DANVILLE, VA CIRCUIT COURT RULES THAT COLLEGE DECALS CAN ALLOW POLICE TO PULL YOU OVER!

On September 9, 2013, in the trial of Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Merle Rutledge in Danville, Va Circuit Court.  A decal that may possibly have reflection that is even state issue is reasonable grounds for police to pull someone over.  Even though a notice of appeal has been filed to the Virginia Court of Appeals.  It is now grounded law that police have a right to pull people over for even what apartments use as a method of knowing whom is residents and those that are not.  Norfolk State University College Students and those with decals as adhesive stickers stuck to the back of the rear view mirror in a car,, even if state – Hide quoted text – issued, can be pulled over!     danville, va police department and court video of car.avi 9861K Scan and download

Read Full Post »

Merle Rutledge defends “Sex Stores” First Amendment rights in Pittsylvania County, Virginia

Merle Rutledge Jr defends “Sex Stores” in Pittsylvania County

Merle Rutledge Jr defends “Sex Stores” in Pittsylvania County
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and their department that handles code enforcement, who in the world do you think you are, going after the “Sex Store” businesses in our county. You have singled out these businesses that you disagree with for selling adult dvd’s and toys but do you realize every gas station has adult magazines with free 3 hours’ worth of pornographic dvds inserted and are included with the magazine. However, I see Valero’s and Bp’s selling hardcore xxx magazines and dvds without a word of scrutiny. I believe this is some kind of personal agenda. It seems like someone is blaming these stores for ruining their marriage. Well maybe if whoever spent more time in the store than maybe they would happy marriage. I want everyone to blame Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors member Brenda Bowman for “snitching”, whom husband recently just lost the election and the stores she is after are the ones that endorse her husband opponent Les Adams.
Secondly, just because your bedroom may live by certain rules does not give the government the right to regulate others that believe in handling adult business in their own unique way. As long as it is no underage children or nonconsensual adults involved than government has no business in your bedroom. The next thing know we will have to get a special permit just to have sex under Pittsylvania County rules.
Furthermore, every house in Pittsylvania County has an adult DVD or magazine inside of their home. Most call it the secret stash that grown men and women keep away from the “children.” The county government representatives are becoming children. It is ridiculous why Attorney Hunt has not pointed out the First Amendment challenge to their ordinance. How about the common sense defense articulated throughout this response.
In conclusion, I told you how the Prayer lawsuit was going to end and it happen. I am telling you this is another dumb First Amendment fight that the county will not win and will cost everyone for fighting. I believe that you can regulate where adult stores are located, but you cannot ban such entities from operating from somewhere zone out for those businesses. I think this is a waste of tax payer dollars and time which seems to be the normal way of doing county business. County officials please grow up and stay out of our bedroom. This is the reason why Victoria Secret can not open up a store in this county. The last I check these stores have been open for years and not one code official has stopped at a nearby gas station and cited them for the same products being sold in their stores on their shelves, just like the “sex stores” labeled in this county. The next time you pump gas. Just know you are getting the gas from a ‘sex store” if they carry adult magazines and products. Maybe the ordinance will include those places that sell condoms and contraceptives. The nerve of them animals.

Merle T. Rutledge Jr
Civil Rights Activist
Norfolk/Chatham, Va

Read Full Post »

How to destroy Florida “Stand your Ground” Law!

How to destroy Florida “Stand your Ground” Law! March 27, 2012 by merletrutledge

4 ways to get Florida to consider making permanent changes to the Florida Stand your Ground Law!

 

1. Have every convicted rapist or murderer that felt like their life was in danger while trying to commit the act in which they are convicted of use the defense of Stand your Ground Law. If race has no importance in this issue than let some of the other races including African Americans that commit crimes to their own race released that have been convicted of murder or rape than you will see the whole nation including leaders than want to repeal the law. We have to get everyone involved in order for them to see the harm of their decisions. All they have to do is say they felt like their life was in danger and death was the result. You tell any victims family, no matter their race, that the person convicted can walk because of the “Stand your Ground” defense than it is no longer a matter about race, but it becomes a neutral matter of justice.

 

2. Appeal your conviction based off the fact of ineffective counsel. You should have been able to use the “Stand your Ground Law” as a defense for your conviction.  Stand your ground obviously doesnt stop you from approaching your victim and taking their life, even though it was not your ground that you was on, but on theirs.  You can also be judge, police, jury, and prosecutor all at once and declare yourself “Not Guilty of all charges!”

 

3. If Governor Rick Scott of Florida has appointed numerous prosecutors and task forces to investigate the Trayvon Martin case and no one has been arrested to this day for the murder of Trayvon Martin, than it is becoming clear that they are working on a defense of the law and not the prosecution of George Zimmerman.

