It isn't difficult for LEO's for find a 'just cause' reason for pulling over members of Traditional MC's, especially if they are riding in a larger group.

A few years ago during a CoC meeting an attorney gave us some wallet sized cards which have come to be known as "rights cards". The front of the card is shown below and on the rear of the card are some NCOM recommended attorneys to be contacted in various parts of the country if you need legal advice/help.

Anymore if any of us are pulled over the first thing we do is to give one of the 'cards' to the officer in charge. In the majority of cases we end up only being checked for basic stuff (valid motorycle endorsement, insurance, registration, CCW License, etc.) and are then released to go on our way. If it happens to be something more serious they one of the listed attorneys is contacted before any further questions are answered.

Had many of these 'rights cards' printed up and laminated at a local print shop and given to friends and associates.

 

Once again, this has been permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1968.

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.


In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the United States Supreme Court held that a brief investigative stop, detention, and frisk for weapons does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, a far lighter standard than probable cause. Id. Terry recognized that there must be an actual “seizure” before the protections of the Fourth Amendment are triggered. Id. Pursuant to Terry, a police officer may approach a person, identify himself as a police officer, and ask a few questions without implicating the Fourth Amendment. Id. A “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes occurs only when an individual is detained under circumstances that would induce a reasonable person to believe that he or she is not at liberty to leave.

In addition to our belief that Garrison's temporary detention was permissible, and contrary to the trial court's belief, we do not find Det. Hutchinson's actions were tantamount to effectuating an arrest even though Garrison was placed in handcuffs. In Hensley, 469 U.S. at 235, 105 S.Ct. at 683–84, the Supreme Court discussed the appropriateness of the arresting officers' actions in detaining Hensley.

Id. at 329. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has held that the use of handcuffs does not “exceed the bounds of a Terry stop, so long as the circumstances warrant that precaution.” Houston v. Clark County Sheriff Deputy John Does 1–5, 174 F.3d 809, 815 (6th Cir.1999) (collecting cases). In Houston, the suspects were ordered out of their vehicle at gunpoint, handcuffed, searched, and placed in the rear of a police cruiser for approximately twenty minutes. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Houston Court found the officer's actions to be reasonably necessary to protect their safety, reasonably related to the investigation into the underlying crime, and not tantamount to effectuating an arrest.

Likewise, we believe Det. Hutchinson acted permissibly under the circumstances in restraining Garrison to maintain control of him and preserve the status quo. This is especially true when considering Det. Hutchinson was unaware of whether Garrison had violent tendencies, was aware that at least one weapon was believed to be in the vehicle, and a known felon was still unsecured in that vehicle. Allowing Garrison to move about freely behind the officers' backs would have been imprudent and inherently risky. “Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 23, 88 S.Ct. at 1881. The brief detention was amply supported by reasonable suspicion and driven by the strong desire to maintain safety for the officers, the parties involved, and the general public. Garrison was not arrested until officers had probable cause to believe he had been operating his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.

 

i like the card...professional and to the point. honestly bad guys know ways around
the law better than good guys and its usually good guys that suffer leo's bending
it more than bad guys, but what can ya do???

 

The cards are nice, but they're not a failsafe. You can be legally detained without being arrested, although there are restrictions (reasonable amount of time considering the totality of the circumstances).

Best thing to do in any stop is to be polite, know that you don't have to answer any questions unless you want to (which may or may not expedite the temp. detention) and follow instructions that are given to you. Be polite and respectful, even if you think the LEO is wrong. You'll get your chance. Don't let your ego or irritation get the best of you.
Personally, I'd never hand a card like that to a LEO. It's a smart-*** challenge. I'd politely paraphrase it to him once and then tell him that I'm not comfortable answering questions and want to remain silent.

I'm sure the attorney also told you that it's not encouraged to argue your rights by the side of the road. The time & place for that is in court.

When you're stopped by the police, think of yourself as an armadillo protecting himself from a coyote. Shut up, don't challenge, and wait for him to get bored and leave.

 

I could give a f*ck what the Supreme Court or any other group of federal criminals say is permissible under their version of freedom. Every time one of these cases come before a court even more of our rights are slowly taken away.

The founding fathers never intended for otherwise law abiding citizens to be placed in irons and prevented from leaving because a cop that should never have stopped them to begin with feels threatened. Every single one of our "Natural Rights" that were to be protected by the Constitution has been reduced to nothing more than meaningless words by federal judges and their legislating from the bench.

Look at the recent ruling from the IN Supreme Court that now says that "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." So now our homes are not even safe from these police thugs. It was never supposed to be like this.

 

Agreed, this **** needs to stop.

 

You dont have be in an MC, wear a patch, ride in a pack anymore, just ask the Marine in AZ. Oh wait, you cant, they shot him 70 times and now hes dead.

 

A lot of good responses on here. I'm glad to see that at least a few still consider their freedoms as something of value.

Personally, I think there should be more threads like these on biker message boards, and any other place for that matter, in order to get people to understand and see what's going on.

 

What a steaming load of horse s#*t.... Get harassed because you ride a Harley or wear a patch? I agree with an earlier post.... LEO's been watching too much SOA and Gangland.

I'd trust any 3 piece patch holder before I'd trust someone in a 3 piece suit.

 

If you go against a cop...you lose.

That's just the way it is.

....and they back each other up.

~Joe