BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

Annual SFV Toy Run.

OFF THE WIRE

Thought Of The Day

“Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided upon is being carried out.”
Ronald Reagan

Where Police Can & Can't Snoop Through Your Phone

OFF THE WIRE
Kashmir Hill , FORBES STAFF

A privacy issue has been brewing in the U.S. for years now: if the police arrest you, should they be able to snoop through your iPhone like a jealous lover? Judges across the country have come to different conclusions as to whether a search of a phone without a warrant is an unreasonable one, setting up a legal disagreement that will likely need to be settled by the Supreme Court. (Update 8/19/13: They've been officially asked to do so.) For now, the differing decisions mean that the privacy of the photos, texts, emails, contacts, call logs, and 'Bang With Friends' app on your phone of choice varies from state to state.

Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has compiled a rough guide of where warrantless cell phone searches are allowed and not allowed when arresting someone based on rulings in state and federal courts "that have looked at the legal issue head on." FORBES has turned that into the map below. Red states are those where your phone can be searched when you're arrested. Blue states are those where police need to get a warrant to take a look inside those information-rich devices. Yellow states have no precedent set yet. Clicking on the map will take you to a court decision that helped determine the state's color:

"Cellphones are a potential treasure trove for law enforcement officers seeking evidence of a crime. When a person is arrested with a cellphone on him, law enforcement officers will likely want to search the phone’s contents," wrote Bridget Rohde in a Law360 article earlier this year on the lack of a clear rule on this around the country. A precedent-setting case in 1973involving drugs found in a cigarette carton in someone's pocket established that the po-po can search "containers" people have on them when arrested. Where courts have disagreed is whether the information held in a phone is so vast that it should be treated differently. Unlike a cigarette carton, looking through a phone is as intimate as searching a person's house as today's mobile devices contain schedules, contacts, history of communication, private correspondence, financial apps, medical apps, time-wasting games, and inevitably, some racy photos. Having the right to look through phones means police could take a suspect into custody for the chance to search the many planets of intel in a Samsung Galaxy for evidence, or could wind up stumbling upon something incriminating on a Droid while arresting its owner for being at a protest or rally.

Most of the blue parts of the map only recently became that way thanks to decisions this year in Florida and in the First Circuit. The Florida case involved Cedric Smallwood, a man suspected of robbing a convenience store in Jacksonville of about $15,000 in 2008. After Smallwood was identified by witnesses, police got a warrant to arrest him. They seized his phone, and while scrolling through it found photos that made a perfect (and romantic) infographic for the crime: a photo of a handgun taken before the robbery, a photo of Smallwood's girlfriend holding a bundle of money the day after the robbery, a photo of a handgun next to a fanned-out stack of cash four days after the robbery, and an image of hands with engagement rings five days after the robbery. In other words, the cellphone search made the prosecution's job a whole lot easier.

Smallwood challenged the search of his cellphone on appeal saying police should have gotten a warrant to look through it first. Florida's Supreme Court agreed with him. "We refuse to authorize government intrusion into the most private and personal details of an arrestee's life without a search warrant simply because the cellular phone device which stores that information is small enough to be carried on one's person," wrote the Florida judges in May. A Florida sheriff's office says they are now writing warrants that include the right to search phones, but this protects someone who might be 'casually arrested,' say for being at a protest.

The same month, the federal court for the First Circuit reached the same conclusion in U.S. v. Wurie, saying the police shouldn't have searched a Boston man's phone without a warrant after they saw him engaged in a drug sale in a car.

"The storage capacity of today's cell phones is immense.... That information is, by and large, of a highly personal nature: photographs, videos, written and audio messages (text, email, and voicemail), contacts, calendar appointments, web search and browsing history, purchases, and financial and medical records,'" wrote the First Circuit judges in their ruling, which put northeast states into the blue. "It is the kind of information one would previously have stored in one's home and that would have been off-limits to officers performing a search incident to arrest."

