URGENT: Adam and Pete arrested

Cop Block bloggers Adam and Pete were arrested in Greenfield, MA for videotaping (which I believe is a felony in MA) while trying to bail fellow activists out of jail. You can listen to audio of the arrest here.

They are being held at the Greenfield Police Department which can be reached at (413) 773-5411. If I understand correctly, Adam and Pete have not identified themselves, so ask about “John Smith” and “John Smith” instead of Adam and Pete.

No bail has been set yet, but I’ve been told it will probably be set tomorrow. Allison Gibbs of LOLA is raising money to bail them out. If you’re interested in contributing, please send money ASAP to ladiesoflibertyalliance@gmail.com via PayPal.

If you have any information, please let us know. Don’t use the Cop Block phone number as we do not currently have access to it. If you have any new information (and new info only please), call us at (removed).

There’s a Porc411 about their arrest here.

UPDATE: Someone is on the way to pick up Adam and Pete. We should know their bail within an hour. They should be free tonight unless they are held indefinitely.

UPDATE 2: Bail has been set. $2500 each. Must be paid in cash.

UPDATE 3: Adam and Pete will be released tomorrow morning. People are also looking into getting out the activists who Adam and Pete had gone to help. Money will be sent out tomorrow morning so please get those donations in to ladiesoflibertyalliance@gmail.com if you can.

UPDATE 4: Adam and Pete have a court date scheduled for 8:30 a.m. tomorrow. The charges are not yet known.

UPDATE 5: Adam and Pete have been released.

EPN

CopBlock

When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • deana

    I called to check on bond for john smith and john smith and was told they didnt have a john smith or john smith.

  • Larry The Dwarf

    The cop in the audio said they would be arrested for trespassing, which I doubt is a felony.

  • Chad

    Still no bail, was told to call at 9:30am tomorrow (Friday).

  • J

    If you talk to them, tell them to identify themselves.

    They need to identify themselves. They have no expectation of privacy with regard to general booking information. (I’d get the case citation for you, but I’m too lazy to go to my law office library and retrieve it.) And the supreme ct. case of Hiibel says that it isn’t unconstitutional to prosecute someone for refusing to identify themselves.

    Further, if they won’t identify themselves, they cannot complain when the judge refuses to grant them bail.

  • Joe

    J: Its unconstitutional for you to be a douchebag.

  • Brock

    Joe: I believe that J is trying to help, not hinder. Unless you have any contradicting legal advice to give.. GTFO.

  • freetexas

    Actually, you have a right to be a douchebag, Just ask most of our elected representatives.

  • I suspect Pete and Adam are exercising their right to remain silent.

  • Paul

    Hey George! You’re a hero! I’m sorry that my first time speaking to you is in these circumstances, though. Gosh, I hope these four get out sooner rather than later. MA is a cesspool of tyranny and abuse. I advise anyone going there to get in and out as quick as possible, stay under the radar, and hold your nose while you’re there.

  • Pingback: DarianWorden.com» Blog Archive » Help NH Liberty Activists()

  • KBCraig

    J: If you overcome your innate laziness, please re-read Hiibel. It doesn’t say what you claim it says. It says that state laws that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement officers aren’t unconstitutional. But there MUST be a state law requiring you to identify yourself, in order for Hiibel to apply.

    There are 24 states with “stop & identify” laws. Massachusetts isn’t one of them.

  • Attorney Howard Friedman explains in this article that MA’s illegal wiretap statute only applies to hidden or secret audio recording of police.
    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441877670&rss=newswire#

    Does anyone know how much is currently needed to afford bail for Adam and Pete?!

  • Greenfield Police are trained by the IDF. They are a paramilitary force NOT law enforcement officers! We are ALL Palestinians now. Dogs and Cats on the other hand have full rights in MA. There are numerouse NGOs and government officials that will come to their aid, but people, are slaves to be fed on!

