Protect your children, read more on some super ideas by clicking on Topics below
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sure most of you have heard this sort of Miranda Warning in TV shows sometime in the last 40+ years since the original Miranda case was handed down by the Supreme Court. What the Miranda case did in 1966 was set guidelines for when a suspect must be told of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.

Most people don't realize that Miranda only comes into play when a suspect in a criminal case has been taken into custody or arrested. If you are being investigated by police or CPS officials for any reason, no one is going to read you your Miranda rights from the beginning, but that doesn't mean you can't invoke them.

At its most basic level, Miranda is to protect you from self-incrimination. Where does this protection or right come from? The U.S. Constitution, the basis for all our laws. If you haven't read it lately, you need to. Go here for a free PDF file you can download: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand jury. . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. Amend. V

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part: "....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.

Let's get this clear. If you are being questioned by officials of any type, you have a Constitutional Right not to shoot your mouth off to them and spill your guts about everything you know (or even don't know) to be reinterpreted by them, which may or may not land you in jail with criminal charges filed.

How can you take back any statements once they've been uttered? Remember the WWII slogan, "Loose Lips Sink Ships"? It certainly applies here. CPS doesn't have to get a guilty verdict in a court of law to devastate your family and your children. They can just put you in the hot seat, try you in the court of public opinion and watch your life unravel like pulling a loose string on a hand-knit sweater. They don't have to hit a bull's eye for the collateral damage to take its toll. You may even never be charged criminally and could still wind up loosing custody and your parental rights terminated. You still loose your children and the State wins -- gloating all the way to the bank.

There is also no law for you to help them prove or win any case they might be trying to build against you or a loved one. In fact, you have the Right against self incrimination according to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Case workers or investigators will go on "fishing expeditions" for information that may or may not be related to an incident that suddenly gets blown all out of proportion. Do not give them fodder to chew on. They are not your minister, priest, or rabbi; they are also not your parent, counselor, or friend. They have their own agendas in the course of an investigation and it does not include looking out for your Constitutional Rights. In fact, they will try their best to threaten, intimidate, and cajole you into telling them what they want to hear, regardless of your Rights.

Their goal in the course of their investigation is to find you guilty - of something, ANYTHING, because then it justifies their existence. The more people that are found guilty, the more money that flows into the coffers of whatever department you have, per chance, come across.

Asserting your innocence does no good, because everyone is guilty of something if you dig long enough. They may not be able to pin a murder charge on you because there's no body (evidence), but what about jaywalking, littering, or spitting on the sidewalk? Well, you must have done the crime, right? Otherwise you wouldn't have been charged in the first place by this nice official who has all the "right" credentials. It becomes a case of "he said/she said". When you're dealing with a stacked deck, who wins? The person who owns the deck!

The authorities are all familiar with each other. They see each other on a regular basis. They conduct their business together all the time. In fact their very jobs are dependent upon money being brought in. Courtrooms are full of citizens being brought in by various governmental departments. Police, sheriff, code enforcement, dog catcher, you name it. And all these governmental players have friends in the courthouse since they are there so often. They are all playing on the same team folks!

They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don’t tell you that it’s stacked. This is why we have constitutionally guaranteed Rights to help you deal with the "stacked deck." This is even if you didn't know the deck was stacked in the first place! If you don't assert your Rights, it is as good as if you didn't have any. If you don't know what your Rights are, how are you going to let them protect you? If you willingly talk with investigators, you are giving up Rights that protect you. At this point, you have waived them and you have consented to abandon your Rights. Why should you? Why do you want to help them "win" their case? Why do you want to give them ammo for their gun? They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don't tell you it's stacked.

It's probably because you don't remember your high school civics class, how to be a good citizen by knowing and asserting your Rights to better balance the power between yourself and the authorities. You have also been watching too many brain numbing shows in which the suspect willingly gives up their Right to remain silent before they talk with their attorney. Monkey see, monkey do! You have to stop that right now.

Now is the time to install the proper "software" in your hardware (your brain) on how to deal with contacts with the authorities. Watch these videos to help you remember:

"The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents." Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).

Remember, learning about and knowing your Rights and respectfully asserting them during encounters is no guarantee that your Rights won't be violated. But, it does help diffuse a situation before it becomes all blown out of proportion, with reason and logic having gone out the window - for both sides.

The key is to be respectful. Even if the other side isn't doing the same to you, be kind in your replies to them. Do this if it takes every ounce of willpower you can muster. It puts them off guard. It also lets the investigator know that you are not just some hick that fell of the turnip truck yesterday, and they cannot run roughshod over you willy-nilly. Besides, you do have your tape recorder or video camera running, right? (Don't think about posting to You Tube just yet - better talk it over with your legal counsel.)

You want to make sure that you not only have a cool demeanor in dealing with these people, but that you look like the one who is the innocent party in this whole situation, and that you have your act together! You can wig out, scream, cry, or whatever, in the safety and comforts of your own bedroom after these guys are gone. Do not let them see you are intimidated or cowed by their behavior. But, neither do you want to come off cocky or like a smart aleck. If there is any time to be calm, cool and collected, this is that time.

