Tag Archive: 4th Amendment


Iowa Forfeiture: A ‘System Of Legal Thievery’?

 

 

 

 

 

The plan: Hitch a ride with a family friend to California, visit relatives and check out community colleges there.

  Sanchez-Ratliff, then 20, did something that in hindsight wasn’t the best idea, but isn’t illegal. He took with him his entire life savings, including about $14,000 provided by his grandmother and an additional $5,000 he had saved from working.”

 

 

 

” The much-anticipated trip took an unexpected turn about eight hours in, as flashing lights appeared in the rear-view mirror. A Pottawattamie County sheriff’s deputy stopped the vehicle for traveling 5 miles per hour over the speed limit.

  An hour later, the deputy seized Sanchez-Ratliff’s cash. Despite a clean criminal record and a search that turned up no sign of drugs or other illegal activity, the deputy concluded the money must somehow be linked to a crime.

  Sanchez-Ratliff is hardly alone.”

 

 

The Register continues …

 

 

” A Des Moines Register investigation into the use of state and federal civil forfeiture laws in Iowa reveals that thousands of people have surrendered their cash or property since 2009. The system is stacked against property owners while raising millions of dollars annually for law enforcement agencies across the state, something critics contend encourages policing for profit over promoting public safety.

  The bulk of forfeitures reviewed by the Register resulted from traffic stops, often for minor violations and involving vehicles with out-of-state plates. But cash or property also was seized after police were called or sent to homes or businesses. In a few cases, police seized cash carried by johns caught up in prostitution stings.

  Among the Register’s findings:

• Law enforcement agencies in all but seven of Iowa’s 99 counties have used the state’s civil forfeiture law since 2009. They have seized cash or other property 5,265 times. At least 542 more cases have used federal forfeiture laws.

• Many of those property owners — including Sanchez-Ratliff — are sent on their way after surrendering their cash or other property. A sampling of about 600 forfeiture cases from the Iowa counties that seized the most property over the past six years revealed dozens of instances with no record of an arrest or criminal charges.

• Iowa police departments and other law enforcement agencies have seized nearly $43 million over the past six years — money divided among agencies involved in each forfeiture case. Under law, the money is supposed to be used to “enhance” their crime-fighting capabilities.

• Most of the money is used to buy equipment, train officers and fund multiagency task forces. But it also has been spent on tropical fish, scented candles, mulch and other items that appear to have little or no direct link to law enforcement activities.

  Local law enforcement agencies generally keep 90 percent of forfeited cash, split among the agencies that seized the property. The rest goes to the state, for use by the Iowa Attorney General’s office and the state’s public safety departments.”

 

 

    The Des Moines Register offers a serious investigation into the blatantly unconstitutional process of stripping law abiding citizens of their money and possessions without due process , otherwise known as “civil” asset forfeiture . Read the whole thing and remember this is not an issue limited to Iowa , your state is doing it too .

Civil asset forfeiture reform now . Every “war” results in a loss of freedoms but none so much as the “war on drugs” .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Big Brother Fears As NYPD Attaches Microphones To Lampposts To Listen Out For Gunshots… But They Can Also Record Your Conversations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” Technology now in use by the New York Police Department may be picking up stray conversations.

  Three hundred ShotSpotter microphones are being placed in high crime areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn, with the aim of alerting police immediately when they overhear the sound of gunshots.

  However, the devices pick up more that just the bang of shots being fired in potential crimes, and evidence from conversations they’ve listened in on has been used in court.”

We find the raven emblematic of the death of our privacy

” Audio recordings from ShotSpotter have been used to corroborate testimony that led to convictions in a 2011 Massachusetts murder where a voice was heard shouting ‘No Jason, no Jason!’ before shots were fired. 

  NYPD officials and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a pilot program for the microphones earlier this week.

  Sensors in seven districts of the Bronx have already begun working, and the devices will be turned on in ten districts of Brooklyn on Monday, according to the New York Times. “

   ShotSpotter amounts to “Big Brother” listening posts throughout the public streets , and despite assurances to the contrary raise legitimate privacy concerns:

” The restrictions on triggering events have not stopped some privacy advocates from saying that evidence procured by the ShotSpotters may violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

‘ If [ShotSpotter] is recording voices out in public, it needs to be shut down,’ the ACLU’s Jay Stanley told Take Part.

  He said his organization is ‘always concerned about secondary uses of technology that is sold to us for some unobjectionable purpose and is then used for other purposes.’ “

   One thing that has become readily apparent in recent years is that if there is a way to abuse and/or misuse technological advances , the State will find a way … Read more on the huge potential for civil rights abuses represented by State ears recording on public streets here

   If public eavesdropping becomes socially acceptable , in the name of “public safety” of course , then it follows that the next step , also for “the public good” , will be something along the lines of what the head of Scotland Yard recently proposed … surveillance cameras in our homes .  

Secrecy Around Police Surveillance Equipment Proves A Case’s Undoing

 

 

 

” The case against Tadrae McKenzie looked like an easy win for prosecutors. He and two buddies robbed a small-time pot dealer of $130 worth of weed using BB guns. Under Florida law, that was robbery with a deadly weapon, with a sentence of at least four years in prison.

  But before trial, his defense team detected investigators’ use of a secret surveillance tool, one that raises significant privacy concerns. In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the police to show the device —a cell-tower simulator sometimes called a StingRay — to the attorneys.

  Rather than show the equipment, the state offered McKenzie a plea bargain.

  Today, 20-year-old McKenzie is serving six months’ probation ­after pleading guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor. He got, as one civil liberties advocate said, the deal of the century. (The other two defendants also pleaded guilty and were sentenced to two years’ probation.)

  McKenzie’s case is emblematic of the growing, but hidden, use by local law enforcement of a sophisticated surveillance technology borrowed from the national security world. It shows how a gag order imposed by the FBI — on grounds that discussing the device’s operation would compromise its effectiveness — has left judges, the public and criminal defendants in the dark on how the tool works.”

 

Washington Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FBI Digital Search-Warrant Plan A ‘Monumental’ Constitutional Threat, Says Google

 

 

 

 

” Tech giant Google submitted court documents this week charging that a new FBI plan for obtaining digital search warrants is a “monumental” constitutional threat.

  Richard Salgado, Google’s director for law enforcement and information security, wrote Tuesday that the Justice Department’s plans for remotely accessing computer files “raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal, and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide.”

  National Journal reported Wednesday that the federal government wants to make changes to a criminal procedure provision known as Rule 41, which would allow judges to approve warrants outside their jurisdictions.

“ The serious and complex constitutional concerns implicated by the proposed amendment are numerous and, because of the nature of Fourth Amendment case law development, are unlikely to be addressed by courts in a timely fashion,” Mr. Salgado wrote.

  Google fears the federal government is using vague language that would permit it to spy on millions of Americans simultaneously.”

