Wrongfully-Arrested Man Considers Lawsuit After Marshals Storm Home

Via: WLWT

Wrongfully-Arrested Man Considers Lawsuit After Marshals Storm Home

Marshals looking for Columbus man

Apr 12, 2013

HILLSBORO, Ohio —U.S. Marshals stormed a home and arrested a man believing he had drugs and guns Thursday morning in Hillsboro.

The only problem was that marshals had the wrong man and even the wrong house.

Nicholas Brown was making breakfast for his three children and getting ready for work when a dozen armed marshals barged into his home and arrested him for offenses he said he never committed.

It turned out that marshals had the wrong man the entire time.

Brown showed WLWT News 5 a copy of an arrest warrant that listed drug and gun charges. It had his name, date or birth and Social Security number on it but listed his address in Columbus. It also identified him as a black male when he is white.

Read more: here

Warrant: Black Guy
Suspect at residence: White Guy
And these cops have guns?

OK..to stop this let’s not allow law enforcement to show up to serve a warrant as a paramilitary assault force….
SWAT and such are only to be used as responsive tools…not offensive. and not as a primary instrument of law enforcement…

This is crazy…where are our rights… or was all that lies too?
-Moose

Advertisements

Judge Orders Prosecution to Prove That Bradley Manning Intended to ‘Aid the Enemy’

Via: RT

Published time: April 10, 2013 15:05
Reuters / Jose Luis Magana

A US military judge says the government must prove that Army Private Bradley Manning intended to aid the enemy when he released hundreds of thousands of sensitive files to WikiLeaks.
The official tribunal against the 25-year-old private first class is not slated to start until June, but during pretrial hearings on Wednesday morning, Col. Denise Lind ruled that the government has a burden to prove that the soldier aimed to inflect harm on the United States when he sent materials to the whistleblower site.

Reporting from the media center at Ft. Meade, Maryland, independent journalist Alexa O’Brien writes that the United States government must now prove that Pfc. Manning acted “with reason to believe such info could be used to the injury of the US or to advantage of any foreign nation.” By doing so, Lind is making it much harder for the government to convict Manning on the most serious of the charges: aiding the enemy. If convicted on this count, Manning could theoretically be sentenced to die. Prosecutors, however, have said they would settle for life in prison.

Although Manning admitted his role and pleaded guilty to a number of the specifications presented by the military this year, Army prosecutors were not satisfied with his plea. During that February hearing, the military said they would continue to go after Manning in hopes of prosecuting him under the Espionage Act of 1917 and UCMJ 104 — the Uniform Code of Military Justice statute of “aiding the enemy.”

With Wednesday’s decision, the prosecution will now be tasked with convincing Lind that Manning went to WikiLeaks with the intent of causing harm. The Army has already requested that a US NAVY Seal present during the execution of Osama bin Laden take the stand during the court-martial in order to attest that the slain al-Qaeda leader had WikiLeaks documents attributed to Manning in his possession at the time of his death.

Read more: here

When telling the truth and revealing how dishonest our government is, is wrong…
Things need to change…
-Moose

Chiquita Sues to Block Release of Files on Colombia Terrorist Payments

Via: National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., April 8, 2013 – Chiquita Brands International last week filed a “reverse” Freedom of Information lawsuit to block the release of records to the National Security Archive on the company’s illegal payments to Colombian terrorist groups, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court. At issue are thousands of documents the company turned over to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 1998-2004 as part of an investigation of the company’s illegal transactions with leftist insurgents and right-wing paramilitaries from the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC).

Two years ago, the Archive published “The Chiquita Papers,” a declassified collection of more than 5,000 pages of internal Chiquita documents turned over to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as part of a criminal investigation of more than $1.7 million in payments to the AUC over six years, and for nearly three years after the group was formally designated as a terrorist organization. That case resulted in a 2007 sentencing agreement in which Chiquita admitted to more than ten years of payments to a variety of Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary groups.

The Chiquita Papers included evidence that Chiquita and its Colombian subsidiary had received tangible benefits from those transactions, undermining one of the key aspects of the company’s defense: that it had never received “any actual security services or actual security equipment in exchange for the payments.” Chiquita’s “reverse” FOIA complaint now claims that the news headlines based on the documents were part of “a media campaign to publicize biased mischaracterizations of the documents.”

