1] Protect your rights when speaking with police!
2] Don't Be Your Own Worst Enemy
3] SURVIVING A TRAFFIC STOP
4] The criminal justice system is dead
5] MY JOURNEY TO LIBERTARIANVILLE

- articles by Marc J. Victor

1] You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:

I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location or any vehicle or effects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Article Two of the Arizona Constitution. I demand to have my attorney present prior to and throughout any questioning at all. Additionally, I wish to consult with my attorney prior to any discussion with law enforcement officers on the subject of waiver. http://www.victorandhall.com/practiceareas.asp#rights

2] DON'T BE YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY! by Marc J. Victor http://www.victorandhall.com/worstenemy.asp

I cringe to think how many times clients come into my office to discuss their criminal matter with me only to learn they have done possibly irreparable damage to their case. I have found few people who are aware of their constitutional rights.

Your awareness of some simple concepts may serve you well in the event you or a loved one is the unfortunate subject of a criminal investigation. First of all, always remember, you are not required to talk to the police. There may be occasions where your persuasive oral skills will serve to get you a stern warning instead of a costly ticket; however, talking with the police will rarely benefit you when the investigation is for a crime.

In addition, talking to friends and family about your criminal matter is usually not a good idea either. Although you do not expect a friend or family member to compromise your case, you may put him or her in an unfair position. A prosecutor may summon your family member or friend to the witness stand in a criminal trial and ask questions about your statements. Such a dilemma will force your family member or friend to decide between perjury and possibly hurting your case.

Don't get caught up by the fact that the police officer failed to inform you of your "Miranda Rights." These are your rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. So long as you are not under "arrest" the police officer may properly ask you questions without informing you of these rights.

You are never required to consent to a search. If a police officer has a search warrant, you must permit the search. However, if a search warrant has not yet been obtained, you should insist the officer obtain one before you voluntarily allow a search. The fact that you insist upon a search warrant does not mean you have something to hide. Rather, it is a confirmation of the constitutional concept that police do not have the right to arbitrarily conduct searches of your property.

A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However, a police officer is always allowed to initiate a voluntary conversation with you. Sometimes it is unclear whether or not a person is detained. If you are in doubt, you should ask the police officer if you are in fact free to leave.

If you are arrested, Arizona law mandates that you will be brought before a judge within twenty-four hours. This is an important hearing for you. The judge will decide what conditions, if any, must be met before you can be released from jail. You have a right to retain an attorney for this hearing to argue for your release.

Regarding the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, the best advice is to have a designated driver. However, if you are the subject of a DUI investigation, you must be especially careful and thoughtful about what you say and do. In Arizona, a conviction for DUI guarantees a jail term.

Arizona law does not require you to submit to roadside field sobriety tests. Although these tests may assist you to convince an officer you are not intoxicated, as a general rule, refusing to take the tests is the better choice. Keep in mind, it is the police officer who subjectively decides whether you passed or failed the tests.

Deciding whether to submit to a blood, breath or urine test is a different matter altogether. If you refuse one of these tests, you will likely lose your driver's license for one year. You should consult an attorney before deciding to refuse or submit to one of these tests.

DUI is a complex area of the criminal law. However, like other criminal charges, the decisions you make during your initial contact with a police officer can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.

3] Being pulled over by a police officer can be a stressful experience. Although life is full of such experiences, unlike many other stressful experiences, a traffic stop has the potential to end in a loss of money, liberty or even life. No two traffic stops are entirely identical. Therefore, the advisable course of conduct will vary depending on the situation. However, there are some general rules which can be helpful in many situations.

The best piece of advice one can offer is to avoid being pulled over in the first place. A traffic stop offers nothing to be gained. The best case scenario for the driver is to leave as if the stop never occurred losing only some time. On the other hand, the downside can be disastrous.