More at Washington Times

Congress Has Just Overruled Your 1st, 4th And 5th Amendment Rights

 

 

 

” As of today, Bill HR4681 has passed the house and senate, and is currently undergoing arbitration before being sent to the President for his signature in to law. The law says that the intelligence community can collect, retain, and disseminate all electronic communications including voice calls [without any constitutional restrictions] on all US citizens and everyone else in the world.  And they have 5 years before they are supposed to destroy the records.  However, they can keep them indefinitely if they fall into several categories of interest.

  It is all out in the open now.  Your 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment protections are gone.  This act gives new meaning to ‘land of the free, home of the brave.’  The intelligence community isn’t doing anything in secret any more.  Americans are now living in an environment much like the days of the old Stalinist Soviet Union, where the presumption was that all conversations were monitored and one takes measures to have a ‘private’ conversations. 

  So turn up your radio or turn the water on in the sink and watch what you say on the phone or Facebook, even casual remarks on twitter may come back to haunt you in the future.  Don’t believe me, I have pasted the relevant parts of the bill below this story. Still don’t believe it? Just go to www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text and read it from the horse’s mouth.

What are you willing to do about it?

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

 

[H.R. 4681 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

H.R.4681

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

of the

United States of America

TITLE III–GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A–General Matters

Sec. 309. Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired

communications.

SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED

COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) Definitions.–In this section:

(1) Covered communication.–The term “covered communication”

means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired

without the consent of a person who is a party to the

communication, including communications in electronic storage.

(2) Head of an element of the intelligence community.–The term

“head of an element of the intelligence community” means, as

appropriate–

(A) the head of an element of the intelligence community;

or

(B) the head of the department or agency containing such

element.

(3) United states person.–The term “United States person”

has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

(b) Procedures for Covered Communications.–

(1) Requirement to adopt.–Not later than 2 years after the

date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the

intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the

Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the

requirements of paragraph (3).

(2) Coordination and approval.–The procedures required by

paragraph (1) shall be–

(A) prepared in coordination with the Director of National

Intelligence; and

(B) approved by the Attorney General prior to issuance.

(3) Procedures.–

(A) Application.–The procedures required by paragraph (1)

shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not

otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or

certification issued by a court established under subsection

(a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or

similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result

in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a

United States person and shall permit the acquisition,

retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject

to the limitation in subparagraph (B).

(B) Limitation on retention.–A covered communication shall

not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless–

(i) the communication has been affirmatively

determined, in whole or in part, to constitute foreign

intelligence or counterintelligence or is necessary to

understand or assess foreign intelligence or

counterintelligence;

(ii) the communication is reasonably believed to

constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law

enforcement agency;

(iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably

believed to have a secret meaning;

(iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably

believed to be non-United States persons;

(v) retention is necessary to protect against an

imminent threat to human life, in which case both the

nature of the threat and the information to be retained

shall be reported to the congressional intelligence

committees not later than 30 days after the date such

retention is extended under this clause;

(vi) retention is necessary for technical assurance or

compliance purposes, including a court order or discovery

obligation, in which case access to information retained

for technical assurance or compliance purposes shall be

reported to the congressional intelligence committees on an

annual basis; or

(vii) retention for a period in excess of 5 years is

approved by the head of the element of the intelligence

community responsible for such retention, based on a

determination that retention is necessary to protect the

national security of the United States, in which case the

head of such element shall provide to the congressional

intelligence committees a written certification

describing–

 

(I) the reasons extended retention is necessary to

protect the national security of the United States;

(II) the duration for which the head of the element

is authorizing retention;

(III) the particular information to be retained;

and

(IV) the measures the element of the intelligence

community is taking to protect the privacy interests of

United States persons or persons located inside the

United States. “

 

 

 

 

 

   Many thanks to Universal Free Press for providing this story . Below the reader can see who voted to rob you of your rights and who voted against Statism …

 

 

 

 

 

VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
Alabama
YEA   R   Byrne, Bradley AL 1st
YEA   R   Roby, Martha AL 2nd
YEA   R   Rogers, Mike AL 3rd
YEA   R   Aderholt, Robert AL 4th
NAY   R   Brooks, Mo AL 5th
YEA   R   Bachus, Spencer AL 6th
YEA   D   Sewell, Terri AL 7th
Alaska
YEA   R   Young, Don AK
Arizona
YEA   D   Kirkpatrick, Ann AZ 1st
YEA   D   Barber, Ron AZ 2nd
NAY   D   Grijalva, Raúl AZ 3rd
NAY   R   Gosar, Paul AZ 4th
NAY   R   Salmon, Matt AZ 5th
YEA   R   Schweikert, David AZ 6th
YEA   D   Pastor, Ed AZ 7th
YEA   R   Franks, Trent AZ 8th
YEA   D   Sinema, Kyrsten AZ 9th
Arkansas
YEA   R   Crawford, Eric AR 1st
YEA   R   Griffin, Tim AR 2nd
YEA   R   Womack, Steve AR 3rd
YEA   R   Cotton, Tom AR 4th
California
YEA   R   LaMalfa, Doug CA 1st
NAY   D   Huffman, Jared CA 2nd
NAY   D   Garamendi, John CA 3rd
NAY   R   McClintock, Tom CA 4th
YEA   D   Thompson, Mike CA 5th
NAY   D   Matsui, Doris CA 6th
YEA   D   Bera, Ami CA 7th
YEA   R   Cook, Paul CA 8th
YEA   D   McNerney, Jerry CA 9th
YEA   R   Denham, Jeff CA 10th
YEA   D   Miller, George CA 11th
YEA   D   Pelosi, Nancy CA 12th
NAY   D   Lee, Barbara CA 13th
NAY   D   Speier, Jackie CA 14th
NAY   D   Swalwell, Eric CA 15th
YEA   D   Costa, Jim CA 16th
NAY   D   Honda, Mike CA 17th
NAY   D   Eshoo, Anna CA 18th
NAY   D   Lofgren, Zoe CA 19th
NAY   D   Farr, Sam CA 20th
YEA   R   Valadao, David CA 21st
YEA   R   Nunes, Devin CA 22nd
YEA   R   McCarthy, Kevin CA 23rd
YEA   D   Capps, Lois CA 24th
YEA   R   McKeon, Buck CA 25th
YEA   D   Brownley, Julia CA 26th
NAY   D   Chu, Judy CA 27th
YEA   D   Schiff, Adam CA 28th
YEA   D   Cárdenas, Tony CA 29th
YEA   D   Sherman, Brad CA 30th
NO VOTE   R   Miller, Gary CA 31st
YEA   D   Napolitano, Grace CA 32nd
YEA   D   Waxman, Henry CA 33rd
YEA   D   Becerra, Xavier CA 34th
NO VOTE   D   Negrete McLeod, Gloria CA 35th
YEA   D   Ruiz, Raul CA 36th
NAY   D   Bass, Karen CA 37th
YEA   D   Sánchez, Linda CA 38th
YEA   R   Royce, Ed CA 39th
YEA   D   Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA 40th
NAY   D   Takano, Mark CA 41st
YEA   R   Calvert, Ken CA 42nd
NAY   D   Waters, Maxine CA 43rd
NAY   D   Hahn, Janice CA 44th
NO VOTE   R   Campbell, John CA 45th
YEA   D   Sanchez, Loretta CA 46th
NAY   D   Lowenthal, Alan CA 47th
NAY   R   Rohrabacher, Dana CA 48th
YEA   R   Issa, Darrell CA 49th
YEA   R   Hunter, Duncan CA 50th
YEA   D   Vargas, Juan CA 51st
YEA   D   Peters, Scott CA 52nd
YEA   D   Davis, Susan CA 53rd
Colorado
YEA   D   DeGette, Diana CO 1st
NAY   D   Polis, Jared CO 2nd
NAY   R   Tipton, Scott CO 3rd
YEA   R   Gardner, Cory CO 4th
YEA   R   Lamborn, Doug CO 5th
YEA   R   Coffman, Mike CO 6th
YEA   D   Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th
Connecticut
YEA   D   Larson, John CT 1st
YEA   D   Courtney, Joe CT 2nd
YEA   D   DeLauro, Rosa CT 3rd
YEA   D   Himes, James CT 4th
YEA   D   Esty, Elizabeth CT 5th
Delaware
YEA   D   Carney, John DE
Florida
NO VOTE   R   Miller, Jeff FL 1st
YEA   R   Southerland, Steve FL 2nd
NAY   R   Yoho, Ted FL 3rd
YEA   R   Crenshaw, Ander FL 4th
YEA   D   Brown, Corrine FL 5th
YEA   R   DeSantis, Ron FL 6th
NAY   R   Mica, John FL 7th
NAY   R   Posey, Bill FL 8th
NAY   D   Grayson, Alan FL 9th
YEA   R   Webster, Daniel FL 10th
NAY   R   Nugent, Richard FL 11th
YEA   R   Bilirakis, Gus FL 12th
YEA   R   Jolly, David FL 13th
YEA   D   Castor, Kathy FL 14th
YEA   R   Ross, Dennis FL 15th
YEA   R   Buchanan, Vern FL 16th
YEA   R   Rooney, Thomas FL 17th
YEA   D   Murphy, Patrick FL 18th
NAY   R   Clawson, Curt FL 19th
NAY   D   Hastings, Alcee FL 20th
YEA   D   Deutch, Theodore FL 21st
YEA   D   Frankel, Lois FL 22nd
YEA   D   Wasserman Schultz, Debbie FL 23rd
YEA   D   Wilson, Frederica FL 24th
YEA   R   Diaz-Balart, Mario FL 25th
NAY   D   Garcia, Joe FL 26th
YEA   R   Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana FL 27th
Georgia
NAY   R   Kingston, Jack GA 1st
YEA   D   Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd
YEA   R   Westmoreland, Lynn GA 3rd
YEA   D   Johnson, Hank GA 4th
NAY   D   Lewis, John GA 5th
YEA   R   Price, Tom GA 6th
NAY   R   Woodall, Rob GA 7th
NAY   R   Scott, Austin GA 8th
YEA   R   Collins, Doug GA 9th
NAY   R   Broun, Paul GA 10th
YEA   R   Gingrey, Phil GA 11th
YEA   D   Barrow, John GA 12th
YEA   D   Scott, David GA 13th
NAY   R   Graves, Tom GA 14th
Hawaii
NAY   D   Hanabusa, Colleen HI 1st
YEA   D   Gabbard, Tulsi HI 2nd
Idaho
NAY   R   Labrador, Raúl ID 1st
YEA   R   Simpson, Mike ID 2nd
Illinois
YEA   D   Rush, Bobby IL 1st
YEA   D   Kelly, Robin IL 2nd
YEA   D   Lipinski, Daniel IL 3rd
NAY   D   Gutiérrez, Luis IL 4th
YEA   D   Quigley, Mike IL 5th
YEA   R   Roskam, Peter IL 6th
YEA   D   Davis, Danny IL 7th
NO VOTE   D   Duckworth, Tammy IL 8th
NAY   D   Schakowsky, Jan IL 9th
YEA   D   Schneider, Bradley IL 10th
YEA   D   Foster, Bill IL 11th
YEA   D   Enyart, William IL 12th
YEA   R   Davis, Rodney IL 13th
YEA   R   Hultgren, Randy IL 14th
YEA   R   Shimkus, John IL 15th
YEA   R   Kinzinger, Adam IL 16th
YEA   D   Bustos, Cheri IL 17th
VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
YEA   R   Schock, Aaron IL 18th
Indiana
YEA   D   Visclosky, Peter IN 1st
YEA   R   Walorski, Jackie IN 2nd
YEA   R   Stutzman, Marlin IN 3rd
YEA   R   Rokita, Todd IN 4th
YEA   R   Brooks, Susan IN 5th
YEA   R   Messer, Luke IN 6th
YEA   D   Carson, André IN 7th
YEA   R   Bucshon, Larry IN 8th
YEA   R   Young, Todd IN 9th
Iowa
YEA   D   Braley, Bruce IA 1st
YEA   D   Loebsack, David IA 2nd
YEA   R   Latham, Tom IA 3rd
YEA   R   King, Steve IA 4th
Kansas
NAY   R   Huelskamp, Tim KS 1st
YEA   R   Jenkins, Lynn KS 2nd
YEA   R   Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd
YEA   R   Pompeo, Mike KS 4th
Kentucky
YEA   R   Whitfield, Ed KY 1st
YEA   R   Guthrie, Brett KY 2nd
NAY   D   Yarmuth, John KY 3rd
NAY   R   Massie, Thomas KY 4th
YEA   R   Rogers, Hal KY 5th
YEA   R   Barr, Andy KY 6th
Louisiana
YEA   R   Scalise, Steve LA 1st
YEA   D   Richmond, Cedric LA 2nd
YEA   R   Boustany, Charles LA 3rd
YEA   R   Fleming, John LA 4th
YEA   R   McAllister, Vance LA 5th
YEA   R   Cassidy, Bill LA 6th
Maine
YEA   D   Pingree, Chellie ME 1st
YEA   D   Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
Maryland
YEA   R   Harris, Andy MD 1st
YEA   D   Ruppersberger, A. Dutch MD 2nd
YEA   D   Sarbanes, John MD 3rd
YEA   D   Edwards, Donna MD 4th
YEA   D   Hoyer, Steny MD 5th
YEA   D   Delaney, John MD 6th
NAY   D   Cummings, Elijah MD 7th
YEA   D   Van Hollen, Chris MD 8th
Massachusetts
YEA   D   Neal, Richard MA 1st
NAY   D   McGovern, Jim MA 2nd
YEA   D   Tsongas, Niki MA 3rd
YEA   D   Kennedy, Joseph MA 4th
NAY   D   Clark, Katherine MA 5th
NAY   D   Tierney, John MA 6th
NO VOTE   D   Capuano, Michael MA 7th
YEA   D   Lynch, Stephen MA 8th
YEA   D   Keating, William MA 9th
Michigan
YEA   R   Benishek, Dan MI 1st
YEA   R   Huizenga, Bill MI 2nd
NAY   R   Amash, Justin MI 3rd
YEA   R   Camp, Dave MI 4th
NAY   D   Kildee, Daniel MI 5th
YEA   R   Upton, Fred MI 6th
YEA   R   Walberg, Tim MI 7th
YEA   R   Rogers, Mike MI 8th
YEA   D   Levin, Sander MI 9th
YEA   R   Miller, Candice MI 10th
NAY   R   Bentivolio, Kerry MI 11th
YEA   D   Dingell, John MI 12th
NAY   D   Conyers, John MI 13th
YEA   D   Peters, Gary MI 14th
Minnesota
YEA   D   Walz, Timothy MN 1st
YEA   R   Kline, John MN 2nd
YEA   R   Paulsen, Erik MN 3rd
NAY   D   McCollum, Betty MN 4th
YEA   D   Ellison, Keith MN 5th
YEA   R   Bachmann, Michele MN 6th