  • Ellen

    I’m originally from Greenfield. I’d never go back there to live. My Dad and 3 brothers live there. What a liberal, statist cesspool that place is.

  • Pingback: blog of bile » Blog Archive » Pete and Adam of Liberty On Tour charged with relatively serious crimes()

  • Adam, Pete and Rich are out of jail, back in New Hampshire and will be on Free Talk Live freetalklive.com 6-9 CST/7-10 EST tonight to share their experience. Here is the link to a recording of their call to Porc 411 after they got out of jail and Massachussetts:
    http://nh.porcupine411.com/files/2010/07/2010-07-02_16-25-08.mp3

  • J Bryce

    “MA is a cesspool of tyranny and abuse. I advise anyone going there to get in and out as quick as possible”

    Agreed, but I would suggest going a step further and just never setting foot there. You wouldn’t be missing out on anything as valuable as your freedom.

  • Pingback: UPDATE: Adam and Pete are free | Cop Block()

  • J Bryce said a mouthful (typed a keyboard full)! I’ve never left or lost anything in either MA or NYC. So I have no plans or reasons to ever visit these “blue states.”

  • J

    KBCraig, I think you’re right and I also think that our statements are not in conflict.
    My statement was that Hiibel says that it isn’t unconstitutional to prosecute someone for refusing to identify themselves.
    You’re statement was that Hiibel says that state laws that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement officers aren’t unconstitutional.

    Both yours and my recount of the Hiibel holding make clear that a state COULD prosecute for failure to identify oneself. (Assuming, arguendo, that there is a law; in order to prosecute, you’d need a law.) I did not, as you intimate, suggest that Hiibel grants a state the power to prosecute someone. The holding is that a prosecution for failure to identify is not disallowed. (If there’s a law, etc etc.) The SCOTUS does not usually grant rights, they usually only set the floor. A state (usually) can give more rights than the US Constitution.

    As for innate laziness… I’ll defer that argument for another time.

  • Aggie

    Hopefully a simple solution for being allowed to video within MA, would require more research and legal backing. Join a professional organization as a freelance writer or columnists. I doubt “employment” as a writer would be a requirement, because that would infringe on freedom of the press. Being part of the press does not require primary employment. Freelance writings and blog columnist’s on internet sites probably get much more attention and trust than the “commercial” reporting. Here is a link to some Journalist’s organizations for reference: http://reporter.asu.edu/journ.htm

  • From what I can gather from an Arkansas statute cited and listed in the Wikipedia entry for “stop and identify” state laws, Arkansas’s law is based solely on the charge/crime of loitering. So it definitely would not apply while driving on a freeway, highway, road, street, etc., or in one’s own home.

  • freetexas

    I hope that we can agree that laws requiring one to identify violate the original intent of the constitution. To say that this is okay is to say that we are merely subjects of the state instead of sovereign citizens. I strongly resist such an assumption.

  • J

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dFRrFvuGsc

    This is a great example of how to deal with police- unless you’re in a state that requires you to identify yourself.

  • Pingback: Happy Secession Day | Cop Block()

  • This issue is quite simple. Yes the courts have decided that when some copsucker asks you to ID yourself you must do so or the cop will haul you off to jail.

    The law does not require you to give the cop any personal info i.e. place of employment, profession, home adress, SS#, DOB etc… . The law does not require you to get an ID card or a Drivers lisence. The law does not require you carry and ID card or DL on your person at all times. The law usually never states specifically how and in what manner you are required to ID yourself to a copslug i.e. pronounce your nmae to the copster in any language you see fit. I like to pronounce my name it its orginal cletic form with all of dem constanants in it. Say your name as quick as you can and the law does not state that you must repeat yourself or spell out your name for officer fuckwad. The law does not state that you are required to write your name down for the cop.