Vehicle equipment violations such as expired tags or an unlit taillight equate to a neon sign on your car inviting a police officer to pull you over. Remember, a police officer can legally justify a traffic stop based on an equipment violation even if the police officer subjectively intended to investigate some unrelated issue. Moving violations such as speeding or failing to use turn signals also serve to legally justify a traffic stop. Avoid giving the police a free pass to pull you over.

Notwithstanding your best efforts, you may nonetheless find yourself being pulled over by the police. Needless to say, do not attempt to flee as this will earn you a felony charge as well as a very excited and unfriendly police officer at the end of the chase. Your main goal should be to survive the traffic stop with your life and liberty intact. A traffic stop is a terrible time to be testing out new legal theories or arguing about constitutional law. You can resolve any disputes with the police officer in court at a later date.

The law is well settled that a police officer can order both the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle at a traffic stop. However, do not exit the vehicle until the police officer orders you to do so. If you are fortunate enough to have a passenger at your traffic stop, you should ask the passenger to carefully observe all events. Your passenger may be an important witness if events during the traffic stop deteriorate.

Although there are many different varieties of police officers, you should expect a police officer who is nervous and possibly excited. Do not give the police officer reasons to be suspicious. Do not engage in any quick or covert movements. You should place both of your hands in plain view on the steering wheel.

If there ever exists a good time to socialize with a police officer, a traffic stop is not one of them. You should attempt to end the traffic stop as quickly as possible. You have no constitutional right to a friendly or courteous police officer. Do not demand to know the reason for the traffic stop. Remain calm, polite and respectful at all times even if you have to fake it. You should immediately produce your license, vehicle registration and auto insurance upon request. Plan ahead by storing these items in an easily accessible place so you are not fumbling around trying to find them in front of the police officer. Such conduct is often interpreted as alcohol or drug impairment.

Use your common sense. You should quickly assess the police officer. There are some excellent public servant type police officers who I often refer to as "peace officers." On the other hand, there are those who revel in the overwhelming amount of power afforded to police officers who I refer to as "law enforcement officers." You must use extraordinary caution when dealing with the law enforcement officer as things can escalate very quickly.

Most police officers are honest; some are not. Unless you personally know the police officer, you should not assume you are interacting with an honest person. Because we live in a time when mere possession can be a serious crime, a dishonest police officer can rather easily cause an innocent person to be charged with serious felony offenses.

Constitutional rights exist, at least in theory, to protect the innocent. Do not give your rights away. If this is not obvious to you by now, please see my article entitled, "Don't Be Your Own Worst Enemy." I always advise against consenting to any search or talking to a police officer. During a traffic stop, you should communicate your refusals especially politely. Always keep your main goal in mind at a traffic stop.

If you simply cannot resist the urge to talk to a police officer, I suggest you read the back of my business card. This is a good way to document exactly what you said to the police officer. Do not simply hand the card to the officer. Remember, nobody can invoke your rights but you.

As a general rule, you should not volunteer information or answer any questions about having a weapon. Said another way, do not open a potential can of worms. However, if the police officer is about to discover the presence of a weapon, you should inform the police officer about all details of the weapon so as to avoid an accident. Also, if you have a concealed weapons permit, you must produce the permit upon the officer's request.

If you are asked to sign an affidavit of service, sign it. Failure to sign an affidavit of service will likely result in an unnecessary arrest. In such a case, the officer had discretion to arrest you, but decided against it. You cannot waive your right to trial at a traffic stop. Even if you disagree with the charge, being arrested for failure to sign an affidavit of service will not strengthen your case.

If you are arrested, do not resist. Resisting even an unlawful arrest can earn you a felony charge. Expect a search of your vehicle and your person upon arrest. You should request to call an attorney immediately. If you are given a choice, do not opt to have your vehicle towed. You should expect to see a judge within twenty four hours, and you should try to arrange for an attorney at that hearing.

Traffic stops are not pleasant. However, handled with the right amount of tact, many traffic stops will result in nothing more than a waste of your time. Even for the more significant traffic stops, fighting it out in court is always a better choice than haggling with a police officer who has the power, and maybe the inclination, to arrest you.