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
(CAPTA, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act)
Summary~Full Text

This Act has two provisions to help protect children and families during child abuse investigations. First, it requires CPS workers to be trained in their duty to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the very people they are investigating. Secondly, CPS workers are to tell people involved in an abuse or neglect investigation what the complaint or allegation is that has been made.

Once upon a time when the King was on his throne, his agents went from house-to-house looking for printed papers, and "prohibited and uncustomed" goods. These items either had been smuggled in to avoid the high tax, or were claimed by the King to promote seditious libel and civil unrest. The Colonists grew tired of these "writs of assistance", general warrants, that made no man's home his castle. They were viewed as unreasonable by the early Patriots. Because of these issues, the Founding Fathers wanted boundaries to the "blank check" warrants that had been common. From these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was birthed.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. Amend. IV."

Since the penning of those great words, many years ago, there have been many court rulings that have defined and refined the limits of search and seizure. The key is the "reasonableness" test.

"A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113; State v. Daly, 14 Kan.App.2d 310, Syl. ¶ 5, 789 P.2d 1203, rev. denied 246 Kan. 769 (1990)"

"A "seizure" (of property) occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113; Brooks v. Sauceda, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115"

I know many social workers and others believe there is an exemption of the warrant requirement in child abuse investigations. But, the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled in Calabretta v. Floyd that as a general rule, unreasonable searches and seizures are banned and it presumes that all warrantless searches are unreasonable. The only exemptions for not getting a warrant (aside from voluntarily agreeing to a search) during the course of an investigation for child abuse are twofold:

1. That the social worker has in his or her possession evidence that would establish probable cause, and

2. There are exigent circumstances (meaning there is an emergency) threatening the health or welfare of the child.

Please print up the following page which details "Why Warrantless Entries Into Homes Are Generally Unconstitutional" and add it to your law notebook. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/CPSMemo.pdf

A Warrant is a court order specifically describing the person, place or thing to be seized or searched.

A governmental official applies to the court to try to obtain permission for them to invade your privacy to obtain information that may be useful to them in convicting someone -- probably yourself, or someone you know, of a crime. In the application, they have to be specific about their allegations, i.e. "We have been told by (friend, relative, school teacher, etc) that John Doe's (house, property, car, person, computer, etc) contains evidence that he (knows about, participated in, personally committed) the crime of (name your favorite here).

They have to show the court "probable cause" which is a good reason for assuming that a crime has been committed, and that you or the person in question did it. The facts that are known must be sworn to, or attested, that they are true to the best of the beliefs of the person making the application.

Anonymous tips, by themselves, cannot be the basis of a warrant, since you have no means of testifying to their veracity. However, if you have an anonymous tip that corroborates the other information that has been gathered from other known sources, you can use it. But again, not all on its own.

“[A]n anonymous tip, without more, does not constitute probable cause.” See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing, inter alia, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 227 (1983)). For an anonymous tip to be accorded any weight there must be some basis that the tip is true. United States v. Luong, 470 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2006)."

“Frankly, it is difficult to conceive how a social worker, whose work is directly governed by state law and regulation, could claim to have a reasonable belief that a warrantless removal that is expressly prohibited by state law and regulation is somehow permitted by the Constitution.” Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency 206 F.Supp.2d 1030, *1035 (N.D.Cal., 2002

See also H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992); and Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999); North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (2001); Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency 206 F.Supp.2d 1030, *1035 (N.D.Cal., 2002

Doe v. Carla Heck, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 2003 decision where a social worker entered a private school to interview a certain 11-year-old child in an attempt to find out about corporal punishment he and other students may have had and other "certain family matters". (This is the fishing expedition, folks!)

On a later occasion, the social worker tried to interview other students, but was denied access to the children without a court order or parental consent. The social worker later had to close the investigation for lack of information and the parents of the 11-year-old child sued for violations of their Rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

The social worker(s) "went to the school for the specific purpose of gathering information, an activity that most certainly constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment,” and that "under the traditional approach, the term 'search' is said to imply 'some exploratory investigation or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out.’” The court found that the 11-year-old child "had been 'seized'” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because no reasonable child would have believed that he was free to leave..." citing Brokaw, 235 F3d at 1010 "holding that the defendants action of taking a child into custody, without the consent of his parents, for the purpose of questioning him about allegations of child neglect was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment".

Did you get that? The court has ruled that gathering information is an activity that constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment. A fishing expedition is a search, and as such, you are protected by your Constitutional Rights, unless you waive them.

This ruling above, however, does give the authorities a loophole, as it restricts these fishing expeditions on PRIVATE property, i.e. a private home, private school, etc. A PUBLIC school does not have these protections. Why? When you drop your child(ren) off at the schoolhouse door, you are then giving the public school authority to act in your stead via something called "in loco parentis" which is Latin for "in place of the parents." (Related term: Parens Patriae which is Latin for "father of the people")

When the public school exercises their version of in loco parentis, they substitute their judgment for yours. Remember, they are government officials that you place in charge of your children for approximately 180 days a year. They will do what they deem best for your child while you are not there, including letting other governmental personnel have access to your child. You remember that the public school is a governmental institution, don't you?

''...[S]chool officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.''469 U.S. 336 (1984)

A public school has public monies at its disposal. They don't have to please you, as they feel they are the only legitimate source of education there is, even if it isn't. They don't want the parents to have the freedom to choose, because when we do, we often don't choose the public version of school.

