Civil Rights

It turns out that the police probably used burglars to obtain probable cause for their search warrant in the case.  Not a burglar they happened to have arrested... rather, a burglar they told to go out and get the evidence they would need for a police raid.

It may not be nearly so bad as other places, but when a police officer can detain, physically strike, and then arrest a citizen for not pulling up their pants... something is badly wrong.  The Constitutional fig leaf here is presumably a law that requires people to wear their pants properly pulled up rather than low on the hips; ostensibly it regulates "gang signs" but in practice it appears to allow police to harass anyone they see violating the law.  After all, there is a "violation" in plain sight which eliminates any need for probable cause of a more serious offense. 

Once the initial contact is made the officer can respond to backtalk however he chooses... up to and including deciding to actually write out a ticket for the low-riding pants, and as soon as he decides to do that, he's justified searching anyone on the scene for "officer safety".  Even if he doesn't find anything he's just spent 15-30 minutes harassing a citizen with threat of violence for not obeying a dress code.  In the United States of America!

The cop in the video was fired.  Which is comforting until you realize this is probably not the first time he's done something like this.  

Over at The Agitator, Radley has a SWAT training video for warrant service.  He points out a couple significant flaws with the training depicted from a civil rights perspective.  Among others, the identification of the team as police officers is not made until after the door has been smashed in with a battering ram.  The officers do appear to be in uniform, but the uniform does not appear to have any indication that the officers are actually police -- it's basically camoflage under body armor.  That by itself has dangerous military implications.

SaysUncle linked to a thoughtful piece on the nexus between police abuse and overregulation.  "Impossible missions" to impose the will of a slim majority upon a large minority are doomed to failure.  Prohibition and the war on online gambling are cited as examples -- as is the possibility of a true "war on guns" looking more like a low-grade civil war than law enforcement.  In light of the recent controversy over Mike Vanderboegh's letter, I'd like to use this article as an example of how to do it right.  We're a long way from nationwide "gun prohibition" and it's important to make that clear.  

Witness this blog on officer.com, which covers the Heller case, the recent "crime quarantine" proposals whereby DC police would cordon off whole neighborhoods, and additional projects to install thousands of cameras to monitor public places.

DC has now decided to violate the 4th Amendment.  Emulating a program that I first heard about in Boston, they will be sending police door-to-door "asking" for permission to search homes for guns and drugs.  They spin it as an amnesty, but they indicate that guns seized in these searches will be tested to see if they had been used in crimes, and investigations will be opened if so.  The only amnesty appears to be for the "crime" of simple possession, which the Supreme Court will likely be striking down shortly in any case.

The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.

I really don't have a clue what they think they will accomplish with this.  The only thing that maybe makes a little bit of sense would be an attempt to confiscate as many firearms as possible while they are still "illegal" (ie, before the Supreme Court can rule on the Heller case, and while the opinion from the DC Appeals Court is stayed pending the appeal to the Supreme Court).  If they sweep the whole city for firearms, confiscating as many as they can find, they can then make it hard to replace those firearms legally. 

It's already very, very hard to legally acquire firearms in the District, even of those types supposedly permitted.  If they can keep that process in place they can make it difficult for residents to legally replace firearms they had owned previously (perhaps illegally, but with honest intentions).  There are likely to be a lot of prominent people who fall into that category, more than most would realize.  In addition, I would not be surprised if the police kept records of guns they confiscated, and treated possession of an "illegal" firearm discovered in this search as a reason to deny someone's application to purchase a firearm in the future.

I see a major civil rights lawsuit in my crystal ball over this one.
Anyone want to be a plaintiff? 

Also... it should be completely obvious to everyone that the criminals with guns in DC will have no problem replacing theirs using their existing sources.  As with all gun control the only people inconvenienced will be honest citizens. 

Oh, and one more point.

The police find it necessary, in a city where handguns have been banned for 30 years and all legally-owned firearms registered for much much longer, to initiate door to door searches for firearms.

That should give you an idea how effective their draconian gun control policies have been.

I got the link from Ravnwood originally.

Patterico links to some very, very disturbing allegations concerning the military tribunals at Guananimo Bay.  While I support the general idea that battlefield captures should be treated as POWs (for those following the Geneva convention rules) and that combatants who operate outside those rules have pretty much voluntarily chosen to forfeit the protections accorded to civilians and uniformed soldiers by civilized society, it's nonetheless important to make sure that those we are putting into that category deserve to be there.

So, while I'm not going to argue that there must be a certain number of acquittals, and it's entirely possible that there aren't any innocent people imprisoned at Guatanimo, it is absolutely vital that we have a fair and honest process for answering that question accurately on an individual basis.  There's room for debate on the question of whether to include classified evidence, or evidence obtained from waterboarded prisoners, or the like.  These are process questions that may be tough to answer fairly, but it is still possible to have a fair and honest result.

It's not possible to have a fair and honest result if there is a political demand for convictions regardless of the facts.