4] A CELEBRATION FOR CRIMINALS by Marc J. Victor http://www.victorandhall.com/celebration.asp

I’m sure the central planners will be shocked. Considering the fine job the state has done administering or regulating the healthcare industry, the airline industry, the education system, the social security system, the economy, the tax system, and our national “defense,” who would have expected the state would ruin the criminal justice system?

I hope the central planners are happy. After years of abuse and contorting the criminal justice system for political gain, the party is over and the secret is out. The criminal justice system is dead. It does not produce justice nor does it protect people or their property.

My brother practices criminal defense law in Massachusetts. We often speculate about whether the ongoing collapse is more evident in Massachusetts, Arizona or somewhere else. Any observant criminal defense attorney in America will agree about the collapse. Even prosecutors and some police officers are figuring it out.

A recent article in the Arizona Republic quoted the presiding judge of the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court as stating, “The criminal justice system is in peril. And public safety is in peril.” Although the immoral criminal justice system squirms and struggles to avoid or reverse the collapse, the end result is inescapable. At some point in the future, I expect a complete and total collapse of the criminal “justice” system.

In Arizona, the state recently decided to terminate supervised probation for lower level felony offenders as a cost savings measure. As usual, the law of unintended consequences prevailed. Last week, I was informed that in response, a major prosecuting office decided to discontinue all probation plea offers to such lower level offenses. The combined net result of the cost savings policy will be to plead offenders to higher level offenses which carry even longer terms of probation. It was an impressive display.

I have personally witnessed guilty go free and innocent plead guilty. I have also witnessed peaceful people being treated as “real” criminals because they violated some law which, in a free society, would never have existed. Decent people and families have been devastated. The constitution has been devastated. This country now incarcerates over two million people; enough to form the 51st state. Despite this incarceration machine, crime is on the rise and we are no safer. In fact, I believe most people are in danger of being prosecuted for some act they never suspected was illegal.

A police officer recently told me of his thankfulness for the drug war as it keeps him employed. He also told me I should be glad as the drug war indirectly provides income for me as well. Although he had a point, I responded that I would be just fine without the drug war as I would simply defend people charged with “real” crimes. He responded that I would have difficulty making a living solely defending people who commit “real” crimes because the police don’t apprehend many of those.

Although virtually everyone now acknowledges the obvious and imminent collapse, the solution is nonetheless still disputed. The ever present call for even more money as a remedy persists. More money will benefit the justice system as well as additional funding has benefited all other areas of government.

As all pro-freedom advocates know, much of the solution lies in the drug war. The criminal justice system cannot be fixed and will never again produce justice unless and until the drug war ends. Considering the fact that I have been unable to find two prosecutors who will debate me on this point, I can say with certainty that many prosecutors realize the extensive evils of the drug war. I also know from private talks with judges that many on the bench agree as well. Unfortunately, speaking out on the issue is another matter.

As the police state grows and grows and grows, the definition of a “criminal” becomes ever more obscured. Until that definition is brought back into focus, people who violate the rights of others are more likely to flourish while peaceful people should fear harm from the real criminals both in and out of the justice system.

5] MY JOURNEY TO LIBERTARIANVILLE by Marc J. Victor http://www.victorandhall.com/libertarianville.asp

I’ve always been a loud mouth. Even as a young boy, my mother would often say, “Someday, that mouth of yours is going to get you in trouble.” Today, as a criminal defense attorney, I use that “mouth of mine” to help get people OUT of trouble. It wasn’t always that way.

Like most other loud mouths, I was always interested in politics. However, like almost all other Boston area Jews, I was surrounded by long time liberal Democrats. Although there may have been a time in my youth when I was in the presence of a Republican, such unpleasantness was always kept from me. I had always been informed that Democrats were “for the people” and Republicans were “for big business.” If there was more to the analysis, I never heard it.