“In the context of removing a child from his home and family, a seizure is reasonable if it is pursuant to a court order, if it is supported by probable cause, or if it is justified by exigent circumstances, meaning that state officers ‘“have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy.’” Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 605 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)). The same standard for reasonableness applies when a child is seized from a private school where she has been placed by her parents. See Doe, 327 F.3d at 512 (holding “[i]n our view, there is no basis for concluding that when a minor child is entrusted to the care of a private school in loco parentis his reasonable expectation of privacy, vis-à-vis government officials, differs in any material respect from that which he would otherwise expect to receive at home.”).

Michael C. v. Gresbach, another 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, this time from 2008, mirrors the Doe v. Heck case above. From the Liberty Counsel website:

"Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of two Wisconsin children who were strip-searched by a state social worker at a private Christian school. In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the social worker, Dana Gresbach, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the children to be free from an unreasonable search.

"The court stated that "it is a violation of a child’s constitutional rights to conduct a search of a child at a private school without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances." The court held the social worker personally responsible for violating the students’ rights, because the law in this area is so clear that she should have known her actions were unconstitutional. Although the school principal allowed the social worker to interview the students, the social worker never even mentioned that she intended to require the children to remove their clothing. In addition, the social worker refused to allow the principal to contact the parents before the interview or to be present when she forced the children to strip.

"Stephen Crampton, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: "Decades ago, the United States Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the child is not the mere creature of the state. Unfortunately, social workers repeatedly ignore that fact and routinely trample parents' rights under the guise of protecting the children. This ruling sends the message that the Constitution is still in effect protecting law-abiding families from the overreaching arm of the state, both in the home and in private schools."

In Arizona on Sept 27, 2007, in the case Loudermilk v. Arpaio, a Federal Court ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody was unconstitutional because the fear tactics the social workers and sheriff's deputies used violated the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.

“Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.”

"The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.” Calabretta, 189 F.3d at 813. Similarly, “[t]he constitutional right of parents and children to live together without government interference is well established.” Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1107 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982))."

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), reprinted in G.P. HUNT, ED., IX THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” Washington Public Records Act, RCW §42.17.251

Unless courts are prepared to enforce these rights and protect those charged with crime, irrespective of their obvious guilt, they condone illegitimate and unconstitutional practices which, if long adhered to, may result in a breakdown of the protection accorded free men by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.[fn3] This course, like the enforcement of other parts of the Bill of Rights, may often afford a shelter for criminals, "But the forefathers thought this was not too great a price to pay for that decent privacy of home, papers and effects which is indispensable to individual dignity and self respect. They may have overvalued privacy, but I am not disposed to set their command at naught."[fn4] BROCK v. UNITED STATES, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1955).

So what do you do if the "authorities" come knocking at your door? First of all, why answer the door if you don't know who it is? There's no law that says you are obligated to answer every knock on the door (or every time the phone rings!). But, if someone tries to catch you unawares, perhaps on your way from the house to the car to go someplace, how should you respond? Perhaps your encounter could go a bit like this:

Social worker comes up to you and says, "Hi, I'm Sarah Snake with the Division of Family Services. I'd like to ask you and your children a few questions about a complaint we've had. I'm required by law to come into your home to investigate." She hands you her business card and has her photo id clipped to the lanyard around her neck.

You are about to reach for the door to go inside to put your groceries away. Your children have already scurried inside. Close the front door and stand outside your house. (You don't want her to follow you into the house like a little puppy without permission, and they will try.) You turn to the SW and say, "Oh, what is the nature of the complaint?" (You have a right to know this before you answer any of their questions.)

Sarah Snake sneakily says, "We've had an anonymous hotline complaint and I can't reveal more information until I've conducted my investigation."

You politely reply, "I'm sorry, but I'm sure my attorney is going to ask what the investigation is about. He's also instructed us not to allow you into our house without a search warrant. May I see yours please?" (Be reaching for your cell phone to call your attorney.)

A bit miffed that you aren't cowing to her every whim and desire, Sarah Snake snips back, "I can get one in a matter of minutes. What are you trying to hide, anyway?"

Nicely as you can, you muster a smile even though you feel as if you've just been slapped in the face or worse yet, sucker punched in the gut. However, you also know that she can't get a warrant without support of imminent physical danger and probable cause, and an anonymous complaint can't be the basis of a search warrant.

"I understand your concerns, Ms. Snake. I'm sure you've had training in upholding the Constitutional Rights of citizens in the course of carrying out your job, haven't you Ms. Snake? I'm sure you're just as concerned as we are about the gradual usurpations of these Rights, aren't you Ms. Snake? It's because of this, Ms. Snake, that I must tell you we need a search warrant before any further investigation. I'm sure you understand. Have a nice day, Ms. Snake."

· "I understand your concerns and I'm happy to cooperate. May I see your search warrant please?"

· "I do want to cooperate; however, I do not want to ignore proper established procedure."

· "I am happy to do all that is asked of me by the court. Do you have a court order for the things you are asking?