"The First Circuit and Florida Supreme Court issued their decisions  weeks apart from each other earlier this year meaning that for a while prohibiting cell phone searches incident to arrest was clearly the minority position," says EFF's Fakhoury. "There's greater momentum now."

Back in 2011, after California's Supreme Court ruled that it was okay to look through people's phones when you arrested them, the legislature tried to pass a law to protect phones, but the governor vetoed it. There are no other states with laws on the books about the practice. Now that federal courts have disagreed on the question, it sets the stage for a showdown at the nation's highest court. The First Circuit declined to revisit its Wurie decision this week with its chief judge writing that he hopes it will "speed this case to the Supreme Court."

FROM THE WEB

• 01.

  Cell Phone Monitoring Software
• 02.

  New Phones to Buy

• 03.

  Samsung Cell Phone Deals
• 04.

  Top 5 Senior Phone Plans
• 05.

  Cell http://487722824.keywordblocks.com/Cell_Phone_Spying.cfm?&vsid=1547330569053132&vi=1511804825687436836&dytm=1511805139687&rtbsd=11&npgv=1&kbbq=%26sde%3D1%26adepth%3D1%26ddepth%3D1&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Csde%3D1%7C%40%7Cadepth%3D1%7C%40%7Cddepth%3D1&verid=121199&hvsid=00001511805139044012205905311109&upk=1511805139.11841&sttm=1511805139044&=&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&kp=8&kbc=153759&kt=307&ki=5406855&ktd=6597908758844&kbc2=0%7C%7Crpc%3D0.90&fdkt=307&fp=G_lRe64-7i5EeY9qABvjqxs9eDWFsCmM_ien7lrz-DXDy5lxAdBw43ES1Ipa34u3lM_gljdX8n0s8Bn-tueo0kIlK7aa4IjQqJR3m11hlU2E8RqakFeU0WYD4P7wl_KZ&c=w4pPzGCM-9d7AydWDam4-Q&cme=dJosZ_ALepKYewc1RC2p5Jx4aCTNje4Qw5I-_4xH9PIKbHHir4u4JDIg2gskOlGc6iIfPY4DbQfCI8RF8J9TiW75sxFQ8kQllcRnOUyIrCeJ1LuouAkMwC5q4qxVrySVqpj47HVVVPu-7zepOSZoMHxH1SRolnYo23LAZ7sJfexm4TKJF6JxyIZMNI2c8bdFnd_9If1FeRzQaycYttfMnguvJQ7yn1Lz_gApAgQaZiY%3D%7C%7CNDHRnZ9Gz3KXlI-i9OnZqQ%3D%3D%7C5gDUJdTGiJzedmq9hanWYg%3D%3D%7CN7fu2vKt8_s%3D%7CqjL_UON6L9b2rj3slFSLqYgxi7ZtYDj5zFObpmkplvo7nkE7ec5rpuYI7IAkxUr_aqTEwACCmnM3jwQXp9fvadKvntJPdfDKdioJgMFPsrPn1apZTuiJvbZOKKopSUT2nPc7K7HFrsjuLQKiwTkmoaeI097JnfL2bFZCgVyUHaNxYyL9lJ68Gw%3D%3D%7CJf0d-WoAdPswlM4CPdQydpUSkC8WRfxaPGqlQu_w1UE%3D%7CW4RyKm8mcO6bu_O9-irYw0kziYEw8Uuzz1aXbkLpMTJHukzqWGCfHE752gjZdY-QrM4vJt0aYEg_my15KSuoaCAKd2mq3g2aGycBOWvtYTQkvbE0kmhI8rRFHIgqM48Ovb19jPQzbNuB8eODyL2DxSh1nR0axSB5pcVsYfVgg9g%3D%7C&ib=0&lpid=&tsid=1616&ksu=224&chid=&https=0&kwdsMaxTm=400&ugd=4&maxProviderPixel1=%2F%2Fc.ad-srv.co%2Fpixel&maxProviderPixel2=%2F%2Fc.adyield.co%2Fpixel&rms=1511804827&&abpl=2&asn=22773&clsKb=2&ecref=w77EQ%3ASSBBB.kmLGJQ.NmYSkmLGJQSBJjNmYJS%3F7mPDTvw77EQ%3ASSBBB.kmLGJQ.NmYSQ87JQSU1QwY8Lw8jjSf9uAS9hSAuS1oY1EomkoBwJLJoEmj8NJoN1zoQJ1LNwo5mxLoEwmzJoBwJzo7wJ5o1LLJQ7o5mxS%26LJkPDTvw77EQ%3ASSBBB.ymmyjJ.NmYS%26LJkJLLJLvw77EQ%3ASSBBB.ymmyjJ.NmYS