    A few years back such a woman did this very thing in Lakewood, CO. She would ride the city bus to work and the bus would pass through a government base called the Federal Center and the federal copsum would periodically force the bus stop and then the copscum would board the bus and demand ID from the passengers. One woman refused to give them ID and told them that in fact she had no ID to give them. She was warned by the copsters that the next time she was asked for ID to produce it or else. Her next bus ride through the fed center was another encounter with the federal gestapo and she was in fact arrested for refusing to provide ID. She was released the next day as there was no law requiring to her have any ID on her person.

  • J

    I urge everyone reading Duncan’s above statement to DISBELIEVE about 98% of it. Laws are written for a particular jurisdiction. (City, county, state, federal land, etc.) The laws in those jurisdictions can vary. Therefore, if someone blindly accepts what Duncan wrote, they could find themselves in a lot of trouble if the laws for your jurisdiction are different.

  • duncan

    I’m not talking about what goes on in Canada. If you think I’m wrong then show me your research. The national issue of showing ID to a cop is just a few years old and made its way through the federal courts.

    You still have the right NOT to talk to a cop. Would you like me to post my personal encounters with the copscum and how I’ve done the very thing I’m telling you about?

    Show me a law that requires you to obtian an ID card? If there is no law requiring you to obtian an ID card then it only follows that you are not required to carry around what you don’t have. Show me a law that requires you to carry and ID if you do have one?

    I would suggest that all of you do your own research on this issue and afterwards you can disbelieve 100% of anyhting this cop plant J has to post.

    Here is one story to get ya thinkin junior. I had the displeasure of encountering four copscum in the county bldg near to were I live. One copster asked me for an address and I refused to give it, he then asked me for my age and I declined, he then asked me were I worked and I would not tell, he then asked me for my SS# and he never got it. All he got was my name and he only got ot hear ot one time. Oh yea and I was never arrested, go figure this one out.

  • duncan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

    “Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police.”

    Read it junior and what does it say? It clearly states that if stopped by a cop and asked to ID yourself you must ID yourself. It DOES NOT say that you must have an ID card in your possesion and it DOES NOT say that you are required to even have an ID card. You ID yourself how? Verbally of course and it does not say anything about writting your name down, spelling it for the cop or even what language to say it in nor how often you must say it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

    This is a 2004 case and the most current case on this issue. I suggest you read it.

    “Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

    What does it say? And what does it NOT say? ID ones self does NOT include SS#, DOB, home addy, place of employment, wifes name etc… . Giving your name is all you need to do and what happens if you don’t ? They will charge you with an adittional crime, which is a minor misdemeanor and NOT a felony and then haul you off to jail were they will try to ID you. Just think of the possibilities of NOT IDing yourself. It would drive them nuts and waste their time and waste state funds.

    “The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.”

    Ummm a loophole. I see a window of opportunity with this one.

    “At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”

    You are not required to answer any questions at the intial point of contact. Read it junior and then tell the posters to ignore 98% of my comments. Me thinks I smell bacon on the forum.

  • duncan

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=170054

    Doors close on bus case
    Technicality frees Arvada woman who refused to show ID
    STORY TOOLS
    Email this story | Print
    By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
    December 8, 2005
    Federal prosecutors have dropped charges against Deborah Davis, the 53-year-old Arvada woman who refused to show her identification to federal police officers on an RTD bus traveling through the Federal Center in Lakewood.

    Davis’ supporters, at first jubilant to learn Wednesday morning that she will not be prosecuted, were dismayed to learn hours later that officers of the Federal Protective Service still will ask passengers on the public bus to show their identification. The policy applies to all passengers, including those, as in Davis’ case, who are traveling through the Federal Center and not getting off the bus there.

    Federal officials said the Davis case was closed because of a technicality involving a problem with a sign at the Federal Center at the time Davis was ticketed. The sign was supposed to inform people that their IDs would be checked.

    “The policy hasn’t changed,” said Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of which the Federal Protective Service is a part. “There are no plans to change our procedures.”

    Davis’ lawyers said the battle is likely to continue.