The three most important things for you to do after you politely inform someone you wish to stand on your Constitutional Rights (objecting to a warrantless search, right to remain silent, etc.) are:

And then as soon as possible, talk with your legal counsel. Get a notepad and pen and write up the sequence of events while it's still fresh in your mind. Do not give a copy to any investigators, only to your attorney.

Finally, read, read, and read as if Your Life depends on it. You have been thrust into a situation that you were not expecting for the most part, but you can't give up. You have been thrown into shark-infested waters and you must learn to swim, and swim quickly.

Please let us know if you have a question we can help you with. We're not attorneys, we're just like you, people that were once in the same midst of a sink or swim, do or die, circumstance. We made it through, and so can you. Hang tough.

The following information, in this section, is provided by Home School Legal Defense Association. The first is an image of information that you can place on your front door, for example. You can download this image (searchwarrantreqd.gif) and make it what ever size necessary.

Idea Description (Originally Posted 5/2/08 on IdeaBlog)

I am the CA. Director for NFPCAR (National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform) & we are a non profit online support group for families who have been falsely attacked by CPS or the Juvenile Justice System. Our support group is developing "Miranda Dog Tags" as a "safe-guard" for children that will protect them from being forced to talk to "strangers" who try to interview them without the parents present. On one side of the tag would have personal contact information and the other side would have a brief "Miranda" statement for the child to use when needed. These Dog Tags can be worn by any child and presented when cornered by strangers. Directions for proper use will be included.

This idea is meant for ALL parents...children...biological, foster, adoptive or kinship care. We at NFPCAR totally AGREE that the common enemy is CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES...(CPS) and we ALL need to stand together in this fight. As soon as we can get these "dog tags" manufactured and on the market they will be offered to "anyone"...not just foster families. Anyone who is interested in joining together in this fight for justice please feel free to join our NFPCAR group by going to...the bottom of this page...and signing up. Our support group is FREE to anyone who wants to join and we are open to any and all parents, grandparents and kinship caretakers. Please help us achieve our goal to help protect our children and families from the enemy...Goliath...(i.e. CPS and the Juvenile Justice System). I can be reached at the NFPCAR group site or at dogpatch1940@yahoo.com.

Thanks for your support,
Nancee
CA Director, NFPCAR

Please check back soon for an example of the Miranda Dog Tag.

Proposed Wording

FRONT:
Dear Government Agent: I am exercising my Constitutional right to remain silent.
Please do not coerce me into answering your questions. Please call my parents
and/or attorney immediately.

BACK:
List Parents Names and ALL contact phone numbers. List any other person
that can "stand in" until parent can be reached. List your family
attorney and number

All ideas and development of the Miranda Dog Tags for Children is Copyrighted © by the NFPCAR Organization.
Any duplication of this material is forbidden-May 2008
Copyright © NFPCAR
May 2008

Back To Index

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, I found a site from AFRA (American Family Rights Association) with a three panel pamphlet, that may be a little over the top. But who is to say we can't print it and hand it out? The way you print it out is a little rough, so I created a file called Miranda.pdf. So click on this link and print away.

I keep seeing too many posts that say their Schools don't accept Miranda. I just read something on the AFRA site that said there was a higher court decision that says the Schools don't need to read rights unless the police say so. However, I found nothing that says a Parent can't inform the school that no one can not question your child without you and/or your lawyer present.

Hello everyone,

I came across something that I thought might be helpful for those of you in current investigations and any future investigations. This is an excerpt from a letter written by Carolyn Middleton, who is a paralegal and has a group called THE COMMITTEE. She has a very specific response that she gives even when being questioned as a "witness".

When police arrived the ex-husband, (having heard the sirens), left in haste. When police arrived, an officer approached me and asked what was going on. I replied, "I can't say". He repeated his request, claiming he was investigating a report of domestic violence. Again I repeated, "I can't say". "Why can't you say?", questioned the officer. Because under my Constitutional Rights and the application of Miranda, I choose to exercise my right to remain silent.

The officer became quite angry with me and said, "That only applies to your right not to give witness against yourself", to which I responded, "I am a paralegal and this is my client. As such I cannop give testimony against her either. The officer became even more angry with me and threatened to arrest me. I drew my hands out in front of me and said, "Let's go!" The next second the officer attempting to interrogate me, left me alone and started in on my client, who told him everything about what her ex-husband had done, and the fact that she had a restraining order against him. The officer came back to me and asked me to verify what my client had said. I simply shrugged my shoulders and said, "I can't say". The officer turned away from me and told his partner, in an angry tone, "I'm done with this one!"

When being questioned, her primary response is "I can't say." When the officer asks her "Why can't you say?", her response is "Because under my Constitutional Rights and the application of Miranda, I choose to exercise my right to remain silent."

I believe that this is very important for all of us to memorize and burn into our brains. You generally will not be advised/reminded of your miranda rights when being questioned in a CPS investigation. You also will not generally be advised/reminded of your miranda rights when being questioned as a "witness". Many times, police will just say they are questioning you as a "witness", but will in fact be questioning you as a "potential suspect". They are legally allowed to lie to you and can tell you that someone has already confessed, so you need to hurry up and confess and try to make a deal before the other person. They can tell you that they have evidence to prove you did it, even when they have nothing.