YEA   D   Peterson, Collin MN 7th
YEA   D   Nolan, Richard MN 8th
Mississippi
YEA   R   Nunnelee, Alan MS 1st
YEA   D   Thompson, Bennie MS 2nd
YEA   R   Harper, Gregg MS 3rd
YEA   R   Palazzo, Steven MS 4th
Missouri
YEA   D   Clay, Lacy MO 1st
YEA   R   Wagner, Ann MO 2nd
YEA   R   Luetkemeyer, Blaine MO 3rd
YEA   R   Hartzler, Vicky MO 4th
YEA   D   Cleaver, Emanuel MO 5th
YEA   R   Graves, Sam MO 6th
YEA   R   Long, Billy MO 7th
YEA   R   Smith, Jason MO 8th
Montana
YEA   R   Daines, Steve MT
Nebraska
YEA   R   Fortenberry, Jeff NE 1st
YEA   R   Terry, Lee NE 2nd
YEA   R   Smith, Adrian NE 3rd
Nevada
YEA   D   Titus, Dina NV 1st
YEA   R   Amodei, Mark NV 2nd
YEA   R   Heck, Joseph NV 3rd
YEA   D   Horsford, Steven NV 4th
New Hampshire
YEA   D   Shea-Porter, Carol NH 1st
YEA   D   Kuster, Ann NH 2nd
New Jersey
YEA   D   Norcross, Donald NJ 1st
YEA   R   LoBiondo, Frank NJ 2nd
YEA   R   Runyan, Jon NJ 3rd
YEA   R   Smith, Chris NJ 4th
NAY   R   Garrett, Scott NJ 5th
NAY   D   Pallone, Frank NJ 6th
YEA   R   Lance, Leonard NJ 7th
YEA   D   Sires, Albio NJ 8th
YEA   D   Pascrell, Bill NJ 9th
YEA   D   Payne, Donald NJ 10th
YEA   R   Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ 11th
NAY   D   Holt, Rush NJ 12th
New Mexico
YEA   D   Lujan Grisham, Michelle NM 1st
YEA   R   Pearce, Steve NM 2nd
YEA   D   Luján, Ben NM 3rd
New York
YEA   D   Bishop, Timothy NY 1st
YEA   R   King, Pete NY 2nd
YEA   D   Israel, Steve NY 3rd
YEA   D   McCarthy, Carolyn NY 4th
YEA   D   Meeks, Gregory NY 5th
YEA   D   Meng, Grace NY 6th
NAY   D   Velázquez, Nydia NY 7th
YEA   D   Jeffries, Hakeem NY 8th
NAY   D   Clarke, Yvette NY 9th
NAY   D   Nadler, Jerrold NY 10th
YEA   R   Grimm, Michael NY 11th
YEA   D   Maloney, Carolyn NY 12th
NAY   D   Rangel, Charles NY 13th
YEA   D   Crowley, Joseph NY 14th
NAY   D   Serrano, José NY 15th
YEA   D   Engel, Eliot NY 16th
YEA   D   Lowey, Nita NY 17th
YEA   D   Maloney, Sean NY 18th
NAY   R   Gibson, Christopher NY 19th
YEA   D   Tonko, Paul NY 20th
YEA   D   Owens, William NY 21st
YEA   R   Hanna, Richard NY 22nd
YEA   R   Reed, Tom NY 23rd
YEA   D   Maffei, Daniel NY 24th
YEA   D   Slaughter, Louise NY 25th
YEA   D   Higgins, Brian NY 26th
YEA   R   Collins, Chris NY 27th
North Carolina
YEA   D   Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st
YEA   R   Ellmers, Renee NC 2nd
NAY   R   Jones, Walter NC 3rd
YEA   D   Price, David NC 4th
YEA   R   Foxx, Virginia NC 5th
YEA   R   Coble, Howard NC 6th
YEA   D   McIntyre, Mike NC 7th
VOTE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
YEA   R   Hudson, Richard NC 8th
YEA   R   Pittenger, Robert NC 9th
YEA   R   McHenry, Patrick NC 10th
NAY   R   Meadows, Mark NC 11th
YEA   D   Adams, Alma NC 12th
YEA   R   Holding, George NC 13th
North Dakota
YEA   R   Cramer, Kevin ND
Ohio
YEA   R   Chabot, Steve OH 1st
YEA   R   Wenstrup, Brad OH 2nd
YEA   D   Beatty, Joyce OH 3rd
NAY   R   Jordan, Jim OH 4th
YEA   R   Latta, Robert OH 5th
YEA   R   Johnson, Bill OH 6th
YEA   R   Gibbs, Bob OH 7th
NAY   D   Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th
YEA   R   Turner, Michael OH 10th
YEA   D   Fudge, Marcia OH 11th
YEA   R   Tiberi, Pat OH 12th
YEA   D   Ryan, Tim OH 13th
YEA   R   Joyce, David OH 14th
YEA   R   Stivers, Steve OH 15th
YEA   R   Renacci, James OH 16th
Oklahoma
NAY   R   Bridenstine, Jim OK 1st
YEA   R   Mullin, Markwayne OK 2nd
YEA   R   Lucas, Frank OK 3rd
YEA   R   Cole, Tom OK 4th
YEA   R   Lankford, James OK 5th
Oregon
NAY   D   Bonamici, Suzanne OR 1st
YEA   R   Walden, Greg OR 2nd
NAY   D   Blumenauer, Earl OR 3rd
NAY   D   DeFazio, Peter OR 4th
NO VOTE   D   Schrader, Kurt OR 5th
Pennsylvania
YEA   D   Brady, Robert PA 1st
YEA   D   Fattah, Chaka PA 2nd
YEA   R   Kelly, Mike PA 3rd
NAY   R   Perry, Scott PA 4th
YEA   R   Thompson, Glenn PA 5th
YEA   R   Gerlach, Jim PA 6th
YEA   R   Meehan, Patrick PA 7th
YEA   R   Fitzpatrick, Michael PA 8th
YEA   R   Shuster, Bill PA 9th
YEA   R   Marino, Tom PA 10th
YEA   R   Barletta, Lou PA 11th
YEA   R   Rothfus, Keith PA 12th
YEA   D   Schwartz, Allyson PA 13th
NAY   D   Doyle, Mike PA 14th
YEA   R   Dent, Charles PA 15th
YEA   R   Pitts, Joseph PA 16th
YEA   D   Cartwright, Matthew PA 17th
YEA   R   Murphy, Tim PA 18th
Rhode Island
YEA   D   Cicilline, David RI 1st
YEA   D   Langevin, Jim RI 2nd
South Carolina
NAY   R   Sanford, Mark SC 1st
YEA   R   Wilson, Joe SC 2nd
NAY   R   Duncan, Jeff SC 3rd
NAY   R   Gowdy, Trey SC 4th
NAY   R   Mulvaney, Mick SC 5th
YEA   D   Clyburn, Jim SC 6th
YEA   R   Rice, Tom SC 7th
South Dakota
YEA   R   Noem, Kristi SD
Tennessee
NAY   R   Roe, Phil TN 1st
NAY   R   Duncan, John TN 2nd
YEA   R   Fleischmann, Chuck TN 3rd
NAY   R   DesJarlais, Scott TN 4th
YEA   D   Cooper, Jim TN 5th
YEA   R   Black, Diane TN 6th
YEA   R   Blackburn, Marsha TN 7th
YEA   R   Fincher, Stephen TN 8th
NAY   D   Cohen, Steve TN 9th
Texas
NAY   R   Gohmert, Louie TX 1st
NAY   R   Poe, Ted TX 2nd
YEA   R   Johnson, Sam TX 3rd
NO VOTE   R   Hall, Ralph TX 4th
YEA   R   Hensarling, Jeb TX 5th
YEA   R   Barton, Joe TX 6th
YEA   R   Culberson, John TX 7th
YEA   R   Brady, Kevin TX 8th
YEA   D   Green, Al TX 9th
YEA   R   McCaul, Michael TX 10th
YEA   R   Conaway, Michael TX 11th
YEA   R   Granger, Kay TX 12th
YEA   R   Thornberry, Mac TX 13th
NAY   R   Weber, Randy TX 14th
YEA   D   Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
NAY   D   O’Rourke, Beto TX 16th
YEA   R   Flores, Bill TX 17th
NAY   D   Jackson Lee, Sheila TX 18th
YEA   R   Neugebauer, Randy TX 19th
YEA   D   Castro, Joaquin TX 20th
YEA   R   Smith, Lamar TX 21st
YEA   R   Olson, Pete TX 22nd
YEA   D   Gallego, Pete TX 23rd
YEA   R   Marchant, Kenny TX 24th
YEA   R   Williams, Roger TX 25th
NAY   R   Burgess, Michael TX 26th
YEA   R   Farenthold, Blake TX 27th
YEA   D   Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
YEA   D   Green, Gene TX 29th
YEA   D   Johnson, Eddie TX 30th
YEA   R   Carter, John TX 31st
YEA   R   Sessions, Pete TX 32nd
YEA   D   Veasey, Marc TX 33rd
YEA   D   Vela, Filemon TX 34th
NAY   D   Doggett, Lloyd TX 35th
NAY   R   Stockman, Steve TX 36th
Utah
YEA   R   Bishop, Rob UT 1st
YEA   R   Stewart, Chris UT 2nd
YEA   R   Chaffetz, Jason UT 3rd
YEA   D   Matheson, Jim UT 4th
Vermont
NAY   D   Welch, Peter VT
Virginia
YEA   R   Wittman, Robert VA 1st
YEA   R   Rigell, Scott VA 2nd
YEA   D   Scott, Bobby VA 3rd
YEA   R   Forbes, Randy VA 4th
YEA   R   Hurt, Robert VA 5th
YEA   R   Goodlatte, Bob VA 6th
NAY   R   Brat, Dave VA 7th
YEA   D   Moran, Jim VA 8th
NAY   R   Griffith, Morgan VA 9th
YEA   R   Wolf, Frank VA 10th
YEA   D   Connolly, Gerald VA 11th
Washington
NAY   D   DelBene, Suzan WA 1st
YEA   D   Larsen, Rick WA 2nd
YEA   R   Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd
YEA   R   Hastings, Doc WA 4th
YEA   R   McMorris Rodgers, Cathy WA 5th
YEA   D   Kilmer, Derek WA 6th
NAY   D   McDermott, Jim WA 7th
YEA   R   Reichert, David WA 8th
NO VOTE   D   Smith, Adam WA 9th
NAY   D   Heck, Denny WA 10th
West Virginia
YEA   R   McKinley, David WV 1st
YEA   R   Capito, Shelley WV 2nd
YEA   D   Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
Wisconsin
YEA   R   Ryan, Paul WI 1st
NAY   D   Pocan, Mark WI 2nd
YEA   D   Kind, Ron WI 3rd
NAY   D   Moore, Gwen WI 4th
NAY   R   Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th
YEA   R   Petri, Tom WI 6th
YEA   R   Duffy, Sean WI 7th
NAY   R   Ribble, Reid WI 8th
Wyoming
NAY   R   Lummis, Cynthia