1ST ANNUAL TEMECULA BIKE BLESSING 3/24/2018

We're putting together temecula's first annual bike blessing. Date will be March 24, 2018. I am looking for sponsors and vendors. Sponsors logo will be put on the back of event T-shirts. To become a sponsor minimum donation of $100. for a $500 dollar donation from a sponsors their logo will be printed on sleeve of event T-shirt. To become a vendor donate $100 and a raffle prize to set up a booth at the event. Space will be Limited so send your donation and commit early It's a Great opportunity to showcase your business to the local community for such a good cause.

Mission: Collaboration of clubs in a joint venture to conduct the First Annual Temecula Bike Blessing.
Purpose: To change the common Perceptions and stereotypes portrayed by media to our local community.
Goal: to raise money for local charities of our choosing that will have a positive influence on the local community. PM ME FOR INFORMATION. please share.

State Passes Massive Bill to Target and Track Bad Cops to Keep them Off Other Forces

 OFF THE WIRE
Hopefully more states follow suit!

A state just passed legislation to prevent "gypsy cops" from getting hired at new agencies without full disclosure of their past conduct.

By

Jack Burns

The State of Michigan is cracking down on “gypsy cops” or abusive, criminal police officers who resign, get fired, or retire from one department, only to later be hired at a different law enforcement agency.
Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to pass the bill which passed the Senate in March, and the House on Tuesday in a landslide vote of 105-2.
Republican Sen. Rick Jones introduced the bill after he claimed an Eaton County deputy—accused of an unlawful traffic stop where a citizen was abused—resigned and was immediately hired in Lenawee County, only to later be sued for allegedly assaulting two more citizens.

“It’s just a commonsense way we hope to combat the gypsy cop.”

The new state law, if signed by Snyder, will allow law enforcement agencies to share details with one another, surrounding an officer’s employment, separation and/or termination.

According to the South Bend Tribune, “The legislation would require law enforcement agencies to keep records about the circumstances surrounding any officer’s employment separation. The officer would have to sign a waiver allowing a prospective employer to ask for the records, and the department could not hire the officer unless it receives the documents.”
If the police accountability bill becomes law, it could seriously impact the current practice of many LEAs, which have allowed abusive officers to be able to migrate from one police department to another without any real accountability for his/her actions.

James reportedly told the South Bend Tribune that LEAs would provide as little information as possible about an officer’s work record out of fear of being sued. With the bill becoming law, police departments cannot be sued for releasing that information, and gypsy cops cannot be hired unless they provide all of the details relating to their work history as a law enforcement officer.

    “Under the measure, agencies would be required to let a separating officer review the separation record and to submit a written statement explaining the officer’s disagreement. The former employer would have to give a copy of the records to a prospective employer upon receiving a waiver.”

The law would also grant immunity to LEAs for disclosing an officer’s internal records to potential employers in good faith. Michigan’s law is believed to be some of the first pieces of such legislation in a nation struggling to come to grips with the phenomena of the “gypsy cops.”