Read more: here

Not surprised a bit…
-Moose

Fusion Center Director: We Don’t Spy on Americans, Just Anti-Government Americans

Via: RT

Law enforcement intelligence-processing fusion centers have long come under attack for spying on Americans. The Arkansas director wanted to clarify the truth: centers only spies on some Americans – those who appear to be a threat to the government.

Published time: March 29, 201

In trying to clear up the ‘misconceptions’ about the conduct of fusion centers, Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis simply confirmed Americans’ fears: the center does in fact spy on Americans – but only on those who are suspected to be ‘anti-government’.

“The misconceptions are that we are conducting spying operations on US citizens, which is of course not a fact. That is absolutely not what we do,” he told the NWA Homepage, which supports KNWA-TV and Fox 24.

After claiming that his office ‘absolutely’ does not spy on Americans, he proceeded to explain that this does not apply to those who could be interpreted as a ‘threat’ to national security. Davis said his office places its focus on international plots, “domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government. We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information.”

But the First Amendment allows for the freedom of speech and opinion, making it lawfully acceptable for Americans to express their grievances against the US government. The number of anti-government groups even hit a record high in 2012, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many of these groups are ‘hate groups’ that express disdain for minorities. But unless they become violent, these groups are legally allowed to exist.

“We are seeing the fourth straight year of really explosive growth on the part of anti-government patriot groups and militias,” Mark Potok, senior fellow at the SPLC, told Mother Jones. “That’s 913 percent in growth. We’ve never seen that kind of growth in any group we cover.”

 And with a record-high number of anti-government groups, fusion centers may be spying on more Americans than ever before – or at least, have the self-proclaimed right to do so.

“I do what I do because of what happened on 9/11,” Davis said. “There’s this urge and this feeling inside that you want to do something, and this is a perfect opportunity for me.”

But Davis’ argument is flawed: in order to determine whether or not someone is considered a threat to national security, fusion centers would first have to spy on Americans to weed out the suspected individuals, and then proceed to spy on the ‘anti-government’ individuals further.

Read more: here

Flawed hell. WTF!
He does what he does because a false flag exercise was operated against the American people?
And aren’t most people “anti-government” nowadays?
-Moose

TSA Nullification Bill Passes Out Of Committee In Kansas

Via: Freedom Outpost

March 16, 2013 by Tim Brown

On Thursday, HB2175, a bill that nullifies the Transportation Security Administration’s overreach at airports, was passed out of committee. It seeks to criminalize TSA misconduct and bring strict and harsh punishments upon them for their misconduct.

According to the bill, which seeks to amend the 2012 Kansas statutes, “Official misconduct is any of the following acts committed by a public officer or employee in the officer or employee’s public capacity or under color of the officer or employee’s office or employment.”

According to Section 7, “as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, intentionally and without probable cause: (A) Touches the genitals, buttocks, anus or female breasts of such person, including touching through clothing; (B) removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of such child’s parent or legal guardian, or a person standing in the stead of such child’s parent or legal guardian; (C) commits a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp.21-5412, and amendments thereto; or (D) harasses, delays, coerces, threatens, intimidates, or denies or conditions such person’s accessibility because of such person’s refusal to consent to subsections (a)(7)(A), (a)(7)(B) or (a)(7)(C).”

It then punishes those who violate the law. “Upon conviction of official misconduct a public officer or employee shall forfeit such officer or employee’s office or employment. (c) The provisions of subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any use of persons or property which: (1) At the time of the use, is authorized by law or by formal written policy of the governmental entity; or (2) constitutes misuse of public funds.”

This bill would define the offense as a Class A misdemeanor. According to the Kansas statutes, a Class A conviction would provide “the sentence for which shall be a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed one year.”

Read more: here

Okay..Some sanity is visible here…Need more!
-Moose

Where We Are Right Now on Comsec

Via:

 

 
From: Tom Ritter <tom[at]ritter.vg>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:05:30 -0500

Subject: Re: Summary of where we are right now

To: <cypherpunks[at]al-qaeda.net>, <cypherpunks[at]lne.com>

> So they figured it was easier to just get suckers to use some form of
> encryption (including and specifically TOR) to send the red flag that
> someone wanted to hide something, so “look over here!”.