Jargondatabase.com defines "Reasonable Deception" as "A legal doctrine that says police may lie to suspects during interogations so long as an innocent person would not be affected. For example, the police could say that they had found a bloody fingerprint when they had not. The innocent person would know that they were lying, but the guilty would not be sure. A very effective technique, and one of the main reasons why defense lawyers exist." Notice that it says they may lie during interrogations "so long as an innocent person would not be affected". How many of us on this group can testify from experience that their deception has indeed affected an innocent person?

I also found the following links and thought I would share them as well. Hope they help some of you with what you're going through right now.

1. Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case Law

Haney v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2003).
Ziegler v. City of South Pasadena, 73 Cal.App.4th 391 (1999).
Brogan v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 805 (1998).
LaChance v. Erickson, 118 S. Ct. 753 (1998).
Ackerman v. State Personnel Board, 145 Cal. App. 3d 395 (1983).
Gee v. California State Personnel Board, 5 Cal. App. 3d 713 (1970).
Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).

Comments from Contributor

This article was originally posted on the American Bar Association website but I couldn't find the original link, so I had to copy and paste it from my saved web pages. There's also two more interesting links called "How the System Works" and "Truth in Justice" posted at the bottom of this article. I'm not sure if the links at the bottom of this article will work for you (I was able to connect to them from my saved webpage), so here they are as well: http://www.truthinjustice.org/systemworks.htm and http://www.truthinjustice.org/index.htm .

Truth in Justice has this to say on their website: "Truth in Justice is an educational non-profit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U. S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible."

"When we say "wholly innocent," we mean a person who had absolutely no part in the crime charged. An innocent person is deprived of life, liberty and the opportunity to contribute to society, while the guilty party is free to commit more crimes against unsuspecting victims. In many instances, no crime was committed in the first place -- a suicide is charged as homicide, or an accidental fire is mistaken for arson. How does this happen? Faulty eye witness identification, tunnel vision investigators, over zealous prosecutors, bad science, compromised experts and a politicized judiciary are major factors, along with a credulous public."

"Why should you be concerned about wrongful conviction? The cases here make the answer clear: it can happen to anyone, including you. What can you do? Educate yourself. Ask questions. Think. Stop rewarding malfeasance. It starts with just one person. It starts with YOU."

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS
Prof. Paul Cassell

Two days after 12-year- old Stephanie Crowe was found stabbed to death on the bedroom floor of her Escondido, Calif., home, her 14-year-old brother, Michael, told police he had killed his younger sister as she slept.

Not long afterward, one of his friends and classmates told police he stood lookout the night of Jan. 20, 1998, while Michael and a third boy sneaked into Stephanie's bedroom and killed her.

Based entirely on the two boys' statements, police came up with the theory that Michael, jealous of the attention his sister was getting, enlisted his friends in a plot to kill her.

The only thing missing in the investigation was the murder weapon. Police thought they found it when they came across the younger brother of one of the boys playing with a hunting knife. Later the older boy told police he had been given the knife after the killing and told to hide it.

With that, all three were arrested on charges of conspiracy and first-degree murder, and the case became an overnight media sensation: Three seemingly typical teenagers from apparently "good" homes whose shared fascination with knives and computer games had gotten way out of hand. One TV tabloid show even went so far as to describe the case as "The Devil Son Who Murdered the Angel Daughter."

The only problem with the whole scenario is that all three boys may be innocent. That became clear at the start of jury selection in a trial in January, when prosecutors disclosed that Stephanie's dna had been found on a bloody sweatshirt worn by a 29-year-old vagrant seen knocking on doors and peering in windows the night the girl was murdered.

In late February, prosecutors dismissed all charges against the three, though they left open the possibility that they may be refiled later. By late May, the vagrant had not been charged in connection with Stephanie's death.

If the boys hadn't joined in a plot to kill Stephanie, the "confessions" by two of them, who both quickly recanted, raise troubling questions about human nature. But they also raise troubling questions about standard police interrogation tactics.

What kind of person would confess to a crime he or she didn't commit? And given the fact that some people apparently do, what makes them more likely than anybody else to confess falsely?

The answer, experts say, is that while practically anybody can be made to confess to something he or she didn't do under the intense psychological pressures of a modern police interrogation, the young and the mentally impaired are more susceptible than most.

That's because the young and the mentally impaired tend to be more suggestible, more eager to please, more deferential toward people in positions of authority and less capable of rational decision-making than the average person.

The whole point of an interrogation, after all, is to extract a confession from somebody police suspect is probably guilty by leading that person to believe the evidence is overwhelming, his or her fate is certain, and the benefits from confessing outweigh the costs.

To do that, police interrogators employ a variety of psychological tactics designed to wear down a suspect and break the person's resistance--from appealing to the suspect's conscience to fabricating claims of evidence--all of which is perfectly legal and highly effective.

But the same tactics that work so well at getting the guilty to confess sometimes work just as well with the innocent, who tend to confess to a crime they didn't commit for one of two reasons. Either they come to the conclusion that their situation, while unjust, is hopeless and will only be improved by confessing, or their faith in their own memory is so badly shaken they come to believe they are guilty even though they don't remember it.