    “We’re very pleased that they dropped charges against Ms. Davis,” said Davis’ volunteer lawyer, Gail Johnson, of the Denver law firm Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman. “But sign or no sign, she and other Colorado citizens continue to have the constitutional right to travel by public bus without being forced to show identification to federal agents.”

    “I think if the government is going to insist on continuing to violate the constitutional rights of our citizens, then they’re going to find themselves back in court on this one,” Johnson said. “We’re not interested in the Deborah Davis exception.”

    Johnson said lawyers from outside Colorado had volunteered to help represent Davis following nationwide publicity about the controversy, and that other bus passengers who refuse to show identification likely could find legal representation as well.

    “There are plenty of lawyers in Denver who would be happy to help people,” she said.

    Davis had been scheduled to appear for arraignment before a U.S. magistrate judge in Denver on Friday. She could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

    Bill Scannell, a spokesman for Davis and an activist who has helped publicize other challenges to government identification requests, said a rally outside the courthouse, at 19th and Champa streets, will occur at 8:30 a.m. Friday as planned.

    He said Davis will speak during the rally and she and her supporters will ride through the Federal Center on the Regional Transportation District’s Bus 100 – the one from which Davis was removed for not showing her ID.

    Scannell called it “a victory ride,” even after he learned that the policy has not changed.

    “My anticipation is that the victory riders will be fully exercising their constitutional rights to travel freely in their own country on a public bus,” he said.

    Asked if some or all of the riders might refuse to show their IDs to Federal Center police, he said, “I think that’s a fair assumption.”

    Zuieback, the spokeswoman for ICE in Washington, D.C., declined to discuss how federal officers would respond to any such refusals.

    “We never speculate about what our response is going to be to a specific situation,” she said.

    She said the dispute isn’t about the bus or its passengers, but about the security of a federal facility.

    “It’s not a city bus on a city road,” Zuieback said. “It is entering a federal facility.”

    Two RTD buses, the 3 and the 100, pass through the Federal Center several times a day. Thousands of people work at the Federal Center, and thousands more visit some of its agencies, including a popular map sales office and a heavily used depository for genealogical information.

    In addition, the road through the Federal Center leads from South Kipling Street on the east side of the facility to the Cold Spring park-n-ride at the Federal Center’s northwest corner, a major connecting point for buses bound elsewhere.

    RTD officials have said some passengers have complained in the past about the federal police ID checks, which began after the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. The bus routes through the Federal Center had existed for many years before that.

    “It’s clearly not an ideal situation for RTD or our passengers, but it is controlled wholly by the federal police at that site,” RTD spokesman Scott Reed said Wednesday.

    “We hope there will be some resolution of this, and we are doing the best we can to comply with their regulations while providing a long- standing service to our passengers,” he said.

    Davis, who routinely rode RTD’s 100 bus through the Federal Center to get to her job at a small business in Lakewood, said she first showed her ID to federal police who boarded the bus and asked to see all passengers’ identification, but it bothered her.

    She then spent several days telling the officers she didn’t have her ID with her and wasn’t getting off the bus in the Federal Center anyway. Officers eventually told her she had to bring her ID or she couldn’t ride the bus.

    Finally, Davis refused on Sept. 26 to show her ID and was removed from the bus, handcuffed, placed in the back of a patrol car and taken to a police station in the Federal Center. She was later released after officers issued her petty offense tickets.

    Zuieback said the ID checks are only one part of “many layers of security.” She would not discuss the other parts.

    “Looking at that ID, having that initial contact with an individual, does allow us to know that that person is who they say they are,” she said.

    Asked how officers know a person’s ID is genuine, she said, “We have trained professionals doing that work.”

    Who are you?