 

 

   This is a despicable vote and all the Republicans that voted in favor of this bill should hang their heads in shame . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Judge Unseals Hundreds Of Highly Secret Cell Tracking Court Records

 

 

 

 

” A judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, has unsealed a set of 529 court documents in hundreds of criminal cases detailing the use of a stingray, or cell-site simulator, by local police. This move, which took place earlier this week, marks a rare example of a court opening up a vast trove of applications made by police to a judge, who authorized each use of the powerful and potentially invasive device.

  According to the Charlotte Observer, the records seem to suggest that judges likely did not fully understand what they were authorizing. Law enforcement agencies nationwide have taken extraordinary steps to preserve stingray secrecy. As recently as this week, prosecutors in a Baltimore robbery case dropped key evidence that stemmed from stingray use rather than fully disclose how the device was used.

  The newspaper also reported on Friday that the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s office, which astonishingly had also never previously seen the applications filed by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD), will now review them and determine which records also need to be shared with defense attorneys. Criminals could potentially file new claims challenging their convictions on the grounds that not all evidence was disclosed to them at the time.

  Relatively little is known about precisely how stingrays are used by law enforcement agencies nationwide, although more and more documents have surfaced showing how they’ve been purchased and used in limited instances. Last year, Ars reported on leaked documents showing the existence of a body-worn stingray. In 2010, security researcher Kristin Paget famously demonstrated a homemade device built for just $1,500.

  Worse still, local cops have lied to courts (at the direction of the United States Marshals Service) about the use of such technology. Not only can stingrays be used to determine a phone’s location, but they can also intercept calls and text messages. While they do target specific phones, they also sweep up cell data of innocents nearby who have no idea that such data collection is taking place. “

 

Ars Technica has more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FBI Agents Posing As Internet Repairmen At Las Vegas Hotel Use ‘Oceans 11’-Style Tactics To Try And Bust Illegal Gambling Ring

 

 

 

 

 

 

” More like a play from Ocean’s 11 than the standard operating guidebook for FBI undercover operations, agents tricked their way inside three luxury villas at Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, to gather evidence to bust an illegal sports betting ring.