"The logic is really quite simple," says Richard J. Ofshe, a sociology professor at the University of California at Berkeley who studies the relationship between police interrogation tactics and false confessions. "If you put somebody in a situation he believes is hopeless and you give him a choice between two bad options, you can get him to say just about anything you want."

Ofshe recalls one case in which police induced a suspect to confess by telling him they had satellite photos of him committing the crime. In another case, he says, a quick-thinking detective invented a new type of bogus technology--called a neutron proton negligence intelligence test--to persuade a suspect that police had scientific proof he fired the gun used to kill two people.

Saul Kassin, a social psychologist at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who specializes in the dynamics of police interrogations, says average people tend to think they would never confess to a crime they didn't commit. But average people don't understand how stressful a police interrogation can be, he says.

"We all have our breaking point," Kassin notes. "When somebody reaches his or her breaking point, all he or she wants to do is escape. And the quickest means of escaping a police interrogation is to tell [interrogators] what they want to hear."

The question, then, is not whether innocent people falsely confess, but how often.

E. Michael McCann, Milwaukee's district attorney, says any experienced prosecutor knows it can, and sometimes does, happen, particularly when the person confessing is a young child or someone with limited intellectual abilities.

But McCann says a false confession can usually be distinguished from a truthful one depending on whether it includes details about the crime only the offender would know. The danger, he says, is that the false confessor could inadvertently have been provided those details before or during interrogation.

"Even the most conscientious cop can make a mistake," McCann says. "That's why you have to be extremely careful in a situation like that, particularly if there is no independent, corroborating evidence to go along with the confession."

Some prosecutors admit there are false confessions and there are coerced confessions, but they say there is no such thing as a police-induced false confession.

"Innocent people do confess sometimes, which is a real problem for law enforcement," says Joshua Marquis, the Clatsop County, Ore., district attorney. "But the idea that somebody can be induced to falsely confess is ludicrous. It's the Twinkie defense of the 1990s. It's junk science at its worst."

Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal prosecutor, studies the phenomenon of false confessions. He says the problem doesn't appear to be pandemic, as others have suggested, but confined to a very narrow and especially vulnerable subset of the population, namely the mentally impaired.

"The evidence suggests that those with mental limitations are at special risk of false confessions, but that it's actually quite rare and hardly ever results in a wrongful conviction," he says.

Yet Kassin says there have been enough documented instances of false confessions in capital cases, which tend to get far more scrutiny than noncapital cases, to suggest that the problem is a lot bigger than anyone would like to think.

Ofshe and a colleague, Richard A. Leo, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California at Irvine, claim to have identified more than 250 likely cases of false confessions in the post-Miranda era. Sixty of these have been documented in an article they wrote for the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 429.

In their article, Ofshe and Leo not only analyzed the evidence in the 60 cases they examined but grouped them into three categories: 34 of which they classify as proven false confessions, 18 as highly probable and eight as probable.

One case they classify as probable may even have resulted in an innocent man's exe- cution, the authors contend. That is the case of Barry Lee Fairchild, who was executed in 1995 for being an accessory in the 1983 abduction, rape and murder of a Pulaski County, Ark., woman.

According to Ofshe and Leo, no independent evidence linked Fairchild to the crime. And Fairchild, a mentally handicapped man who had steadfastly maintained his innocence, insisted he had confessed to the crime only because he had been beaten and tortured by the local sheriff and one of his deputies. (Two former sheriffs now admit that beatings were a common interrogation tactic at the time of Fairchild's arrest.)

A case Ofshe says is sure to appear on the next list surfaced in Chicago last August, when the police announced they had solved the July 28 murder of an 11-year-old girl, Ryan Harris, with the arrest of two boys, ages 7 and 8, both of whom were said to have confessed to the crime. But charges against the boys were dropped after semen found on the victim's underwear was linked to Floyd Durr, an ex-convict who was already awaiting trial for sexually assaulting three young girls. In late April, Durr was charged with Harris' murder as well.

But the Stephanie Crowe case is a textbook example of how a police interrogation can go wrong, according to Ofshe, who was an expert for the defense, and others connected with the case.

Police thought from the beginning that the murder was an inside job because the house showed no sign of forced entry. And they quickly settled on Michael as the prime suspect. One of the first officers on the scene had described him as being "inappropriately bereaved."

Michael, who was immediately separated from his parents, was brought in to the station for questioning the day after Stephanie's murder. Over the course of the next five hours he adamantly and repeatedly insisted he had nothing to do with his sister's death. But he was brought back the next day and administered a controversial lie detector test known as a computerized voice stress analyzer--which he was told he had failed--and then grilled for another six hours.

Police used every trick in the book to get Michael to confess, according to a transcript of the interrogation, most of which was videotaped.

They told him there was a mountain of evidence against him. They made him write a note of apology to his dead sister for having killed her. They told him his parents hated him and never wanted to see him again because they had come to believe he had killed his sister. And they told him if he confessed he would receive psychological treatment instead of prison, where, he was reminded, he would have to shower with some unsavory characters.

At one point in the interrogation Michael began to wonder aloud whether he might have had something to do with his sister's death, though he still maintained he had no memory of it. Eventually, he came to accept the notion that he must be guilty.

