Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Yi v. Anne Arundel County Police
United States District Court, D. Maryland
September 1, 2016
CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE, Defendant
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
April 2016, Chong Su Yi filed suit against the Anne Arundel
County Police, invoking this court's federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF 1.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
ECF 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis shall be granted.
facts and arguments in this case, as presented by plaintiff,
are set forth below.
3. Federal Question:
When six amendment states; "in all criminal prosecution,
" i.e. prosecution could not happen without victim; ipso
facto lack of Miranda; i.c. Miranda v Arizona was not applied
to victim; lawyer was not provided to indigent; thus report
took 3 hrs. and 30min Exhibit A; is it violation of sixth
amendment?; Writing number on business card; the moment
police hand it over, and plaintiff is legally allowed, free
to walk away is it official police document, by virtue of its
existence; if it is not, does it violate due process of the
law; and when officer says Call police station for rest; does
it violate due process of the law?
If so and this becomes adjudicated; in preamble of
Constitution 'establish justice' and ‘... of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, " does it mean
Justice is for Plaintiff, does justice excludes Posterity;
because Plaintiff does not have plaintiff's posterity or
justice for Posterity must exist regardless?; If so when
report took 3.5hrs to develop; is it violation of illegal
search and seizure in 4th amendment; because its beyond
'amount of time to do back ground check'?;
If, 4th amendment states "rights of people's effects
shall not be violated without due process of the law";
then is 3.5hrs block of time; "effects" in meaning
of rights of people in 4th amendment; because sovereignty of
individual allows liberty, and in liberty there is freedom of
choice; Obegefell v Hodges (2015); thus when police took
3.5hrs; did it violate liberty of plaintiff worth 3.5hrs?; If
so in constitution a race could not be given preferential
treatment; where report took 3.5hrs; could white police
officer use his personal experience; even if its department
certified, approved, white officer may use white experiences;
but without being trained; in racial diversity program; e.g.
sexual harassment training; isn't allowing white officer
to use white experience violation of first amendment's
state's right to categorize; state's best interest;
thus white officer using white experience to write incident
4. Facts of the case are:
Theft took place in golden corral; case number [TDC 16 CV
1151 ]; now adapts 16-CV 1151; as if it is written in here;
First Officer Matt Johnson; did not provide police report;
e.g. incident report; and left; second officer did not show
up; as per Store Manager, Second officer stated restaurant as
too crowded; third officer is en route; and by 9:30pm
Evidence A was produced.
ECF 1 at 2-3.
6. Argument of the cases are:
Sixth amendment says 'all' prosecution; then it must
include victim and perpetrator; and Miranda must be read to
victim as well as perpetrator; This case lacked Miranda was
not read to victim; therefore, the six amendment prosecution
could not take place; police did not do proper job; When
court rules criminal prosecution could not take place; it
must be for all posterity as of the moment court rules
Under Terry Stop; police officer may stop; public to do what
need done; in traffic; as long as it takes to do back ground
check; in foot as long as to pat down the person; and
ascertain purpose; when officer gives permission; to leave
the area; the incident has concluded.
There was no terry stop; but police decided to place seizure
on plaintiff; lack of perpetrator; and because Miranda was
not read; what took place became interrogation; without
lawyer; when plaintiff was ...
Buy This Entire Record For