  To get away with their incredible ruse, federal agents first turned off Internet access to the villas then impersonated repair technicians to gain entry to get around a warrant, according to defense lawyers challenging the practice.

  Dramatic new video, filmed through the lapel camera carried by one of the undercover agent’s, shows the level of subterfuge that the FBI used to bust the soccer World Cup gambling ring in Sin City.

  The video shows investigators devising code words to use while they were inside, a back-and-forth about the cover story for an agent, who adopted the name ‘Sam,’ which he had used ‘for other stuff’ in the past, and a brief exchange about how another investigator should dress for the role of a technical repair nerd.

‘ If you put on that shirt, you have to look the part. Go all the way,’ said Mike Wood, an outside technician working for Caesars, advising Nevada Gaming Control Board Agent Ricardo Lopez before Lopez headed to one of the suites the morning of July 4. An FBI agent, Mike Kung, accompanied him also undercover.

  The AP obtained about 30 minutes of audio and video recordings of the covert reconnaissance.

  The FBI employed the ruse against the recommendation of an assistant U.S. attorney, Kimberly Frayn, according to lawyers for four of eight men charged in the case.

  Defense lawyer Thomas Goldstein, who is challenging evidence the government collected in what he described as an illegal search, said that was code to turn Internet access back on.”

   More lawless tactics from American “law enforcement” , shades of the Secret Service in Nashville where they tried , unsuccessfully to get local law enforcement to fake a search warrant … Read the whole piece

Lawsuit Based On Alleged Government Targeting Of Tea Party Group Organizer Can Go Forward

 

 

 

 

” Plaintiff Selim Zherka filed this … action claiming that employees of the Internal Revenue Service hindered his application for tax exempt status and initiated an investigation against him as part of a broader effort to penalize members of the Tea Party for their political activities….

  Beginning in 2009, plaintiff published newspaper articles and held rallies criticizing government officials for political corruption and “confiscatory tax policies.” Plaintiff organized and supported the creation of the Tea Party, a political party that received extensive publicity in the news media. At some point, plaintiff sought tax-exempt status for an organization he and others used primarily for educational purposes. However, plaintiff claims that defendant Lois Lerner …, an IRS employee, subjected his application to an inordinately high level of scrutiny, forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain tax-exempt status. [The case against Lois Lerner was dismissed because “Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of showing that [he] served defendant Lerner with a copy of the summons and complaint.” — EV]

  Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, agent Ryan of the Federal Bureau of Investigation … and agent Ashcroft … of the IRS began an investigation into his commercial real estate dealings. Plaintiff claims these defendants issued over 75 subpoenas to his business associates, threatening them with criminal prosecution should they withhold information incriminating plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, many of these business associates terminated their relationship with him out of a fear of “running asunder of federal agencies.” He asserts that defendants’ conduct was part of a broader government strategy to penalize Tea Party members for their political speech.

  Plaintiff claims to have lost business as a result of the ongoing investigation. Moreover, he claims that defendants’ actions have chilled his political activities, damaged his reputation, and caused emotional injuries…. “

 

Read more from Eugene Volokh at Wash Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 For The Record: “Seized”

 

 

Published on Sep 29, 2014

” A little known law that allows the IRS and law enforcement to empty bank accounts and seize personal property without warning or proof of a crime.

  Could you be their next target? Find on Wednesday’s episode of For the Record at 8PM ET.

  Watch full episodes of For The Record on demand with a subscription to TheBlaze TV:http://theblaze.com/fortherecord “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cops Seize Car When Told To Get A Warrant, Tell Owner That’s What He Gets For ‘Exercising His Rights’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” Yeah, so you’ve read the headline. No criminal activity. No charges brought. And a cheap shot fired across the bow of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention Vermont’s own Constitution.

  But let’s travel back further to set this up. Twenty-one-year-old Gregory Zullo was supposedly pulled over for having his license plate registration sticker (incidentally) covered by a small amount of snow.

Not a crime. From the ACLU filing [pdf link]:

  At all times relevant to this action, it was not a violation of Vermont law to drive a car on which the validation sticker on the rear license plate – but not the numbers and letters of the license plate itself – was touched by snow, leaves, or any other material.

  The lawsuit notes that the officer who stated this was the reason he initiated the event spent no further time on that subject. He didn’t bother to brush the snow away from the registration sticker or have Zullo do it, despite the fact that both spent over 30 minutes no more than a few inches away from the offending plate.

  Officer Hatch spent most of his time trying to talk Zullo into allowing him to search the vehicle without a warrant. Hatch seemed to be convinced that Zullo was involved with the heroin traffickers he was searching for. Hatch tried everything, including lying.

  More than once, the defendant’s employee told Mr. Zullo that Mr. Zullo should consent to a search because the police dog in the back of his truck smelled something. “

Read more here and here

Marine Arrested and Institutionalized for Facebook Posts Critical of the Government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” Brandon Raub, a decorated Marine who was forcefully admitted to a mental health institution for posting Facebook posts that were at-odds with the Obama Administration’s political agenda, is now suing the federal government for the apparent civil rights violation.
 
  In 2012, Raub was arrested for posting “controversial song lyrics, conspiracy theories related to 9/11 and talk of upcoming revolution.” He was taken to a mental health institution and admitted for Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a term that the government uses to brand those who disagree with the way government is being run as being insane.
 
  Raub was released days later when a judge recognized that there was no reason for his institutionalization. Still, this episode has startling implications about freedom in America.
 
  This is not an isolated incident, however, as Raub was detained as part of a DHS directive called “Operation Vigilant Eagle,” a directive aimed at scrutinizing the behavior of veterans for anything nonconformist as a means of weeding out dissent. The program claims to be trying to help veterans who are “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.
 
  However, critics have noted that the criteria is overly-broad and seems to target rightwing thought as a dangerous behavior worthy of institutionalization where veterans can become re-educated.”
      Any right-thinking person these days had better have some “oppositional defiance” , which puts us in good company … Think Jefferson , Madison , Washington , Franklin , Henry , Lee … If they were with us today the State would surely be holding them under lock and key .

U.S. Marshals Seize Cops’ Spying Records To Keep Them From The ACLU

 

 

 

 

 

 

” A routine request in Florida for public records regarding the use of a surveillance tool known as stingray took an extraordinary turn recently when federal authorities seized the documents before police could release them.

  The surprise move by the U.S. Marshals Service stunned the American Civil Liberties Union, which earlier this year filed the public records request with the Sarasota, Florida, police department for information detailing its use of the controversial surveillance tool.

  The ACLU had an appointment last Tuesday to review documents pertaining to a case investigated by a Sarasota police detective. But marshals swooped in at the last minute to grab the records, claiming they belong to the U.S. Marshals Service and barring the police from releasing them.

  ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler called the move “truly extraordinary and beyond the worst transparency violations” the group has seen regarding documents detailing police use of the technology.