"I completely blocked myself out," he said near the end of the session. "And I wouldn't even know that I did it if she wasn't dead. It just as easily could have been a dream. I can't remember."

After Michael's confession, police repeated the same process with Joshua Treadway, the 14-year-old friend who supposedly stood lookout. After 11 hours of questioning, he not only confessed but implicated 15-year-old Aaron Houser.

"You'd have to know Josh to understand why," says Mary Ellen Attridge, Treadway's public defender. "He's very naive and very gullible. There's not a streetwise bone in his body."

Meanwhile, Richard Raymond Tuite, the 29-year-old vagrant and a diagnosed schizophrenic with a lengthy arrest record who is now serving a three-year sentence for an unrelated burglary, was questioned by police the day Stephanie's body was found.

But he was quickly discounted as a possible suspect. And while the red sweatshirt Tuite was wearing during questioning was confiscated, it wasn't until late last year, when Attridge spotted what appeared to be blood stains on one sleeve, that it was tested for dna.

The Crowe family has already filed a civil rights suit against the Escondido police and the San Diego County district attorney's office. And the Treadway and Houser families are said to be contemplating similar legal action.

"It's like one long nightmare," says Stephen Crowe, Michael and Stephanie's father, who bitterly accuses police and prosecutors of trying to put away three innocent boys to save their own behinds. "I don't know how they sleep at night."

Ofshe, who estimates that he has appeared as an expert witness in more than 125 false-confession cases, admits that his view of police interrogation tactics may be skewed by his experience with the practice. But he says the evidence he and others have amassed should persuade any fair-minded person that something needs to be done to reduce the likelihood of police-induced false confessions.

A requirement that all interrogations be recorded, which is now the rule in only two states--Alaska and Minnesota--would help, he and other experts say.

But the real solution, they argue, would be to give courts authority to evaluate the reliability of a confession by comparing a suspect's account of the crime with the known facts. If the substance of the confession conformed closely with the facts, it would be admitted; if not, the confession would be suppressed.

But Cassell of the University of Utah isn't convinced that false confessions are as serious a problem as Ofshe and others suggest. Cassell doesn't believe giving the courts authority to scrutinize confessions is a good idea. The consequence, he suggests, would be suppression of more truthful confessions from the guilty.

Cassell says that his examination of the facts in nine of the 29 cases in which Ofshe and Leo claim a false confession may have led to the wrongful conviction of an innocent person shows that all nine confessors were probably guilty.

In the Fairchild rape and murder case, for example, Ofshe and Leo claim there was no independent evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. But Cassell says he found that Fairchild took police on a tour of the crime scene after confessing, and that a watch recovered from his sister, which Fairchild claimed to have bought in a pool hall, was identical to the victim's missing watch.

In eight of the nine cases he examined, Cassell says, the defendant appeared to be mentally retarded or suffering from serious mental problems.

The only solution, he says, is to videotape all interrogations and do away with the Miranda warning, which he says does nothing to protect the innocent and only makes it tougher to get truthful confessions from the guilty.

http://heartlandamerica.com/browse/item.asp?product=sling-shot-dvr-pen&PIN=87653&GUID=B437A4E8-8C09-4B1C-A314-CCED95356AD9&DL=HWH3
This is what the website says about it:

> It looks like a pen. It writes like a pen. But it's actually one of
> the world's smallest and most discreet digital recorders!
> 4GB digital pocket recorder is the perfect way to secretly capture
> video. Great for conversations with your ex-wife, vendor meetings,
> negotiating with salespeople and more! Ever wish you had video of
> that conversation you had? Now you can! This working pen has a new
> and improved color CMOS image sensor that captures video in 600x480
> resolution at the simple press of a button. Also has 4GB flash
> memory to store up to 5 hours of video, on-board mic, built-in
> rechargeable battery, comfort rubber finger grip, replaceable ink
> cartridge, USB 2.0 interface and more. Windows compatible. 5.8"L.
> NOTICE: State and federal laws make recording audio illegal under
> certain circumstances. Carefully check all applicable laws before
> using the audio recording feature to make surreptitious recordings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TO ADD

Protection of Pupil Rights (Hatch Amendment)
http://www.learn-usa.com/relevant_to_et/pr002.htm

Goals 2000, Educate America Act—

Sec. 1017. PROTECTION OF PUPILS

Section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) is amended to read as follows:

"PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS

"Sec. 439. (a) All instructional materials, including teacher's manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary material which will be used in connection with any survey, analysis, or evaluation as part of any applicable program shall be available for inspection by the parents or guardians of the children.

"(b) No student shall be required, as part of any applicable program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning—

"(1) political affiliations;

"(2) mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his family;

"(3) sex behavior and attitudes;

"(4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;

"(5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

"(6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or

"(7) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program),

without the prior consent of the student (if the student is an adult or emancipated minor), or in the case of an unemancipated minor, without the prior written consent of the parent.

"(c) Educational agencies and institutions shall give parents and students effective notice of their rights under this section.

"(d) Enforcement.—The Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section, except that action to terminate assistance provided under an applicable program shall be taken only if the Secretary determines that—

"(1) there has been a failure to comply with such section; and

"(2) compliance with such section cannot be secured by voluntary means.