National Killed by Police statistics reveal that around 1,200 people are killed every year by police officers. That number is likely much higher when taking other factors into account, such as accidents involving vehicles, jailhouse deaths, and deaths that do not get reported to the news.
One such police officer who may be looking to become a “gypsy cop,” is Patrolman Jeffery Wijnen-riems of Beaver Borough in Beaver County, Pennslyvania. Wijnen-riems reportedly resigned on Tuesday, after he was named as a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit.

As TFTP reported, Wijnen-riems sicced his K9 on a motorist who was complying with all of the officer’s commands at the time the dog was let loose. Later, the officer bragged to dispatch about the physical damage done to James Edward Cicco.

After Cicco pulled his car over for the officer, Wijnen-riems opened up Cicco’s car door and then began to attempt to extricate the man from his small SUV. The officer can be seen placing Cicco in a painful wrist-lock, which had the potential to break the man’s wrists. The patrolman then began cranking his arm behind his back, another move intended to break either the man’s arm or dislocate his shoulder.

Instead of placing the man in handcuffs, Wijnen-riems went back to his vehicle and released his attack dog, a German-Shepherd. As Cicco sees the dog approaching, he jumped back into his car and shut the door, as anyone afraid of police attack dogs may do.

Once again, Officer Wijnen-riems opened the car door, this time aided by his dog, who began to viciously attack Cicco, biting him under the arm, in the armpit, and on the back, creating gaping wounds.
READ MORE:  "Above the Law"? Caravan of Cops Get Free Pass Despite All of Them Being Caught Speeding

The small-town police officer, who some are now calling a bully, then charged Cicco with fleeing the scene, and eluding arrest, and driving without a license. Cicco fought the charges and his case was brought to trial. The jury could not agree on a verdict, ending the court case in a mistrial.

The district attorney reportedly said he would not retry Cicco, and now the man is suing for having his civil rights violated in an apparent excessive use of force.

Cicco was severely injured during the mauling with bites producing gaping holes in his flesh. According to the Beaver Countian:

    James Cicco was transported to UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh, where he was admitted with multiple injuries. Photos later taken of James Cicco and provided to the Beaver Countian show large wounds in several places on his body, including a gaping hole exposing his chest cavity. Photos said to be of the shirt he wore that day appear to show pieces of flesh still stuck to it.

“This entire incident resulted over an aggressive police officer who was upset because on the way to non-emergency call Mr. Cicco didn’t get out of way fast enough,” Cicco’s lawyer Geraldo Benyo said. The attorney said his client’s fears of police brutality, “turned out to be pretty accurate with having the fear.”

Now, it seems, Wijnen-riems may be looking for another job as a police officer, effectively characterizing him as the type of “gypsy cop” Michigan is attempting to prevent from being rehired with their new legislation.

The Beaver K9 was retired in September following the scandal. It is unclear whether or not Wijnen-riems has already found employment with another LEA but if so, we hope he has learned his lesson. We applaud Michigan for enacting laws which will hopefully prevent “gypsy cops” from continuing their patterns of abuse throughout their careers and we sincerely hope other states follow Michigan’s example.

AMA Amicus Brief

OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com

Yesterday, the American Motorcyclist Association filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in a little publicized motorcyclist’s rights case titled Ryan Austin Collins v. Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a Suzuki case which is one of the reasons readers here may not have heard of it. You may care about it anyway.

“On June 4, 2013, Officer Matthew McCall of the Albemarle County Police Department was patrolling on Route 29 near the border of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville when he observed a traffic infraction by the operator of an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame. Officer McCall activated his emergency lights and attempted to stop the motorcycle, but the motorcycle eluded him at a high rate of speed.”

Several weeks later the Suzuki outran David Rhodes, another Albemarle County cop. Rhodes eventually came to suspect that the speedy rider was Ryan Collins. Collins denied he had the Suzuki.

No Warrant

Eventually, Rhodes entered Collins’ property while Collins was gone without a warrant and found the speeding motorcycle under a motorcycle cover. When he looked at the VIN, Rhodes determined that the bike was stolen. When Collins returned, he denied having ridden the motorcycle. Rhodes then searched Collins and found the bike key in Collins pocket.

