Norfolk, Va Police Officers Plaza and Tessier discipline for civil rights violations for illegal stop of Merle Rutledge Jr and Vernon C. Evans-El!

Breaking News: The Norfolk, Va Police Department has discipline two more corrupt officers Tessier and Plaza. This brings the Merle T. Rutledge Jr holding officers accountable total to 27. This is based off the illegal stop and harrassment done by these Norfolk, Va Police Officers of Merle Rutledge Jr and Vernon C. Evans – El.

Merle T. Rutledge Jr

and

Vernon C. Evans-El
plaintiffs,

vs.
Officer Plaza, Norfolk, Va Police Department officer, sued in his individual and
official capacity
And

Officers Tessier, Norfolk Va Police Department officer, sued in his
individual and official capacity
And

City of Norfolk, Va
And

John Doe 3, supervisor of the Norfolk, Va Police Department officer,
sued in his individual and official capacity

Defendants,

BRIEF OF ALLEGATIONS
On 1/6/2013. Merle T. Rutledge Jr and Vernon Evans-El was pulled over
by Norfolk Police Department officers alongside Monticello and another
street between the hours of 3 and 5pm in the City of Norfolk, Va. After being pulled over illegally by Officers Plaza and Tessier, We was
told that my 2013 registration sticker was peeled as being the reason
for the stop. During the stop they ran my license and called up the
City of Norfolk, Va impound to see if the car was taken legally and
was in the rightful possession of Merle T. Rutledge Jr. The officers claim that they got a hit on my license plate that the vehicle was abandoned. There was
nothing legally wrong with my plates or with my car in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Also on the same date in which my car was
picked up from the City of Norfolk, Va impound. I had new
registration stickers, inspection sticker and decals put on the car which was
paid for at the Virginia DMV office in Norfolk, Va on November 14, 2012.  The stop occured in regards to this complaint on January 6, 2012.  All checks
showed that Merle T. Rutledge Jr was the rightful person in possession
of the car, he had no warrants for arrest, and the car was not abandon. During the stop a Officer Tessier asked Vernon Evans-El for identification. Vernon C. Evans-El
gave her his real legal full name, which the City of Norfolk, Va city
attorney office, as well as the City of Norfolk, Va police department
had documentation that Vernon C. Evans-El had legally changed his name
in 2009 in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk, Va. Officer Tessier was not satisfied with Vernon Evans-El and threaten to take
him into custody if he did not give up his social security number.
Under threat of force, arrest, and being taken into custody by Officer Tessier, Vernon
Evans-El gave her his social secuirty number. It showed no warrants
on Evans-El, but Evans-El refused to give up his social security
number until he was threaten with force, arrest, and being taken into
custody. There is no Virginia law that states police officers are
able to obtain social security numbers or make these types of threats unless they can cite a specific statute or law that allows for such invasion of privacy.
During this exchange after Merle T. Rutledge Jr was told he could
leave by Officer Plaza. The lady officer told Merle T. Rutledge Jr that he had to
stay, even though Merle Rutledge Jr, asked clearly was he free to
leave after the male officer gave him back his license and told
Mr. Rutledge that he could go. There was no legal justification for Officer Tessier to deny Mr. Rutledge Jr right of movement and to illegal seize him after Officer Plaza said that he could go. Merle T. Rutledge Jr asked the female officer was he being detained and was he not free to leave.
Officer Tessier said yes that he was not free to leave. Mr. Rutledge requested
to get out the car so he could get cigarettes while the female officer
made threats to Evans-El about his social security number. Officer Tessier stated no Mr. Rutledge could not leave and he would be leaving his car behind if he left to go right up the street to get cigarettes. This was in direct violation of the Privacy Act, 4th and 14th amendment of the United States Constitutioin, and Officer Tessier could not cite any
legal authority that required such disclosure. The
officer repeated to Merle Rutledge Jr that he was not free to leave
which made the stop a unlawful detainer and false arrest in violation of Merle T.
Rutledge Jr right to be free to leave and the seizure became unlawful
for all parties in Merle T. Rutledge Jr car.  Merle Rutledge Jr was than in City of Norfolk, VA police custody without any legal justification.   Merle Rutledge Jr
requested for a supervisor. The male officer Plaza would call the
supervisor to tell him to respond to the scene. However, the male
officer got back out of his car while the lady officer was talking to
Evans-El unwillingly because he also refuse to want to be question by
her after he gave her his real legal name of Vernon C. Evans El. He
tells Merle Rutledge Jr that he can go again and Merle Rutledge Jr
than asks where was the supervisor. This is when he knew that Merle
Rutledge Jr was not leaving until speaking to a supervisor after being
harassed by this woman officer and being told to stay after Merle
Rutledge JR was clear to leave by her fellow officer. I want this
matter investigated fully and the audio tape reviewed. I request the
audio and visual tape of this stop through the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and any written estimates be forwarded to me by e-mail
or mail of the costs, if any. The female officer violated our 4th and 14th
amendment rights and obtain information through false pretenses from
Evans-El and Mr. Rutledge. Merle T. Rutledge Jr car was unlawfully
stopped because his plates was clear and visible to all officers. On
the audio the lady officer admits to being able to view the stickers
and plates on Mr. Rutledge Jr car. She also said it was my mother
fault for not calling the DMV and clearing it with them that the car
had been picked up from the City of Norfolk, Va impound. However, she
could not cite a statute or anything of such extra requirement in
order for a vehicle to be clear to be on the road without being
harrassed form the Norfolk, Va police department. Also her male
officer, stated to everyone that the car had been legally picked up
and the date in which it was retrieved. We challenged the
duration of this stop and the actions taken up by this police officer
and her supervisors. The 4th amendment violation and
unlawful detainment of Merle T. Rutledge Jr against this officer and
the City of Norfolk, Va police department for allowing a policy that
has become so official to threaten and force identification beyond the
Virginia law. Social security numbers and threatening everyone to
stay even though there was no legal reasoning for them to do so is
against the law and beyond unconstitutional. Prior and constructive
knowledge of these known violations in the City of Norfolk, Va police
department is so widespread to carry the enforcement of law, which is
municipal liability. All the evidence is on Norfolk, VA police
officers video and audio. This officer continued to violate every
constitutional right during a stop possible. Evans-El was arrested
before for refusal to show identification card when asked on video.
Alton Robinson was arrested after giving his full legal name for
refusing to identify himself. The City of Norfolk, Va department has
refused to correct this problem and supervise and discipline officers
who refuse to follow their instruction, unless none had been given.
This is a City of Norfolk, Va problem not just a police officer
problem.