I'm not sure what the appropriate recourse here is, but this issue definitely needs to be investigated and resolved.

Earlier, I posted about an organization that did an investigation of complaint policies for police departments in Florida.  They sent in an undercover investigator who requested a complaint form.  All the investigator wants is a form -- not to "talk to" an officer about the complaint or otherwise be subjected to pressure not to file one.  He just wants the form.

Responses were mixed.  None of the officers he interacted with were willing to just let him leave with a form.  Some threatened the investigator with arrest.

Following the release of a short video documenting what they had done, the same organization tried it in Independence, Missouri.  Their investigator was arrested, violently enough to need medical care afterwards, and charges are being filed against him.  What those charges are is not specified, but watching this video should be enough to open the eyes of anyone who is still under the delusion that police officers are there to "protect and serve" the people. 

With some exceptions, they are there to keep us in line.

Hat tip to The Agitator.

.. whenever I read about something like this:

The story reads like a sitcom. A bad one. The cops arrive, and the kid whose folks own the place is outside. She quickly locks the door and refuses the cops permission to enter. She insists there's nobody there, despite the cars parked around the house and the cops being able to see and hear kids inside.

I have to give the cops credit -- they actually didn't just force their way in. They knocked and called into the house. They phoned the house. They even ran the plates of the cars in the yard, contacting the registered owners and tried to get their help. In the end, though, they did get a search warrant and broke into the house. Seven teenagers, including the girl whose parents own the home and who stood on the porch and refused the cops, ended up arrested.

Those cops showed a hell of a lot more patience than I would have.

What exactly is the crime here -- suspicion of having fun?  Suspicion of an unauthorized party?  What exactly was happening that prompted such a strong effort to obtain "permission" from people probably not authorized to give it, and that eventually lead to a search warrant?  What judge would issue a search warrant for a private home based on such allegations?  I mean, dear god, they might be having fun in there!  It must be stopped!

And then a pundit writes the concluding sentence in the quote, and I find myself asking where American's tradition of freedom went... because it sure as hell isn't here anymore.

John Gilmore, a libertarian activist and one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, has has a lawsuit working its way through the courts challenging the TSA's security regulations as unconstitutional because they are secret.   One of the government's representatives said this in response to an appellate ruling dismissing the case:

Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that demanding identification "promotes the right to travel by protecting everyone's safety."

How much more Orwellian can you get?  Protecting a right by restricting it?

I live in a city that recently passed a smoking ban.  While I don't smoke, I don't particularly mind smokers; I'll avoid overly-smokey environments by choice but can tolerate them without discomfort.  I think it's absolutely absurd to regulate smoking on private property of any sort.  If you're wavering on the issue, read these comments from Jerry the Geek, discussing reports that the UK is taking steps to prohibit smoking in your own home for at least an hour before any government worker (health worker, police, etc) arrives.

That's where this stuff is going.  It's hysteria aimed at destroying any pretensions to private control of property we have left.  And just like gun control, it operates by incrementalism.

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

Is this the sort of government official we want?  I think not.

That is, we do NOT have a First Amendment to prevent silly sayings on money or the local Christmas tree.  We have a First Amendment to prevent the government from establishing a state religion complete with mandatory participation.

That is, we have a First Amendment to prevent exactly what the 9th Circus just ruled constitutional: Islamic role-playing in public school.  Link by way of Althouse.

There is nothing wrong with teaching a course on comparative religions.  There is a lot wrong about making that course mandatory, or having those in the course participate in the religious rites of the various religions involved.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit seeking to force Diebold, an electronic voting machine provider, to place the source code to its software into escrow in case of problems with the election.  While electronic voting has the potential to significantly improve the process, it absolutely must be open to full public scrutiny.  Anything less is to allow the programmers of the system to manipulate elections at will.

Dafydd, the Big Lizard, has what he calls a conservative solution for the death penalty (in response to an article from Patterico).  It involves executing people faster and more easily than presently allowed, with a small helping of caning for more minor crimes.  Sounds good to me; justice should be swift, relentless, and accurate.  (It's the third part that's important; if the death penalty is to be applied swiftly and relentlessly to certain cases, it must also be applied accurately).  

The way I see it, anyone convicted of premeditated murder or terrorism (that's real terrorism, not the FBI's "let's apply the Patriot Act to everything" terrorism), beyond a reasonable doubt, should be executed within a year of their conviction.  Give them the full-time services of a PI for that whole year, along with appropriate support from a crime lab, if they think they can prove their innocence; but once a jury has said that they are guilty, waiting is not appropriate.  It only dilutes the linkage between cause and effect.

Mistakes will be made.  Mistakes are inevitable.  Sometimes, new testing methods emerge  Nevertheless, the immediate aftermath of a crime is when the memories of witnesses are clearest and the politics of the death penalty have had the least chance to interfere. 

But in the tail end of his post, Dafydd mentions that he also has a libertarian solution.  I'd like to know what it is (hence this post); but I have my own libertarian solution, and it goes like this.