Collins argued that the warrantless search was illegal. Eventually, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that, because Collins’ vehicle was a motorcycle and not a car or truck, the officer who searched under Collins’ motorcycle cover did not need a warrant to do so.”

In yesterday’s friend of the court brief, the AMA argued that the police should have a warrant before they can legally search a parked motorcycle. The brief argues that the “Court’s analysis should not be affected by the fact the vehicle searched was a motorcycle rather than a car or truck…. There is nothing inherently suspicious – and no inherent justification for a search – in the use or ownership of a motorcycle.”

In a press release issued today, AMA President and CEO Rob Dingman said that “motorcyclists’ rights can be threatened at all levels – and branches – of government.’

“The AMA and its members must be vigilant at all times, because we can never know where the next threat will be,” Dingman said. “The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter on matters of Constitutional rights, and the Court’s decisions direct the enforcement of law across the country at all levels. When motorcyclists’ freedoms are before the Court, it’s critical that we speak forcefully and convincingly to defend those rights.”

Here is a dissenting opinion from the appellate court.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1748177.html

USA - Does cellphone-sweeping 'StingRay' technology go too far?

OFF THE WIRE

• By COLLEEN LONG, ASSOCIATED PRESS
 

NEW YORK — Nov 25, 2017,

New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Las Vegas are among scores of police departments across the country quietly using a highly secretive technology developed for the military that can track the whereabouts of suspects by using the signals constantly emitted by their cellphones.Civil liberties and privacy groups are increasingly raising objections to the suitcase-sized devices known as StingRays or cell site simulators that can sweep up cellphone data from an entire neighborhood by mimicking cell towers. Police can determine the location of a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message. Some versions of the technology can even intercept texts and calls, or pull information stored on the phones.Part of the problem, privacy experts say, is the devices can also collect data from anyone within a small radius of the person being tracked. And law enforcement goes to great lengths to conceal usage, in some cases, offering plea deals rather than divulging details on the StingRay."We can't even tell how frequently they're being used," said attorney Jerome Greco, of the Legal Aid Society, which recently succeeded in blocking evidence collected with the device in a New York City murder case. "It makes it very difficult"At least 72 state and local law enforcement departments in 24 states plus 13 federal agencies use the devices, but further details are hard to come by because the departments that use them must take the unusual step of signing nondisclosure agreements overseen by the FBI.An FBI spokeswoman said the agreements, which often involve the Harris Corporation, a defense contractor that makes the devices, are intended to prevent the release of sensitive law enforcement information to the general public. But the agreements don't prevent an officer from telling prosecutors the technology was used in a case.In New York, use of the technology was virtually unknown to the public until last year when the New York Civil Liberties Union forced the disclosure of records showing the NYPD used the devices more than 1,000 times since 2008. That included cases in which the technology helped catch suspects in kidnappings, rapes, robberies, assaults and murders. It has even helped find missing people.But privacy experts say such gains come at too high a cost."We have a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," said Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, referring to the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. "Our Founding Fathers decided when they wrote the Bill of Rights there had to be limits placed on government."Lawmakers in several states have introduced proposals ranging from warrant requirements to an outright ban on the technology; about a dozen states already have laws requiring warrants. Federal law enforcement said last year that it would be routinely required to get a search warrant before using the technology — a first effort to create a uniform legal standard for federal authorities.And case law is slowly building. Two months ago, a Washington, D.C., appeals court overturned a conviction on a sex assault after judges ruled a violation of the Fourth Amendment because of evidence improperly collected from the simulator without a proper warrant.In the New York murder case argued by the Legal Aid Society, a judge in Brooklyn last month ruled that the NYPD must have an eavesdropping warrant signed by a judge to use the device, a much higher bar than the "reasonable suspicion" standard that had previously been required."By its very nature, then, the use of a cell site simulator intrudes upon an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, acting as an instrument of eavesdropping and requires a separate warrant supported by probable cause," wrote state Supreme Court Judge Martin Murphy.New York City police officials disagreed with the ruling and disputed that a StingRay was even used in the case, even though there had been a court order to do so. Police officials also said they have since started requiring a higher stander of probable cause when applying for the devices.Legal Aid Society's Greco said he hoped the ruling will push the nation's largest department into meeting the higher standard, and help judges better understand the intricacies of more cutting-edge surveillance."We're hoping we can use this decision among other decisions being made across the country to show that this logic is right," Greco said. "Part of an issue we're facing with technology, the judges don't understand it. It makes it easier if another judge has sat down and really thought about it."