2. Justice Souter wrote for a unanimous court. He said “a seizure
occurs if ‘in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the
incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free
to leave.’” Brendlin at 4. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544,
554 (1980). A reasonable passenger, during a traffic stop, would not
believe he was free to leave without police permission; a “passenger
will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave
the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the
officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first
place.” Brendlin at 7. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 202
(2002).

3. The male officer had completed his investigation when he told Mr.
Rutledge that he could leave. Due to the female officer having her
head so close to the window and Mr. Rutledge looking after the officer own safety by
asking her if he was free to leave, because he did not want to drive
off and accidentally hit her with his vehicle while engaged in a
conversation with Evans-El. She told Merle Rutledge Jr that he was
not free to leave at all and was not done with her investigation.
Evans-El was not about to be or was involved in any criminal activity
and had no reason to extend the encounter based off her own personal
motivation. Fortunately Merle Rutledge Jr did not leave because he would have been shot to death like Joshua Johnson for possibly trying to hit Police Officer Tessier after she told Mr. Rutledge that he was not free to leave.

4. Until Virginia passes a mandatory Identification card law.
Evans-El cooperated with the police and should have never been
threaten by the assertion of force or being taken into custody to hand
over a identification card and his social security number.

5. All defendants et al. are being sued under U.S.C 1983 42 and for
violations of Merle T. Rutledge Jr 4th and 14th U.S Amendment rights.

6. The supervisor that showed up at the scene tried to intimidate
Evans-El and Mr. Rutledge into not filing a complaint. The supervisor
that showed up to the scene of the traffic stop also
stated to us that a complaint would go nowhere. This is the main
reason why Im complaining against the Supervisor. It is clear that
supervisors in the Norfolk, Va police department constantly tell
citizens by filing a complaint that nothing will happen to them. It
is about time that you showed something will. It shows a complete
lack of respect for the Norfolk, Va internal affairs by your top
decision makers. He was sure to let us know that the actions of his
officers were lawful and it would be upheld by him and top “decision
makers” in the city of Norfolk, Va police department. As of May 13, 2013, the supervisor that came to the scene has yet to be discipline like Officer Plaza and Tessier.

6. A policy exists with the Norfolk, Va Police Department and its
officers that failure to show identification card when asked can have
you detained and put into custody by force, if necessary. No such
state law or ordinance exists that requires mandatory identification
card. The City of Richmond, VA tried a similar ordinance and later
had to throw it out because it was unenforceable.
Relief Sought –
Plantiffs suffered gross negligence, assault, duration of the unlawful
traffic top, unlawful seizure of my person and vehicle, emotional
distress, intimidation, obtaining information under false pretenses,
harassment, humiliation, injury to the plantiffs reputation, violation
of my freedom to travel, false imprisonment, unlawful detainment, and
a fear of police against defendants et al. Also, Plantiff seek
damages for the psychological treatment for the emotional distress
caused for no reason other than incompetence at its greatest by
Norfolk, Va Police Department Officer’s and the City of Norfolk, Va.
Also, I would like a declaration that the Norfolk, Va Police
Department and the City of Norfolk, Va violated my civil rights.

Case Notations and References:

1. Brendlin v. California, 06-8120
2. Ultimately, the Baker court held that even when conducting a
parole search, with no indication that the female passenger has done
anything wrong, the officer may not search the passenger’s bag. The
court held that although the parolee/driver consented in advance to
searches of his person, home and car, people traveling with him do not
give up their right to privacy.

Case Notations and References:

1. Brendlin v. California, 06-8120
2. Ultimately, the Baker court held that even when conducting a
parole search, with no indication that the female passenger has done
anything wrong, the officer may not search the passenger’s bag. The
court held that although the parolee/driver consented in advance to
searches of his person, home and car, people traveling with him do not
give up their right to privacy.  Pictured below is Merle T. Rutledge Jr (1) and (2) Vernon C. Evans-El, Civil Rights Activists!

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 »