    • The Federal Protective Service says its policy of checking IDs of bus riders at the Denver Federal Center has not changed. Here are the RTD bus routes that enter the center on at least some runs (some routes vary with time of day):

    3 Alameda Crosstown
    5x Cold Springs Express
    14 West Florida
    100 Kipling Crosstown
    G Golden/Boulder

    All pass through the Cold Springs Park-n-Ride at Fourth Avenue and Union Boulevard on the northeast corner of the Federal Center.

  • duncan

    I think we can pretty well right off 100% of what ever J posts.

  • deana

    @ j, how much trouble is ‘alot of trouble’ anyway? Saturday night i was painting city hall in my small town and while out smoking i noticed happy faces next door at the po po station. (we only have two officers) our chief of po po was acting interested as our new deputy greg was boasting of his “drug bust” i joined the conversation, as i sometimes do, when i hear something that sparks my intrest. i ask him how he found it, he said that he ask them if they had anything illegal, they said no. i ask the officer, is it not unconstitutional to ask that question? the young officer looked at me crazy, then greg told me that he ask to search their car and they said ok. I told our cocky young officer that he wouldnt have searched my truck he ask me why not if i had nothing to hide, i replied that i wouldnt let him look in my panty drawer either, no searches what so ever without a warrent. He said, ‘well you would be in ‘alot of trouble’. and i said not before you go through aloooot of trouble getting a warrent. then he ask my name. as the conversation no longer held my interest, i turned around and walked back into city hall. He didnt come in and arrest me. but if he had how long would they have kept me? and how stupid would they look when i wrote a letter to the editor (free advertising) telling the story…so i wonder how much trouble is allloooot of trouble???? the last time i got into a little trouble it cost $10,000 to prove my innocence i fear that i could not afford this lot of trouble i keep hearing about..

  • Don’t leave out that Hibell case I posted as this one answers alot of questions for folks here.

  • J

    Duncan, before you encourage people to “right [sic] off” my idea, I think you should look at the substance of my comments. First, I am not a cop plant, or a law enforcement officer. You can tell this is true by looking at my spelling and grammar. Further, I don’t have a problem with not showing ID, but I do have a problem with you telling people that they don’t have to. This is because you’re giving legal advice that MAY VERY WELL BE HARMFUL if it isn’t the law in the fine readers of copblock.org’s particular jurisdiction.

    For example, if you’re on a military base as a guest of a service member, you can get yourself into “a lot” of trouble if you don’t comply with orders by the military police who demand to see your docs/ID/guest pass, IF THEY HAVE A POLICY REQUIRING IT. (And correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many bases do.)

    I advocate silence when dealing with officers. And I also strongly suggest you get a lawyer (and ask for one right away if you are being detained!).

    I’ve read Hiibel. All of it. I’ve also read Kolender v. Lawson. That man’s a hero. Take a lesson from him on how to deal with officers, and not Duncan.

  • “Duncan, before you encourage people to “right [sic] off” my idea..” – J

    This is what you were instructing others on the board to do to me. If you don;t like then I suggest that you not to it to others.

    I never give legal advice as I’m not a lawyer yand ou can see that I’m not based on my spelling and grammer. I’m a political activist and you can tell this by googling my full name or simply go to the link I have provided. Most liars oops I mean laywers don’t know the law. The only real way to know about anything would be to research it on your own.

    If you want to take on the system then don’t give the copscum any info and don’t carry ID around when you hit the street to protest the system. Why pray tell would I or any other anarchist want to ge caught dead on a military base? I’m a veteran and I still wouldn’t want to be seen on a military base. Conduct a proest near to a military base and not on a military base. What federal law requires anyone to have ID? None.

    I posted one such instance of a woman going onto a government installation in Lakewood, Colorado as proof that not providing ID got the fed a nothing i.e. charges dropped and Davis walks.

    You’re not one these anal retentive LP types are you? The kind of guy who analyze a thing to death and never committ to do anything like challenge the system by getting arrested are you? I’ve dealt with this kind before and whilst it was busy talking and thinking a thing to death people like me are getting the job of liberty done.