Community Care Taking

Commonwealth v Jones-Pannell 472 Mass 429: Identifying the moment of seizure is a crucial question for purposes of deciding to suppress.

Deyo v Montgomery County Sheriffs Office U.S. Dist Lexis 215207: (Community care-taking divorced from the detection, investigation or acquisition of evidence relating to violations of a criminal statute.)

Commonwealth v Lindsy 72 Mass App Ct 485, 492, 893 N.E. 2d 52: [The emergency exception to Miranda], This exception applies to a narrow class of circumstances; "[tine injury sought to be avoided must be immediate and serious, and the mere existence of a potentially harmful circumstance is not sufficient." Commonwealth v. Kirschner, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 836, 841-842 (2006).

Commonwealth v Sondrini 48 Mass App Ct 704, 707, 724 N.E. 2d 748: (In which a warrantless police intrusion may have been justified because of the community care-taking function. But lost justification once the police transformed it into the investigation of criminal activity.)

State v DeArman 54 Wash 621, 625 744 P 2d 1247: Once it became clear to officer that the motorists car was not disabled and did not need assistance, officer had no reason to proceed with stop.

State v Markgraf 59 Wash App 509 513-514 789 P 2d 1180: Officers initial contact with vehicle permissible to determine whether occupants in need of assistance, but officer request for identification [was] not warranted, and the detention should have terminated once officer determined no care taking was needed.

Commonwealth v Haskell 438 Mass 790. Supreme Court: When defendant was asked whether he had a license for the handgun, without first having been advised of his Miranda rights, the police conducted a custodial interrogation, in violation of the fifth amendment. The form of the police question was such that it was a request for testimonial communication, and defendants answer… was properly suppressed… Because it is legal in Massachusetts to cary a gun… a report that an individual possesses a gun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, does not create a reasonable suspicion that a crime is or will be committed. See Commonwealth v Couture, 407 Mass 178 183 552 N.E. 2d 538… Miranda warnings are required whenever police investigation occurs in a custodial setting…. Firearm, ammunition, and statements should have been suppressed, as defendant did not manifest behavior that indicated he was engaged in criminal activity or was… dangerous… the [Miranda] warnings may not be waived by statute.

Commonwealth v Silva 366 Mass 402: The Standard for justifying a stop is a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

United States v Lee 631 F Supp 2nd 915: There are Three Categories of interaction between police and citizens: Consensual encounters, temporary detentions (or Terry stops) and arrests. The fourth amendment applies to the latter two. Thus, a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion to conduct a temporary detention or probable cause to conclude an arrest.

Home

Contact

Disclaimer: By entering this site, you agree that you are doing so at "your own risk". You agree that RISE OF THE MOORS and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any inconveniences what so ever or the like. You are aware that RISE OF THE MOORS and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any vendors that we contract with and sell their products or merchandise on this site. You are aware and agree that all purchases and sales made are final and RISE OF THE MOORS and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any refunds. All products sold are to be sought refunds by the contractor.

Submission and Determination of Disputes to Arbitration:
Every claim, dispute, controversy or difference arising out of, dealing with, relating to any sales et cetera, shall be submitted, heard and determined by arbitration and you waive your right to a class action suit against RISE OF THE MOORS and its principal agents. Any qualified Moorish arbitrator the parties mutually agree to with an exception to any United States / UNITED STATES agents or agencies may be selected as the arbitrator.

RISE OF THE MOORS Copyright © Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey and the RISE OF THE MOORS NON-PROFIT CIVIC ORGANIZATION.

All rights reserved and retained. No part of any book or publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the prior written permission of Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey, his heirs, descendants or his estate.