“ This is consistent with what we’ve seen around the country with federal agencies trying to meddle with public requests for stingray information,” Wessler said, noting that federal authorities have in other cases invoked the Homeland Security Act to prevent the release of such records. “The feds are working very hard to block any release of this information to the public.”

  Stingrays, also known as IMSI catchers, simulate a cellphone tower and trick nearby mobile devices into connecting with them, thereby revealing their location. A stingray can see and record a device’s unique ID number and traffic data, as well as information that points to its location. By moving a stingray around, authorities can triangulate a device’s location with greater precision than is possible using data obtained from a carrier’s fixed tower location.”

 

 

    We’ve posted about the Stingray tracking devices and the company’s harassment of citizen journalists and now we have the Feds stepping in to further prevent the public from learning the truth about this Statist tool .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Schoolers School Nancy Pelosi On NSA Abuse

 

 

 

     While being confronted about domestic surveillance and fourth amendment violations a group of high school students  get Nancy Pelosi to blame Bush and defend the NSA , thus revealing her to be the tool that she is .

Police No Longer Need Warrants To Search Cars In Pa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

” A recent ruling from Pennsylvania’s highest court could have a big impact on your privacy rights during a car stop. Pennsylvania traditionally provided broader privacy protection than the US Constitution.

  For decades, police in the Commonwealth had to get obtain warrant from a judge before they could do a car search unless time was of the essence or the evidence could be lost or destroyed. But now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 4 to 2 decision in Commonwealth v. Gary changes the rule.

There’ll be lesser protection of privacy in Pennsylvania,” says Dave Rudovsky, a professor at Penn Law school and a civil rights attorney.

“ The district attorneys offices will say this is about drugs and guns and that is true, but it does not end there,” says James Funt, an attorney with Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores.

“ Whatever is in the car can be searched,” he says, “it’s a slippery slope.”

  Funt says the ruling severely erodes Pennsylvania’s privacy protections by essentially concluding that citizens have less privacy in their cars than in their homes. He says people carry cell phones and other electronic devices in their cars and the court’s ruling means these items could be vulnerable as well.

Where does it stop? It doesn’t,” says Funt, “It will not end with guns and drugs.” “

 

    The courts no longer represent the interests of justice and the people who empower them . They stand as willing facilitators of the State . We are at war with the State and can no longer expect to seek redress through checks and balances . Read more .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NSA Spy Program One Step Closer To Extinction

 

 

 

 

 

 

” The House of Representatives is moving ahead to curtail how the National Security Agency collects and retains telephone data on Americans, the National Journal reported.

  The House Judiciary Committee voted 32-0 Wednesday to amend the USA Freedom Act, the National Journal said. The House Intelligence Committee will vote on its version of the legislation on Thursday. The intelligence committee version doesn’t include a blanket prohibition on bulk collection.

  House members will need to reconcile conflicts between the two versions. The final bill is expected to be in line with President Barack Obama’s announced NSA reforms. A vote by the full House could take place by the end of May, The Wall Street Journal reported.

  Amending the USA Freedom Act is aimed at minimizing how much private information the government retains and to proscribe how such data can be obtained, the Journal reported.”

 

 

 

    While we applaud any efforts at reining in government spying , we remain exceedingly skeptical that much will be accomplished in reestablishing our citizenry’s privacy as long as we have the Patriot Act and the FISA courts which really amount to a “Star Chamber” . Read more at Newsmax

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Cop Stops You At A Festival: The “Know Your Rights” Infographic

 

 

Infographic-Festival Lawyer

 

 

A COP “STOPS YOU” AT A MUSIC FESTIVAL

” The 4th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. That means you are supposed to have a right as a citizen to freely go about your business without being randomly detained or investigated. In order to “stop” you, an officer first has to have a belief that you were engaged in criminal activity.

  There are 3 levels of police “stops”. At each higher level of police encounter, the police officer has to show more justification as to why he stopped you.

  Consensual Encounter – A police encounter where you are not the subject of a police investigation and are free to leave. Officers don’t have to legally justify a consensual encounter because you can leave at any time.

  Detention – A police encounter where you are temporarily stopped while the police investigate you for a crime. Officers must have a “reasonable suspicion” that you were involved in criminal activity to detain you.

  Arrest – Permanently stopped and on your way to jail. An officer must have “Probable Cause” to believe you committed a crime to arrest you.”

CopBlock has more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court To Weigh Cellphone Searches

 

 

Cellphone Stats

 

 

 

” The Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cellphone, in two appeals that could define the parameters of law enforcement tapping into the trove of data stored on smartphones.

  The issue, arising in separate cases from Boston and San Diego, is the latest collision at the court between the capabilities of technology and the centuries-old Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

  The outcome of Tuesday’s cases could affect the way police handle tens of thousands of arrests each year. Lower courts have reached conflicting conclusions, including in the two cases before the court.

  Law-enforcement advocates argue phones are similar to other personal effects found on someone at the time of arrest: Police can go through photos, address books and similar materials found on a person without obtaining a warrant, under Supreme Court precedents intended to protect officers’ safety and prevent destruction of evidence.

  Privacy advocates contend police shouldn’t have unfettered access to information that previously couldn’t be seen without entering someone’s home.”

 

More at The WSJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa Cops Seize Almost $ 50,000 From A Couple , Didn’t Charge Them With A Crime

 

bilde

 

 

 

” A Minnesota couple is suing the Iowa City Police Department to return almost $50,000, arguing police wrongfully seized that cash. Kearnice Overton was driving with his four kids on I-80 when Iowa City police pulled him over for speeding. Police brought a K-9 unit and based on the dog giving a “silent indicator on the vehicle,” police searched Overton’s car. They found $48,000.

   Drug sniffing dogs can have a very high false positive rate, i.e., they alert even when there are no drugs. Yet as the Institute for Justice demonstrated in an amicus brief for the U.S. Supreme Court, “There are countless examples of police seizing large sums of cash based on nothing more than a positive dog alert.” Plus, in Iowa, law enforcement can keep 100 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property, creating an immense incentive to police for profit.”

 

Institute For Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Stossel – Policing For Profit

 

 

 

 

” Eapen Thampy (Americans for Forfeiture Reform) joins John to discuss a form of legalized theft called civil asset forfeiture.

Via Wikipedia

  There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case.

  In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant.

  The burden is on the Government to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture by a “preponderance of the evidence.” If it is successful, the owner may yet prevail by establishing an “innocent owner” defense.”

Continued

N.Y. Search Warrant Case Shows Why We Need The Exclusionary Rule

 

 

210322_640x480

 

 

 

” The New York Post and the head of a New York City police union are upset that an accused drug dealer with a prior record may walk due to “a technicality.”

  Judge Jack Weinstein voided evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins last week because an NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up the weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache last September, court papers say.

  The ruling will likely allow Wiggins, a prior felon, to walk . . .