I don’t agree that the NRL [Naval Research Laboratory] funded Tor for this purpose, but I do agree that our tools today (Tor, mixmaster/mixminion, PGP mail, RedPhone, TextSecure, OTR, etc) are easily distinguishable in traffic streams, and that this is a problem. Just as Riseup collects a bunch of people who care a lot about privacy onto one mailserver – people using these tools are likely to be interesting.
Skype, Facebook, Gmail – for all their problems, they are ubiquitous, and don’t draw attention.

> 3. But we are going to win. Yeah, we’re gonna win. Why? Because we want to.
> It’s not enough to encrypt: The type and context of encryption had to be
> hidden as well. Kind of the network version of Rubberhose. But these young
> kids who grew up not watching TV because it didn’t interact with them, it’s
> they who will create a stego virus to propagate fake stego everywhere on
> Facebook or whatever. It’s them who are going to create TOR services that
> operate ubiquitously behind the scenes, so that most users dob’t even know
> they are using it. Hiding the form of encryption will itself be the final
> frontier as crypto becomes ubiquitous.

A friend I talked with recently told me he thought it was easy to set up an anonymity system that worked great for you and your friends, and near impossible to build one that worked well for everyone else. Once it got popular or you became a target of investigation, people would put the effort into detecting it. Otherwise, it would continue along, looking like another TLS/SSH/Skype/whatever that just a little bit odd… Tor faces this problem immensely.

I don’t see us as having won, I see us as now knowing how to fight.

We know the devices they will use to easily detect our traffic, and in most cases we can get access to them. We must make our protocols indistinguishable on the wire. We know the ubiquitous services and protocols that we must work within or disguise ourselves as.

We know (some of? most of?) the statistical attacks adversaries of the future can conduct – we must make them as difficult and expensive as possible for them to achieve.

We know how woefully inadequate the user interfaces and requirements of the first generation of tools were, and we know where we must go: to browsers, smartphones, tablets, and consumer operating systems.
We have a much better idea of how normal people will react to our tools, and thus how much effort we must make to make them usable, and push for ubiquity.

We know what requirements are unreasonable of us to make upon people, and that we must design systems where those requirements are worked around, dulled, or the single ‘sharp edge’ of the system.

-tom

Read more: here

‘The Coming Surveillance Dystopia’

Via: Cryptogon

March 8th, 2013

I wasn’t going to post this. You know all of this, or, at least you should, if you’ve been hanging out here for any length of time.

But, Holder, “Dressed like Elvis and surrounded by the Real Housewives of Orange County,” won me over.

Must share.

Via: The Verge:

Assuming that some degree of privacy is still possible, most people don’t seem to think it’s worth the effort. The cypherpunks and their ilk fought to keep things like the PGP encryption program legal — and we don’t use them. We know Facebook and Google leak our personal online habits like a sieve and we don’t make much effort to cover our tracks.

 Perhaps some of us buy the good citizen cliché that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about, but most of us are just opting for convenience. 

We’ve got enough to deal with day to day without engaging in a privacy regimen. Occasionally, some slacker may lose his job because he posted a photo of himself cradling his bong or the like, but as with civil liberties more generally, as long as the daily outrages against individuals don’t reach epic proportions, we rubberneck in horror and then return to our daily activities.

Beneath this complacent surface lies a disquieting and mostly unexamined question. To what degree is the ubiquity of state surveillance a form of intimidation, a way to keep people away from social movements or from directly communicating their views?

Do you hesitate before liking WikiLeaks on Facebook?
Read more: here

The Known Unknowns of Skype Interception

Via: Dubfire

Analysis and opinion by Christopher Soghoian, security and privacy researcher.
Thursday, July 26, 2012

Over the past few weeks, the technical blogosphere, and most recently, the mainstread media have tried to answer the question: What kind of assistance can Skype provide to law enforcement agencies? Most of the stories have been filled with speculation, sometimes informed, but mostly not. In an attempt to paint as clear a picture as possible, I want to explain what we do and don’t know about Skype and surveillance.