"(e) Office of Review Board.—The Secretary shall establish or designate an office and review board within the Department of Education to investigate, process, review, and adjudicate violations of the rights established under this section.".

When does this act apply?

When federal money is involved in the implementation and maintenance of a program. If a school district has a federal grant to write curriculum, this law applies. If the state has a federal grant for a particular program, and in turn, provides grants to school districts for the same program, this law applies.

╪

'Miranda' Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court

article.jsp?id=1202444486063&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100225&kw=

Tony Mauro

The National Law Journal

February 25, 2010

It has not been a good week for the famed Miranda warning at the hands of the Supreme Court.

In decisions issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court ruled that confessions should be admitted at trial even when police interviewed suspects in circumstances that lower courts viewed as Miranda violations.

The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer (pdf), establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent.

The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell (pdf), in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning.

Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher said the rulings continue the Court's trend of "extreme hostility toward constitutional rules that require the exclusion of evidence -- especially confessions and the product of illegal searches -- from criminal trials." Fisher, who heads a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers committee that files amicus briefs at the high court, said, "In short, this Court sees the costs and benefits of rules designed to curb police overreaching entirely differently than the Court did a generation ago. "

Sidley Austin partner Jeffrey Green, who also assists NACDL and other defense lawyers in high court arguments, added, "At this rate, what's left [of Miranda] will be only what we see on TV."

But Lauren Altdoerffer of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports law enforcement officials in Miranda cases, said the rulings don't weaken constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination. "The Court is allowing states and police to draft rules that fit their needs but still fit the requirements of Miranda." She added that the crucial question is whether the interview of the suspect is compelled or voluntary.

In the Maryland case, which was argued on the first day of the Court's term last October, the ruling weakens the so-called Edwards v. Arizona rule, which states that, once a suspect invokes Miranda, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary -- making further police questioning improper.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, carved out an exception to that rule when there is a "break in custody" between the first and subsequent police efforts to question the suspect. In the case before the Court, defendant Michael Shatzer Sr., who was in prison on other charges at the time, asserted his Miranda rights in 2003 when police tried to question him about sexually abusing his son.

The investigation was closed, but more than two years later was reopened and he was questioned again in 2006, while still in prison. Investigators read him his rights again, he signed a waiver, and made incriminating comments about the episode with his son. Indicted on abuse charges, Shatzer sought to have his interview suppressed because of the 1981 Edwards rule. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's high court, sided with Shatzer, citing the Edwards rule.

Scalia said the Edwards rule should not act as an "eternal" bar against further police questioning. "In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, this consequence is disastrous." In the interest of producing a clear rule on the issue, Scalia said the Court agreed that, after a 14-day "break of custody," police may try to question a suspect again without fear that a subsequent confession would be suppressed. "That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life ... and to shake off any residual coercive effect of his prior custody," Scalia wrote. In Shatzer's case, Scalia said the fact that he was actually in prison during the "break in custody" did not alter the calculus. Justices Clarence Thomas and John Paul Stevens joined Scalia's decision except for the 14-day duration of the new rule.

In Tuesday's Florida v. Powell ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that Tampa, Fla., police had satisfied the requirements of Miranda even though its warning did not explicitly tell the suspect that he had the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Interviewed in connection with a 2004 robbery, Kevin Powell was told he had "the right to talk to a lawyer" before answering police questions, and that he could use "any of these rights at any time you want" during the interview. The Florida Supreme Court said this wording was inadequate and misleading and the confession should be suppressed.

But Ginsburg said that, in combination, the Tampa police warnings "reasonably conveyed Powell's right to have an attorney present at all times." She noted that the FBI, like many other jurisdictions, explicitly state the right to have a lawyer present, "but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda's requirements."

A third Miranda case is still pending this term. Berghius v. Tompkins, which will be argued on March 1, asks whether police can try to noncoercively persuade a suspect to answer questions after the Miranda warning has been given, but before the suspect has invoked or waived the right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TO ADD

http://www.fightcps.com/articles/whattodo.html

http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
http://nhdcyf.info/first_contact.html

http://www.massoutrage.com/ma/cps-resources/what-to-do-if-dcf-comes-to-your-door/

Idea Description (Originally Posted 5/2/08 on IdeaBlog)

1. Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case Law

Comments from Contributor

Truth in Justice has this to say on their website: "Truth in Justice is an educational non-profit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U. S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible."

"Why should you be concerned about wrongful conviction? The cases here make the answer clear: it can happen to anyone, including you. What can you do? Educate yourself. Ask questions. Think. Stop rewarding malfeasance. It starts with just one person. It starts with YOU."

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS
Prof. Paul Cassell

Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule

Original Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202444486063&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100225&kw=

Idea Description (Originally Posted 5/2/08 on IdeaBlog)

1. Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case Law

Comments from Contributor

Truth in Justice has this to say on their website: "Truth in Justice is an educational non-profit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U. S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible."

"Why should you be concerned about wrongful conviction? The cases here make the answer clear: it can happen to anyone, including you. What can you do? Educate yourself. Ask questions. Think. Stop rewarding malfeasance. It starts with just one person. It starts with YOU."

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS Prof. Paul Cassell

Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule

Original Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202444486063&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100225&kw=

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS
Prof. Paul Cassell