Being most comfortable in the midst of any controversy, I think my youthful pronouncement that I had decided to be a Republican was more of a reaction against the Democrat Party monopoly than a statement of principle. To their credit, my parents informed me that my Republican leanings were OK so long as I did not publicize them in front of the elder generation. I think they believed it was just some crazy phase I was going through. Ultimately, they were correct.

At some point, I became a Republican because I agreed with what Republicans were saying. In addition to sounding whiny and wimpy, the Democrats always struck me as needing a babysitter to help with living their lives. The Republicans were talking about individual responsibility and low taxes. I really bought into the limited government concept. I started arguing with Democrats about everything; whether they wanted to argue or not.

I began my college career as a political science major at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. The school is not known for its great libertarian bent. I don’t know if being a socialist was a requirement to become a professor, but it sure seemed like it to me. I recall the permanent Marxist information table being a popular spot among many of the students. Everyone in my political science classes knew me. Some knew me as the loud mouth Republican idiot. Others just knew me as the loud mouth. I loved it.

Somewhere in the midst of my battles with liberals, I began to notice there were some pesky issues where the liberal Democrat voices made some sense. I couldn’t deny their good points on various individual rights issues such as free speech, sodomy laws, homosexuality, pornography, and separation of church and state.

Being tired of shoveling snow and a fan of the summertime, I transferred to Arizona State University as a justice studies major. In addition to having a few conservatives around, there was no Marxist table to be found at Arizona State University. Although my Republican views had started to moderate on some individual rights issues, I was still fool enough to extol the virtues of the war on drugs.

One day after class, I participated in a heated argument about the drug war. During my long walk to the poor man’s parking lot, the economic based argument against the drug war started to sink into my hard head. I could feel myself having to change my deeply held view about the drug war and adopt a pro-legalization position. Later, I realized those great Republican pronouncements about individual responsibility were not compatible with a war on drugs.

When I entered law school at Southwestern University in Los Angeles, I was a confused conservative; not comfortable with either the Republicans or the Democrats. In one sense I was better off because I could argue with both the Republicans and Democrats. Merely rejecting both parties didn’t stop me from being a loud mouth. Although I had positions on various issues, I lacked a coherent philosophical base.

One day, I met Professor Butler Shaffer. He told us to refer to him either as “Butler” or “God” if we weren’t comfortable using his first name. I figured out quickly this guy wasn’t a typical law professor. He showed up to class one day wearing a tee shirt with the word “anarchy” on it. I was intrigued.

Butler posed questions about self-ownership and the legitimacy of the constitution. He insisted that all political questions were really different versions of the same question, “Who makes the decision over property; the owner or someone else?” He boiled all questions down to a property analysis. I harassed the guy.

After endless hours kicking around the questions Butler posed, I started to understand. Butler gave me a book by Murray Rothbard that discussed the monetary system. I also read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland while I was pouring though the required law school reading. Butler invited me to two discussion groups entitled the Mencken Forum and the Nock Forum respectively. I attended both faithfully and became a libertarian junkie. I couldn’t get enough of the freedom philosophy.

After flirting with the Libertarian Party, I came to the realization that such a party is a contradiction in terms. Although I sympathize with political Libertarians, I do not count myself among them. On the other hand, I do not believe there is or can exist a centralized plan for freedom. I have come to believe there are two groups of people; those who coerce others and those who do not.

After almost ten years as a practicing criminal defense attorney, I can say few libertarians have fought the state more regularly. I am a libertarian on the front lines in the war against tyranny; an epic multigenerational and honorable struggle. My law firm www.victorandhall.com is strongly pro-freedom. I have hosted regular discussion groups, given speeches, hosted a radio show and sponsored debates. In 2000, I co-founded the Freedom Summit www.freedomsummit.com with my partner and libertarian guerilla warrior Ernest Hancock.

Although neither the Mencken Forum nor the Nock Forum continue, the Freedom Summit exists to hopefully rescue lost libertarian souls from the intellectual chaos that prevails today. In the end, my mom was right. It is my loud mouth that will most likely get me into trouble. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have it any other way.