Skype has long provided assistance to governments The Washington Post reported yesterday that:

Skype, the online phone service long favored by political dissidents, criminals and others eager to communicate beyond the reach of governments, has expanded its cooperation with law enforcement authorities to make online chats and other user information available to police

The changes, which give the authorities access to addresses and credit card numbers, have drawn quiet applause in law enforcement circles but hostility from many activists and analysts.

To back up its claim, the post cites interviews with “industry and government officials familiar with the changes” who “poke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly.” Ugh.

However, a quick Google search for “Skype law enforcement handbook” quickly turns up an official looking document on the whistleblower website cryptome.org, dated October 2007, which makes it clear that Skype has long been providing the assistance that the Post claims is new.

Read more: here

Aussie Cops: Silk Road TOR Anonymity ‘Not Guaranteed’

Via: cso.com

We monitor Aussie buyers and sellers on Silk Road, says maritime cargo watcher.

Liam Tung (CSO Online (Australia))26 July, 2012 09:42
There is no guarantee of anonymity for Australian buyers and sellers of illicit drugs on the TOR-encrypted e-commerce platform Silk Road, according to the Australian Federal Police and Australian Customers and Border Protection. 
The pair released a joint statement Wednesday pointing to the arrest of one Melbourne man who allegedly imported narcotics via Silk Road. 
“Criminals are attempting to exploit the international mail system through online networks, but the recent arrest demonstrates that we are one step ahead of them,” said AFP Manager Crime Operations Peter Sykora.
Sykora said it was aware Silk Road was operated from an offshore location, but warned Australian users were within the reach of the AFP’s powers. 
The site can only be accessed via TOR, which masks IP address details that could otherwise be stored by an ISP and associated with a user account. Silk Road trade relies on the virtual currency BitCoin for transactions.
Alana Sullivan, acting national of Custom’s cargo and maritime targeting branch, said it monitors Silk Road along with other illicit-drug sites and was aware of the Australian presence on Silk Road as both sellers and buyers. 
“Persons who buy or sell through online market places, on so-called ‘anonymous’ networks should understand that they are not guaranteed anonymity,” said Sullivan.

Read more: here

K-12 Student Database Jazzes Tech Startups, Spooks Parents

By Stephanie Simon 
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:11am EST 

(Reuters) – An education technology conference this week in Austin, Texas, will clang with bells and whistles as startups eagerly show off their latest wares.

But the most influential new product may be the least flashy: a $100 million database built to chart the academic paths of public school students from kindergarten through high school.

In operation just three months, the database already holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school – even homework completion.

Local education officials retain legal control over their students’ information. But federal law allows them to share files in their portion of the database with private companies selling educational products and services.

Entrepreneurs can’t wait.

Read more: here

Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile

Via: Modern Survival Blog

September 6, 2012
Ken Jorgustin

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

Although I’ve seen and read several online blurbs about this vehicle of late, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself.

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

Read more: here

Tomgram: Chase Madar, Handcuffing Seven-Year-Olds Won’t Make Schools Safer

Via: tomdispatch

It was, in a sense, so expectable, so leave-no-child-behind.  I’m talking about the arming of American schools.  Think of it as the next step in the militarization of this country, which follows all-too-logically from developments since September 11, 2001.  In the wake of 9/11, police departments nationwide began to militarize in a big way, and the next thing you knew, the police were looking ever less like old-style neighborhood patrollers and ever more like mini-anti-terror armies.  The billy club, the simple sidearm? So Old School. So retro.

When it came to weaponry for the new, twenty-first-century version of the police, it was a matter of letting the good times roll: Tasers, flash grenades, pepper spray, incendiary tear gas, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, bomb-detection robots, armored vehicles and tanks, special-ops-style SWAT teams, drone mini-submarines, drone aircraft, you name it.  Today, even school police are being armed with assault rifles.  And with it all goes a paramilitary fashion craze that anyone who observed the police in the Occupy moment is most familiar with.

In addition, the U.S. military is now offloading billions of dollars worth of its surplus equipment, some of it assumedly used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan against armed insurgents, on police forces even in small towns nationwide.  This includes M-16s, helmet-mounted infrared goggles, amphibious tanks, and helicopters.