“ New York City police officers put their lives on the line to get these illegal weapons off the street,” Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Patrick Lynch said of the ruling. “There are some technicalities — like if the premise is a single- or multiple-family dwelling — that are so insignificant that suppressing the evidence actually subverts justice and public safety.”

Lynch’s line of thinking is a direct reflection of the way law enforcement in general views the public and our rights.

” So what was that technicality? The cop who filled out the search warrant didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was to be searched. Consequently, the cops raided the wrong residence, which caused them to kick down the door and terrorize an innocent family. Someone could have been killed. It’s happened before. Hell, it’s happened before in New York.

  The requirement that the location on a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality.” “

Read the rest from Radley Balko

A Hidden Camera During DUI Checkpoint Exposes the Vileness of the American Police State

 

 

 

 

 

 

” “He’s perfectly innocent, he knows his rights, he knows what the Constitution says.” mutters the power tripping jackboot cop as he tears apart this innocent man’s vehicle for no other reason than to flex his “authority.”

“ It wasn’t a very good alert….” brags the other jackboot about the drug dog “giving them permission” to search this man’s vehicle. He was likely about to confess to just how arbitrary their decision was in violating this innocent person’s rights, when he spots the camera.

“ Hey Jim……” and they realize they’ve been bamboozled.

  Watching this video is incredibly grounding, we can see just how far the US has progressed into a totalitarian police state. These Stasi checkpoints are NOT for your safety, they are to condition innocent people into acquiescing to state intimidation. If you doubt that claim, research how many of these “DUI Checkpoints” actually catch people that are DUI.

Here are the numbers from the checkpoint that night:

  •  250 vehicles passed through the checkpoint
  •  20 vehicles were detained that required further investigation
  •  Three vehicles were searched
  •  One misdemeanor arrest was made
  •  32 citations were issued: Two child restraint device citations, one DUI, 10 citations for violations of the registration law, four citations for violation of the light law, one revoked/suspended driver’s license, six financial responsibility (no insurance), six other driver’s license law violations, and two safety belt law violations.

  Only one DUI arrest was made. One out of 250. 250 people were stopped, questioned, their rights violated, and faced potential and real harassment so this department could be 0.4% effective at stopping drunk driving.”

 

Free Thought Project has more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawsuit: Man Arrested, Searched For Marijuana Solely For Having Colorado License Plate

 

igplpve7evyklgswxmne

 

 

 

” An Idaho state trooper arrested and fully searched a 70-year-old Washington man’s vehicle solely because he had a Colorado license plate – a state where marijuana is legal – a federal “license plate profiling” lawsuit alleges.

  Darien Roseen was driving along I-84 between his second home in Colorado and Washington state on Jan. 25 when Idaho State Trooper Justin Klitch “immediately” pulled out from the Interstate median and began “rapidly accelerating” to catch up to Roseen, according to the complaint in a Courthouse News Service report. Exiting at a designated rest area, Roseen says he became “uncomfortable” that Klitch had followed him though he had not “done anything wrong.”

  After pulling Roseen over, Klitch reportedly failed to explain why he made the stop, although he later said he made the stop because Roseen failed to use his signal when pulling off on the exit, and because he bumped the curb. Klitch rejected Roseen’s reason for pulling into the rest area, telling him, “You didn’t have to go to the bathroom before you saw me … I’m telling you, you pulled in here to avoid me.” “

  Klitch repeatedly asked to search Roseen’s vehicle as he accused him of “hiding” something. And when Roseen did not grant him permission, Klitch threatened to bring in a drug-sniffing dog and characterized Roseen’s behavior as “consistent with a person who was hiding something illegal.

  Finally consenting to a search of “parts” of the vehicle to get “back on the road faster,” Roseen says that this proved to be a mistake.

“ When Mr. Roseen opened the trunk compartment, and despite the strong gusts of wind and precipitation that day, Trooper Klitch claimed he could smell the odor of marijuana,” the complaint states. “Mr. Roseen stated that he could not smell the odor of marijuana that Trooper Klitch claimed to be coming from the trunk compartment.”

  Calling in an additional police officer, Klitch said the aroma gave him cause to search the entire vehicle, and Roseen was detained in the back of Klitch’s vehicle, but was told he was not under arrest despite having been read his Miranda rights.

  The second officer drove Roseen’s Honda Ridgeline to the Payette County Sheriff’s sally port although Roseen states that he never gave the officer permission to drive his vehicle and the car’s items were not inventoried.

  The ensuing search of the vehicle by multiple unidentified officers found nothing and Roseen was issued a citation for “inattentive/careless” driving.”

 

CBS Seattle has the rest

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial

 

 

US-Supreme-Court-300x299

 

 

 

 

    And Texas likes to think of itself as a haven of liberty ? What happened to our Bill of Rights ? Did it get abolished without our knowledge ? The answer is yes , the “war on drugs” combined with the “Patriot Act” and Congress’ abuse of the “Commerce Clause” has conspired to turn the Constitution and a nation of laws on it’s ear to the detriment of liberty and individual freedom . 

     Now combine the above piece with this story from TechDirt about a:  Judge Rejects Warrant Application, Because He Thinks None Is Needed , an excerpt of which you can read below , and the reader can be forgiven if he/she comes to the conclusion that we no longer reside in a free country but instead have been transported back in time to the Soviet Union of old … complete with mock trials , midnight door busting and neighbor ratting neighbor .

 

 

” Orin Kerr has a post about a bizarre decision by DC Magistrate Judge John Facciola, who decided to reject a warrant application not because he thought there wasn’t probable cause, but rather because he didn’t think that the government needed a warrant at all, and could do the search it wanted without such a warrant. This is problematic on a variety of different levels, and Kerr covers them all. The story involves a police chase of a suspect with a gun. During the chase, he threw away the gun. The police found the gun, and while they were at it, the guy’s mobile phone. The warrant was to do a thorough search of the phone. Facciola said they didn’t need a warrant since the phone had been “abandoned.” Whether or not the phone was actually abandoned, the ruling is problematic (in part because Facciola has no way of knowing if the phone was actually abandoned).”

 

 

      Reading both pieces the viewer will come to the inevitable conclusion the the citizens can no longer expect to resort to the courts for the protection of their rights as the judiciary have morphed into little more than a rubber stamp collection to be utilized in whatever way that law enforcement and prosecutors deem in their best interests . Here is the Texas “decision” and here is the DC “decision” . Shameful both …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rand Paul Addresses Packed House At Berkeley 

 

 

 

 

” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) received a warm welcome from a packed audience at the University of California-Berkeley on Wednesday afternoon, as he addressed the Berkeley Forum at International House.

  Paul’s message of investigating and restraining the Central Intelligence Agency and other security arms of the federal government went down well on a campus that was the core of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era. Yet there were quite a few conservative Republicans in the audience as well, on hand to hear one of their party’s new leaders–and, many expect, a likely contender for the presidential nomination in 2016.

” Maybe,” Paul said, when asked by the moderator whether he would run for president.”

 

 

    Breitbart has more and we are pleased to present Senator Paul’s address in the official Berkeley version above and an unedited version from an audience member below .