[1] All rights reserved. The applicable law governing all contracts, books, and declarations may be, pursuant to Article PART 3. of the Uniform Commercial Codes, the Uniform Commercial Codes to include any and all applicable State, Federal and International Laws to include Treaties. § 1-202. Notice; Knowledge. § 1-206. Presumptions. § 1-305. Remedies to be Liberally Administered. § 1-307. Prima Facie Evidence by Third-Party Documents. § 7-104. Negotiable and Nonnegotiable Document of Title.
[2] COPYRIGHT. The right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by positive law. An intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby he is invested, for a limited period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them. In re Rider, 16 R.I. 271, 15 A. 72; Mott Iron Works v. Clow, C.C.A.Ill., 82 F. 316, 27 C.C.A. 250; Palmer v. De Witt, 47 N.Y. 536, 7 Am.Rep. 480; Stuff v. La Budde Feed & Grain Co., D.C.Wis., 42 F.Supp. 493, 497; Schill v. Remington Putnam Book Co., 179 Md. 83, 17 A.2d 175.
[3] COMMON-LAW LIEN. One known to or granted by the common law, as distinguished from statutory, equitable, and maritime liens; also one arising by implication of law, as distinguished from one created by the agreement of the parties. The Menominie, D.C.Minn., 36 F. 197; Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Trustee, 117 Ky. 478, 78 S.W. 413, 64 L.R.A. 219. It is a right extended to a person to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another, until the demand or charge of the person in possession is paid or satisfied. Whiteside v. Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., C.C.A.Colo., 101 F.2d 765, 769; Goldwater v. Mendelson, 8 N.Y.S. 627, 629, 170 Misc. 422.
[4] COMMON-LAW REMEDY. This phrase, within the meaning of U. S. Judicial Code 1911, § 256 (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1100, see Historical and Revision Notes under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333), was not limited to remedies in the common-law courts, but embraced all methods of enforcing rights and redressing injuries known to the common or statutory law. Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 367, 94 A. 372, 375, L.R.A. 1916A, 436. See, also, Northern Pacific S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California, 174 Cal. 346, 163 P. 199, 202.
[5] COMMON-LAW TRADE-MARK. One appropriated under common-law rules, regardless of statutes. Stratton & Terstegge Co. v. Stiglitz Furnace Co., 258 Ky. 678, 81 S.W.2d 1, 3.
[6] COMMON-LAW COPYRIGHT. An intangible, incorporeal right in an author of literary or artistic productions to reproduce and sell them exclusively and arises at the moment of their creation as distinguished from federal or statutory copyrights which exist for the most part only in published works. Common law copyright is perpetual while statutory copyright is for term of years. Equitable relief is available for violation of common law copyright. Edgar H. Wood Associates Inc. v. Skene, 347 Mass. 351, 197 N.E.2d 886.
[7] 17 U.S. Code § 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies. 17 U.S. Code CHAPTER 5— COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES.

For educational purposes only. The reader, possessor or owner of any book, information, documents et cetera, agrees that they will not furnish or cause to be furnished, any information obtained from RISE OF THE MOORS or Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey, directly or indirectly, to any known or unknown law enforcement or police officers. And that all information acquired is in admissible in any court of the United States; and that RISE OF THE MOORS, its founder, members, affiliates, associates and officials are exempt nor to be held liable in suits related to the information from the organization, regardless of its content. No information is produced with the intent to cause or incite any action by the reader or owner of any products or items obtained from RISE OF THE MOORS, its founder, members, affiliates, associates and officials. The reader understands and comprehends that this and all other pieces of information or statements made by RISE OF THE MOORS, its founder, members, affiliates, associates and officials, is in no way intended to cause, provoke or promote the reader or listener to do, say or act in any manner.

Organizations, such as charities, seeking Federal tax exemption are required to file an application with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Other organizations, such as social welfare organizations, may file an application but are not required to do so. - https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html#background

The IRS defines a social welfare organization as: [A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community. - https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

RISE OF THE MOORS is a civic organization and is therefore tax-exempt. In Erie Endowment v. United States, 316 F.2d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 1963), the court, in defining a civic organization, summed up the matter by stating that "the organization must be a community movement designed to accomplish community ends."

While some activities promote social welfare only if the community as a whole is the recipient of services, a membership organization is not automatically precluded from exempt status. In the exceptional case, an organization whose services are made available solely to its members may qualify. In such cases, it must be clearly established that making the service available to the membership benefits the community as a whole. Social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/

The mere fact that the religious literature is "sold", rather than "donated" does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise.

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful.

But the mere fact that the religious literature is "sold" by itinerant preachers, rather than "donated," does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project. The constitutional rights of those spreading their religious beliefs through the spoken and printed word are not to be gauged by standards governing retailers or wholesalers of books. The right to use the press for expressing one's views is not to be measured by the protection afforded commercial handbills. It should be remembered that the pamphlets of Thomas Paine were not distributed free of charge. It is plain that a religious organization needs funds to remain a going concern. But an itinerant evangelist, however misguided or intolerant he may be, does not become a mere book agent by selling the Bible or religious tracts to help defray his expenses or to sustain him. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way. As we have said, the problem of drawing the line between a purely commercial activity and a religious one will, at times, be difficult. On this record, it plainly cannot be said that petitioners were engaged in a commercial, rather than a religious, venture. It is a distortion of the facts of record to describe their activities as the occupation of selling books and pamphlets. And the Pennsylvania court did not rest the judgments of conviction on that basis, though it did find that petitioners "sold" the literature. The Supreme Court of Iowa, in State v. Mead, 230 Iowa 1217, 300 N.W. 523, 524, described the selling activities of members of this same sect as "merely incidental and collateral" to their "main object, which was to preach and publicize the doctrines of their order." And see State v. Meredith, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2d 678; People v. Barber, 289 N.Y. 378, 385-386, 46 N.E.2d 329. That accurately summarizes the present record.

Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. Those who can deprive religious groups of their colporteurs can take from them a part of the vital power of the press which has survived from the Reformation.