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report from Washington.

Thought Of The Day

“The world is changing so fast that you cannot bask in any sort of passivity, because it doesn’t exist anymore”
Ronald Perelman, Businessman and Investor

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE DAY

How Long Does THC Stay in Your System?

OFF THE WIRE
How Long Does THC Stay in Your System?    
 I think we've all looked this up at one point lol

                                     by Emma Ryte on 03/05/2017

It is common for employers to drug test employees, and for marijuana users it isn’t unusual to wonder – how long does THC actually stay in the body? Well, of all of the intoxicants human beings like to indulge in, THC is one of the longest lasting in the body. The amount of time THC spends in the body depends on a couple different factors, such as metabolism, frequency of use and method of drug testing. It is probably one of the most common questions among marijuana users – how long will THC stay in your system? The truth of the matter is that it varies from individual to individual, and it will depend on a couple of different factors. For example, most employers take a urine sample to test for drugs, whereas traffic enforcers might take a saliva sample. There are even certain drug tests that are taken from a hair sample (although that’s an unlikely event). Most importantly, all of us metabolise at different rates. These are the kinds of things that affect how long marijuana is traceable in your body.
Considering all of the different factors will allow you to make the most accurate judgment on how long cannabis will be detectable in your body. This article is a guide to all the things that affect how long marijuana is in your blood.

How are you being tested on THC?

THC in saliva

Of all the ways to drug test, THC lives for the shortest time in saliva. Mouth swabs are the most common way to drug test drivers. In general, a person can test positive for THC in saliva within 1 hour of using, and can last for up to 12 hours. Frequent smokers may test positive for longer than 12 hours (or perhaps they just never go longer than 12 hours without a smoke), so that’s something to keep in mind. It is unlikely anybody would test positive to THC through saliva 24 hours after smoking.

THC in urine

This is the most common way for employers to test for THC. This is also the method whereby how often you smoke has the biggest bearing on how long THC stays in your system. Even if you are an infrequent user, urine testing can come back positive even after a few days. There has been a case recorded where a smoker of ten years tested positive for a urine test 67 days after stopping. As you might expect, the more frequently you smoke, the longer you can predict it will stay in your system.
Most urine tests are testing for a substance called THC-COOH, which is what THC turns into after your liver has broken it down. It is metabolized from the main ingredient of weed responsible for your high – THC. The difference between these two substances is that THC-COOH lingers around in the body for much longer than THC. This metabolite of THC is also extremely hydrophobic, meaning it avoids water in general, and ends up in the oily and fatty parts of the body. This is what gives THC a cumulative effect in the body, meaning it’s detectable for a long time in the body (after stopping use) especially for chronic pot smokers.
In general, if you have just smoked your first joint or use infrequently (less than once a month), then you could test positive on a urine test for up to four days. After that, you’re basically clear. If you smoke frequently (once a week), you can test positive for up to 10 days after the last use. For chronic users, there are studies that show your urine can test positive for THC for one month after your last use. All of this is based on average urine testing standards, which is 50 ng/mL, according to the National Drug Court Institute.
To be safe, it’s better to stop your marijuana use well ahead of these times to ensure that you won’t test positive after an interview for the job of your dreams.

