to the United States. And the decision he made to let the cop into his house, which arguably was a mistake, likely would have been made by 98% of native born American citizens. In other words, all of us could use that educational outreach.

  64. Rich Rifkin

    “There needs to be cost-effective educational outreach to new American citizens…”

    Not a bad idea. However, I don’t think Jamal Buzayan is new to the United States. And the decision he made to let the cop into his house, which arguably was a mistake, likely would have been made by 98% of native born American citizens. In other words, all of us could use that educational outreach.

  65. Richard

    I think that it is human nature for us to believe that if we just explain it, the police will shake their heads, smile and say, “sorry to have bothered you”.

    But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.

    Basically, when the police come to talk to you, unless they expressly say otherwise, they consider you the subject of an investigation, and you should act accordingly by seeking legal assistance before talking to them.

    –Richard Estes

  66. Richard

    I think that it is human nature for us to believe that if we just explain it, the police will shake their heads, smile and say, “sorry to have bothered you”.

    But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.

    Basically, when the police come to talk to you, unless they expressly say otherwise, they consider you the subject of an investigation, and you should act accordingly by seeking legal assistance before talking to them.

    –Richard Estes

  67. Richard

    I think that it is human nature for us to believe that if we just explain it, the police will shake their heads, smile and say, “sorry to have bothered you”.

    But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.

    Basically, when the police come to talk to you, unless they expressly say otherwise, they consider you the subject of an investigation, and you should act accordingly by seeking legal assistance before talking to them.

    –Richard Estes

  68. Richard

    I think that it is human nature for us to believe that if we just explain it, the police will shake their heads, smile and say, “sorry to have bothered you”.

    But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.

    Basically, when the police come to talk to you, unless they expressly say otherwise, they consider you the subject of an investigation, and you should act accordingly by seeking legal assistance before talking to them.

    –Richard Estes

  69. Anonymous

    [quote]But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.[/quote]

    That’s because law enforcement is a competitive enterprise. Police know that they will receive awards, accolades, and promotions for making arrests. They could really care less if you’re a meth addict with a long rapsheet or a conviction-free schoolteacher.
    What people don’t realize is that the police are *always* going to push the envelope of [i]their[/i] rights regarding arrest and detention. So should every citizen utilize every single right they have. But people won’t…they think it’s un-american to not cooperate with the police. Sigh.

  70. Anonymous

    [quote]But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.[/quote]

    That’s because law enforcement is a competitive enterprise. Police know that they will receive awards, accolades, and promotions for making arrests. They could really care less if you’re a meth addict with a long rapsheet or a conviction-free schoolteacher.
    What people don’t realize is that the police are *always* going to push the envelope of [i]their[/i] rights regarding arrest and detention. So should every citizen utilize every single right they have. But people won’t…they think it’s un-american to not cooperate with the police. Sigh.

  71. Anonymous

    [quote]But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.[/quote]

    That’s because law enforcement is a competitive enterprise. Police know that they will receive awards, accolades, and promotions for making arrests. They could really care less if you’re a meth addict with a long rapsheet or a conviction-free schoolteacher.
    What people don’t realize is that the police are *always* going to push the envelope of [i]their[/i] rights regarding arrest and detention. So should every citizen utilize every single right they have. But people won’t…they think it’s un-american to not cooperate with the police. Sigh.

  72. Anonymous

    [quote]But that’s not how it happens in real life, because, first of all, we may not be aware that we have committed a crime, or that the circumstances could be construed differently by different people, so that the police see it as suspicious while we do not.[/quote]

    That’s because law enforcement is a competitive enterprise. Police know that they will receive awards, accolades, and promotions for making arrests. They could really care less if you’re a meth addict with a long rapsheet or a conviction-free schoolteacher.
    What people don’t realize is that the police are *always* going to push the envelope of [i]their[/i] rights regarding arrest and detention. So should every citizen utilize every single right they have. But people won’t…they think it’s un-american to not cooperate with the police. Sigh.

  73. Anonymous

    Simple, Sharla, if you are not home there’s nothing for the cops to “find” during an announced sweep. If you are truant, leave for the day.

    For the knock on the door – just don’t open the door or answer it. Don’t peek out the eyehole or window either, the cops can see the shadow.

    Of course, going to school that day would work, too.

  74. Anonymous

    Simple, Sharla, if you are not home there’s nothing for the cops to “find” during an announced sweep. If you are truant, leave for the day.

    For the knock on the door – just don’t open the door or answer it. Don’t peek out the eyehole or window either, the cops can see the shadow.

    Of course, going to school that day would work, too.

  75. Anonymous

    Simple, Sharla, if you are not home there’s nothing for the cops to “find” during an announced sweep. If you are truant, leave for the day.

    For the knock on the door – just don’t open the door or answer it. Don’t peek out the eyehole or window either, the cops can see the shadow.

    Of course, going to school that day would work, too.

  76. Anonymous

    Simple, Sharla, if you are not home there’s nothing for the cops to “find” during an announced sweep. If you are truant, leave for the day.

    For the knock on the door – just don’t open the door or answer it. Don’t peek out the eyehole or window either, the cops can see the shadow.

    Of course, going to school that day would work, too.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for