 

4. Vote and make permanent change to leadership! 5. Have the law struck down as unconstitutional. We all have a right to walk away or be left alone from police if their is no reasonable suspicion or criminal activity that has occured. You have a right to be left alone and move on about your way. This law restricts that and allows for people to detain you unlawfully without cause. In my opinion, the law by Zimmerman example, violates the 4th and 14th amendment.  Illegal search and seizure, and violation of due process, because you are punish without a trial because of this law.

 

Read Full Post »

North Carolina bra search is a big constitutional test! Mark my words

The Associated Press © February 13, 2012

By Martha Waggoner

RALEIGH, N.C.

A student who had to pull her bra away from her body so school officials could check whether she was hiding drugs must have been humiliated and frightened by the unreasonable search, her lawyer told the North Carolina Supreme Court on Monday. An attorney for the state argued the search was minimally invasive.

The state’s high court heard oral arguments in the case involving a student known only as T.A.S — unidentified in court because she was 15 years old when the “bra-lift search” occurred at the Brunswick County Academy in 2008. The justices will decide whether the search violated the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.

“It is unconstitutional for our daughters to be treated this way by the public schools of North Carolina,” attorney Geeta Kapur told the state’s highest court.

Sandra Robinson, the principal of the alternative school for students with disciplinary and other problems, called for the searches after a general tip from other students that prescription pills were coming into the school. She got no more details on what kind of pills or who was bringing them, but knew students usually would hide drugs and other contraband in their underwear, including bras, and their socks and tongues of their shoes.

During the search, students passed through metal detectors, then waited in the lunchroom before being brought one-by-one to a classroom to be searched. The female students had to pull out their shirts and place their thumb underneath the bra to pull it out, allowing any hidden drugs to fall out. Attorneys said there’s no evidence the boys participated in a similar search.

Only the principal testified at trial, and she didn’t witness the search, which occurred in front of three adults, two of them men.

Assistant Attorney General LaToya Powell said the search was minimally invasive because no skin was shown. “By doing this, absolutely no body parts were exposed,” she said.

During the search, a white powder identified as Percocet and drug paraphernalia were found on the student. The student asked a trial judge to prevent the evidence from being used, but the judge refused. She pleaded guilty in March 2009 to two drug-related misdemeanors.

A divided state Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the student, finding the search was “degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive.” The state appealed that decision. The state Supreme Court decision is expected to affect 1.5 million public school students.

Powell said the search was not unreasonable because there was “a compelling governmental need” that outweighed the rights of individual privacy, she said. The school’s primary responsibility “was to promote the health and safety of students,” she said.

Although she said in her brief that students at an alternative school have a lower privacy right than those at other schools, Powell told the justices that wasn’t the case. Under questioning by Justice Mark Martin, she said students at alternative schools have the same rights as those at traditional schools.

Kapur argued that two men should not have watched the search because it that violates the Brunswick County school board policies. “We don’t know what happened in that room,” she said. “We don’t know if the two men saw her breasts or positioned themselves to see her breasts.”

Justice Paul Newby asked if the issue of exposure was contested on appeal. It was not, Kapur said.

But in the end, she said: “Who was looking … whether anyone saw any private parts … is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment rights” against unreasonable searches.

Merle T. Rutledge Jr response – Should adult men and women that are not related or have legal guardianship be allowed to view the private areas of underage teenagers without a warrant.  I believe the answer should be “no” because it would violate public policy.  They would literally have to release sex offenders that was only merely peeping toms back into society because this argument would be used to validate other arguments on the matter.  This is a sensitive issue and beware because we look at the black and white of it as being right for government’s purpose.  Can the public actually use that purpose to further pedophilia agendas.  A warrant needs to be secured under conditions of removal of clothes.  I believe, if they are going to be more intrusive than they need to be more inclusive to more civil rights for children.

Mark my words NC, this can blow up in your face in light of victory.  Some victories are just worth giving up in order to protect the safety and health of the people in which the state serves.  I could see a blistering of legal arguments for adults that have view even pornography because one part of the skin or “sensitive areas” may be considered no different than others.  It is the same reason why pedophiles conviction for videotaping underneath women skirts was overturned.

Children must go to school.  Children are not forced to ride a airplane.  If you want to ride the plane than you must follow those rules.  The schools have a extreme amount of power when it comes down to children civil rights and that is why it must be scrutinize from time to time.  This is a great case, but to say the TSA and FAA is a valid argument for this type of search is hogwash.  Being forced and being compelled are two different subjects.

Read Full Post »