I've posted this before.

OFF THE WIRE
I've posted this before. I should note that these guidelines from 2009 are a result of direct action by BOLT. And by that I mean a deliberate action to acquire helmet tickets then challenging that ticket in court, including lawsuits against the CHP. AND as a reminder we currently have a Federal Class Action lawsuit against CHP and Sacramento Sheriffs Department. The attached is the most current CHP guidelines that I have. BUT, CHP does not make law.

This is not law it is their own guidelines...that all Allied Agencies are to follow. And we all know that many times law enforcement just does what they want, regardless of law. So if you truly care about freedom and that little spark of your American heritage lights up, learn how to fight.
If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

BABE OF THE DAY

CHICAGO - Jefferson Park, Portage Park & Norwood ParkPoliticsTransportation Here's Where Red-Light Cameras Are Being Installed, Removed

OFF THE WIRE
By Heather Cherone

JEFFERSON PARK — Red-light cameras at six intersections will be removed after a study by the Northwestern University Transportation Center found that they did nothing to protect motorists, city officials announced.
The red-light cameras to be removed did not reduce the number of crashes even though there were a high number of violations recorded, according to the study by the traffic center.
Two cameras will be removed from each of the following intersections:
• 95th Street and Stony Island Avenue
•​ Western Avenue and 71st Street
•​ Western Avenue and Pershing Road
•​ Grand and Oak Park avenues

•​  Irving Park Road and Kedzie Avenue
•​ Peterson Avenue and Pulaski Road.
At the same time, city officials have proposed installing new red-light cameras at five intersections where officials said they might be more effective.
Two cameras will be will be installed at each of the following intersections:
• Wacker Drive and Lake Street
• Michigan Avenue and Jackson Boulevard
• Dearborn and Grand avenues
• Pershing Road and Martin Luther King Drive.
In addition, four cameras will be installed at Central Avenue, Foster Avenue, Northwest Highway and Milwaukee Avenue.
The new locations for the red-light cameras were picked "based on traffic volume, the design of the intersection, a high number of angle and turning crashes and a low number of rear-end crashes," officials said.
Transportation officials will hold community meetings before any red-light camera is removed or installed.
The 104-page study from the Northwestern University Traffic Center compared before-and-after crash data at 85 intersections with red-light cameras to 103 intersections that were not monitored by cameras.
Chicago's red-light camera program should continue because it led to a 19 percent reduction in serious side-angle and turning crashes, a 10 percent reduction in injury-producing crashes and a measurable “spillover effect” that improved safety at intersections without cameras, according to the study.
However, rear-end crashes increased 14 percent at intersections with red-light cameras as compared with those that did not have the cameras.
"Federal traffic safety research has found that side-angle crashes cause five times more damage than rear-end crashes as well as being more likely to cause fatalities and serious injuries," according to a statement from Chicago transportation officials.
The cameras became a major issue in the 2015 mayoral race, with Cook County Board Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia vowing to remove all the red-light cameras if elected.
A few days after Garcia's announcement, Emanuel announced he would remove 50 cameras at 25 intersections and give red-light violators a chance to attend traffic school in lieu of paying $100 for a first violation.

In all, Emanuel has removed 78 red-light cameras at 39 intersections since taking office, leaving 306 red-light cameras at 151 intersections.

BABE OF THE DAY

Supreme Court: Warrant Is Required To Search Cell Phones

OFF THE WIRE
Know your rights! They cannot legally search your phone.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision ruled police need a warrant to search the cell phone of a person who has been arrested, except in special circumstances. Interestingly, wikileaks has also shown the CIA uses our phones to spy on us. It is important to know your rights when you are stopped by police.
“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”

MSNBC reported the high court took two cases involving cell phone searches, one involving a smartphone and the other involving a relatively basic flip phone. In both cases, police used information on each phone to connect the plaintiffs to crimes. San Diego Police used pictures in David Leon Riley’s smartphone, and the guns they found in his trunk after pulling him over for a traffic violation, to tie him to a local faction of the Bloods street gang and an earlier shooting. In Boston, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of being involved in selling drugs and a picture linked to a phone call on his flip phone to a stash of crack cocaine.

The decision will likely have long-lasting implications for digital privacy, far beyond the immediate concern surrounding how and when police can search a mobile device. Police are typically allowed to search an individual after an arrest, but Roberts wrote that the amount of personal information contained on a cell phone made such a search different from the usual objects authorities might find when asking someone to empty their pockets.
“A cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house,” he wrote. “A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form—unless the phone is.”

Understandably, the court still allows the exception in cases where there is imminent danger to someone:

The court held that the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement also applied to cell phones – that is, imminent danger to life or the possibility that evidence would be destroyed might justify searching a phone without a warrant. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurrence, opened the door to further exceptions. Alito wrote that he would “reconsider the question presented here if either Congress or state legislatures, after assessing the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the privacy interests of cell phone owners, enact legislation that draws reasonable distinctions based on categories of information or perhaps other variables.”

Civil libertarian groups argued that advances in technology mean that the right of individuals to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers or effects” as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution mean that police should seek warrants before searching suspects’ mobile devices. The government’s opinion was that people do not deserve the right to privacy or security because phones aid criminals, and remote wiping and encryption could be used to destroy or conceal evidence of serious crimes.

Ultimately, court was unanimous in its judgment when it sided with the people and civil liberties groups in their interpretation of the fourth amendment.