THC in hair and blood

Hair and blood are unlikely ways to be tested for marijuana. Interestingly, if THC does bind to the hair follicle, which is not always guaranteed, it is only detectable 7 days after use, and can be detected for up to 90 days afterwards if use is frequent. After THC is metabolized it begins to appear in the blood as THC-COOH, which coincidentally doesn’t bind to blood for nearly as long as it binds to the liver. As a result, blood tests only detect very recent use of marijuana.

Are there ways to pass a urine test?

There are a few old wives tales out there about how to pass a urine test, and there are also some products available on the market that encourage the process. But do any of them really work? There’s no way to really know for sure unless you try it. It has been suggested to drink loads of water in the days leading up to a drug test, as this naturally cleanses the body of all toxins. This is probably a reasonable way to deal with it, and this includes having a diet that is cleansing as well. However, it’s important to beware that urine that has been heavily diluted can also be detected as being tampered with, so overdoing it could get you into more trouble.
The only real way to know if you’re about to test positive to a drug test is to go out and get yourself a home testing kit. These are available online and in shops these days and give you an opportunity to drug test yourself at home. Of course, they claim to be extremely sensitive and accurate, but we can’t back up their claims. You will have to try for yourself! This method is the closest you could get to knowing the results of your drug test before you actually take it.
The safest way to avoid testing positive is to take a long break from using marijuana. As stated before, it is one of the longest lasting intoxicants in the human body, meaning even alcohol and methamphetamines pass through the body faster. As a result, detecting even an intermittent weed smoker can be easy for employers. As more and more countries begin to legalize marijuana, it’s possible that employer drug testing will become more lenient.

Categories: Consumption

---

BABE OF THE DAY

BABE OF THE WEEK / More with the Cheetah girl.

California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition

OFF THE WIRE

Here’s the information I mentioned in the ABATE Local 6 November meeting notice sent today…

The California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition is in the process of setting up a Call to Action network.  The motorcycle community is being asked to join in the effort.  Please read the message below (also attached).   We hope you are interested in being in the data base and helping:

• Respond by clicking on this link antiprofilingbill@abate.org, and provided the information requested (see paragraph 3).  PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH “REPLY ALL”.
• Forward this important information to your club members, friends, etc. 
• Should you have any questions, please let me know and I’ll try to get an answer for you.  You can also send a message to antiprofilingbill@abate.orgwith questions. 

Thank you, 

Nancy Nemecek

V.P. ABATE Local 6

California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition

Fellow Motorcyclist:

This letter has been sent to you by the California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition: Steering Committee.

We are a group of Motorcyclist Rights Organizations (MRO), Confederation Of Clubs (COC), Independents, and others that have banded together and have been working with the Motorcycle Profiling Project http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.comon a motorcyclist anti-profiling bill since 2016.  We are now putting together a “Call-To-Action” (CTA) process and email list for individuals who wish to be notified when to contact their local legislator to take a specific action.

If you wish to engage in this important process, click on this link antiprofilingbill@abate.org and provide your email address. Additional information such as your name and zip code, used to determine your local legislative district would be helpful, but not required.  Our goal is to maintain your privacy.  Additionally, please help us get the word out by forwarding these emails to individuals on your email list that might be willing to take action as well.  Please do NOT “reply” to this email, we need all your information, questions, or comments sent to antiprofilingbill@abate.org so that we can process your email in a timely manner.

The California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition consists of many motorcycle related groups including but not limited to COC, MRO, BRO, AMA, and ABATE.  Although the email address that you are sending your information to is on an ABATE group, your information will remain private and will only be used for the purpose of this anti-profiling bill.  We have chosen to use an ABATE group because ABATE is already set up with Google Groups and is offering us usage of their IT resources free of charge.

Also, if you want to get involved more than just contacting your representatives when asked by us to do so, please contact us and we will let you know other ways you can help.

Thank you,

California Motorcyclist Anti-Profiling Coalition

antiprofilingbill@abate.org