And now, the same up-armoring mentality is being brought to bear on a threat worse than terror: our children.  Think of it as the reductio ad absurdum of the new national security state.  First, they locked down the airports, then the capital, then the borders, and finally the schools. Now, we’re ready!

Read more: here

Tomgram: Chase Madar, Handcuffing Seven-Year-Olds Won’t Make Schools Safer

Via: tomdispatch

It was, in a sense, so expectable, so leave-no-child-behind.  I’m talking about the arming of American schools.  Think of it as the next step in the militarization of this country, which follows all-too-logically from developments since September 11, 2001.  In the wake of 9/11, police departments nationwide began to militarize in a big way, and the next thing you knew, the police were looking ever less like old-style neighborhood patrollers and ever more like mini-anti-terror armies.  The billy club, the simple sidearm? So Old School. So retro.

When it came to weaponry for the new, twenty-first-century version of the police, it was a matter of letting the good times roll: Tasers, flash grenades, pepper spray, incendiary tear gas, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, bomb-detection robots, armored vehicles and tanks, special-ops-style SWAT teams, drone mini-submarines, drone aircraft, you name it.  Today, even school police are being armed with assault rifles.  And with it all goes a paramilitary fashion craze that anyone who observed the police in the Occupy moment is most familiar with.

In addition, the U.S. military is now offloading billions of dollars worth of its surplus equipment, some of it assumedly used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan against armed insurgents, on police forces even in small towns nationwide.  This includes M-16s, helmet-mounted infrared goggles, amphibious tanks, and helicopters.

And now, the same up-armoring mentality is being brought to bear on a threat worse than terror: our children.  Think of it as the reductio ad absurdum of the new national security state.  First, they locked down the airports, then the capital, then the borders, and finally the schools. Now, we’re ready!

Read more: here

Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons

Via: ICH

Savaged by dogs, Electrocuted With Cattle Prods, Burned By Toxic Chemicals, Does such barbaric abuse inside U.S. jails explain the horrors that were committed in Iraq?

First posted March 28, 2005
By Deborah Davies

They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for BBC Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.

The prison guards stand over their captives with electric cattle prods, stun guns, and dogs. Many of the prisoners have been ordered to strip naked. The guards are yelling abuse at them, ordering them to lie on the ground and crawl. ‘Crawl, motherf*****s, crawl.’

If a prisoner doesn’t drop to the ground fast enough, a guard kicks him or stamps on his back. There’s a high-pitched scream from one man as a dog clamps its teeth onto his lower leg.

Another prisoner has a broken ankle. He can’t crawl fast enough so a guard jabs a stun gun onto his buttocks. The jolt of electricity zaps through his naked flesh and genitals. For hours afterwards his whole body shakes.

Lines of men are now slithering across the floor of the cellblock while the guards stand over them shouting, prodding and kicking.

Second by second, their humiliation is captured on a video camera by one of the guards.

The images of abuse and brutality he records are horrifyingly familiar. These were exactly the kind of pictures from inside Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad that shocked the world this time last year.

Read more: here

Thank goodness this can’t happen in America…Oops..
-Moose

Blocking China and Bots

Via: Cryptome

Subject: Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 01:34:13AM +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:

> I can’t help but wonder what would happen if US Corporations simply
> blocked all inbound Chinese traffic. Sure it would hurt their business,
> but imagine what the Chinese people would do in response.

Would it hurt their business? Really?

Well, if they’re eBay, probably. If they’re Joe’s Fill Dirt and Croissants in Omaha, then probably not, because nobody, NOBODY in China is ever actually going to purchase a truckload of dirt or a tasty croissant from Joe. So would it actually matter if they couldn’t get to Joe’s web site or Joe’s mail server or especially Joe’s VPN server? Probably not.

Nobody in Peru, Egypt, or Romania is likely to be buying from Joe any time soon either.
This is why I’ve been using geoblocking at the network and host levels for over a decade, and it works. But it does require that you make an effort to study and understand your own traffic patterns as well as your organizational requirements. [1]

I use it on a country-by-country basis (thank you ipdeny.com) and on a service-by-service basis: a particular host might allow http from anywhere, but ssh only from the country it’s in. I also deny selected networks access to selected services, e.g., Amazon’s cloud doesn’t get access to port 25 because of the non-stop spam and Amazon’s refusal to do anything about it. Anything on the Spamhaus DROP or EDROP lists (thank you Spamhaus) is not part of my view of the Internet. And so on. Combined, all this achieves lossless compression of abusive traffic.

This is not a security fix, per se; any services that are vulnerable are still vulnerable. But it does cut down on the attack surface as measured along one axis, which in turn reduces the scope of some problems and renders them more tractable to other approaches.

Read more: here

DHS Wants to Help You Become a Cybersecurity Fed

Via: NextGov

The Homeland Security Department has launched a new online resource that makes cybersecurity career and training information more readily available to federal employees and the public.

The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies website is part of an effort to elevate cybersecurity awareness as well as educate the government and public about education, careers and workforce development opportunities available in the cybersecurity field.

“DHS is committed to working with our partners in academia and throughout the private sector to develop the next generation of cyber professionals to protect against evolving cyber threats,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. “NICCS provides a comprehensive online resource for cyber education and training.”

Read more: here

SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs

Via: Reason.com

Jacob Sullum
Feb. 19, 2013 12:38 pm

Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.”

 The justices overturned a 2011 decision in which the Florida Supreme Court said police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained. They deemed that court’s evidentiary requirements too “rigid” for the “totality of the circumstances” test used to determine when a search is constitutional. In particular, the Court said it was not appropriate to demand evidence of a dog’s performance in the field, as opposed to its performance on tests by police.

While the Court’s decision in Florida v. Harris leaves open the possibility that defense attorneys can contest the adequacy of a dog’s training or testing and present evidence that the animal is prone to false alerts, this ruling will encourage judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine’s capabilities, reinforcing the use of dogs to transform hunches into probable cause.

Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan accepts several myths that allow drug dogs to function as “search warrants on leashes” even though their error rates are far higher than commonly believed:

Read more: here

Woof!
-Moose

SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs

Via: Reason.com

Jacob Sullum
Feb. 19, 2013 12:38 pm

Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.”

 The justices overturned a 2011 decision in which the Florida Supreme Court said police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained. They deemed that court’s evidentiary requirements too “rigid” for the “totality of the circumstances” test used to determine when a search is constitutional. In particular, the Court said it was not appropriate to demand evidence of a dog’s performance in the field, as opposed to its performance on tests by police.

While the Court’s decision in Florida v. Harris leaves open the possibility that defense attorneys can contest the adequacy of a dog’s training or testing and present evidence that the animal is prone to false alerts, this ruling will encourage judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine’s capabilities, reinforcing the use of dogs to transform hunches into probable cause.

Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan accepts several myths that allow drug dogs to function as “search warrants on leashes” even though their error rates are far higher than commonly believed:

Read more: here

Woof!
-Moose

Robert Saylor, Man With Down Syndrome, Dies of Suffocation While in Police Custody Over Movie

Via: Opposing Views

Robert Saylor, a 26-year-old man with Down Syndrome, died of suffocation while in the custody of three off-duty sheriff’s deputies last month, according to the ruling of the Baltimore County Medical Examiner’s office.

According to WJLA-TV, Saylor liked the movie ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ and wanted to watch another showing. However, a Regal Cinema employee asked Saylor to leave.

When Saylor refused to leave, the employee summoned theater security, which was three off-duty sheriff’s deputies: Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris.

Read more: here

To Protect and Serve….
-Moose

Robert Saylor, Man With Down Syndrome, Dies of Suffocation While in Police Custody Over Movie

Via: Opposing Views

Robert Saylor, a 26-year-old man with Down Syndrome, died of suffocation while in the custody of three off-duty sheriff’s deputies last month, according to the ruling of the Baltimore County Medical Examiner’s office.

According to WJLA-TV, Saylor liked the movie ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ and wanted to watch another showing. However, a Regal Cinema employee asked Saylor to leave.

When Saylor refused to leave, the employee summoned theater security, which was three off-duty sheriff’s deputies: Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris.

Read more: here

To Protect and Serve….
-Moose