Everyone who wants to carries a handgun.   No permits, no licenses, open or concealed as desired.

It is very hard to have a case of mistaken identity when the person involved is trying to kill you.  And it is very hard to try to kill someone you know is armed, especially when you know that those around them are also armed, and you are likely to be shot trying to leave the scene even if you succeed.  And people will be very, very polite in public, because failure to control your emotions to the point of attacking someone else has serious, sudden, and dramatic consequences.

UPDATE: Turns out Dafydd's libertarian solution is the infamous Texan defense: "Your honor, I plead not guilty to murder; the man needed killin'."  He'd set it up as an affirmative defense; use it, and you have to go to trial, and prove that to a jury.  He notes that it would need some safeguards against racists and the like; I agree, and provided there were some safeguards against the obvious problems, I like the idea.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down part of a 1996 federal anti-terrorism law, saying the government's definition of what constituted "material support" to foreign terror groups was too vague.

At issue is a statute that was the first to criminalize offering "material support" to foreign terror groups. That law was the precursor to the controversial 2001 Patriot Act which expanded the government's intelligence-gathering powers and increased penalties for activities classified as terrorist.

In their decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier preliminary ruling that prohibited the provision of "personnel" and "training" to groups designated by the United States as "terrorist organizations."

The court also ruled that before applying the law the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a donor to a group branded as a "foreign terrorist organization" knew of its unlawful activities.

For once, the 9th Circus gets it right.

When the Moscow Times can legitimately chide the United States about civil rights issues, something is very wrong.

DNA profiles from hundreds of thousands of juvenile offenders and adults arrested but not convicted of crimes could be added to the FBI's national DNA crime-fighting program under a proposed law moving through Congress.

The law, if enacted, would be the greatest single expansion of the federal government's power to collect and use DNA since the FBI's national database was created in 1992. The FBI says its national DNA database holds genetic profiles from about 1.4 million adults convicted of state and federal crimes.

This needs to be fought tooth and nail; a DNA sample taken and filed is an illegal search. You can make an argument for doing this to convicts, on the theory that it is part of the punishment, but without a conviction you have no right to retain the DNA.

The Bush Administration makes the argument that DNA is like a fingerprint; my counter to that is that fingerprints should be protected until conviction as well.

POLICE officers and politicians joined forces at the weekend in a bid to drive out hardcore gangs of thugs and small time criminals trying to turn west Reading into a battleground.

In the wake of this month's drive-by shootings, neighbours found Reading West MP Martin Salter, Chief Superintendent Dave Murray and borough councillors on their doorsteps delivering 700 letters pleading for their help.

The letters called on neighbours to pass on to police anything they hear about criminal activity. It explained every officer now has stop and search powers to use in the Oxford Road area which "will continue for as long as necessary to cut gun crime in the community".

I believe this is traditionally spelled "martial law".

CNN's summary is missing a very important "in-"; that is, the case involves whether schoolchildren can be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance involuntarily, against the wishes of at least one of their parents.

I have a couple thoughts on this case. First, the case itself isn't exactly stellar; the parent suing doesn't have legal custody, so there is a standing question. Second, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...", and even following incorporation doctrine, we're not talking about a congressional law mandating the recitation of the pledge.

However, compelling students to recite the pledge of allegiance (with or without "under God") is an offense against their ability to freely choose their loyalties without being indoctrinated by government. It is not appropriate for government, even in the form of a local school board, to require a loyalty oath from minors.

Screening cargo in airplanes, on the aviation security back burner since Sept. 11, is about to explode off the stove. According to aviation sources, Attorney General John Ashcroft next week will hold his first ever press conference on an aviation security issue. The topic: The high vulnerability of materials placed on the nation's passenger and cargo planes.

Ashcroft will announce the details of a frightening breach of airline safety, a case in which hazardous material was illegally put on a plane run by Emery Airlines, a cargo airline that went out of business in 2001 (A plea agreement in the matter has been reached with the Justice Department). Though Ashcroft may not explicitly link hazmat and terrorists, aviation specialists say the frightening prospect is that terrorists will get their hands on hazmat and try and to get it on cargo planes.

Remember, everyone, even if cargo planes are actually underdefended (especially since their pilots aren't even eligible for the armed-pilot program), this is very likely to be just another bait-and-switch by Ashcroft. He'll show us the bait -- a so-called "terrorist threat" -- and then propose his favorite solution: reducing our rights. No thanks.

For all of the furor stirred up by the administration's request, two reassuring facts have been overlooked: Not only does the federal government have a history of using the same powers responsibly, but tools exist to ensure that anti-terror investigations are conducted properly.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING?

Folks, the federal government -- even the FBI -- is the same entity that bugged Martin Luther King. Remember J Edgar Hoover's reign of terror? How about Waco -- what a "responsible" use that was. Or Randy Weaver, before that. What a "responsible" government sniper!

An operation to rid Birmingham?s streets of guncarrying gangs is to be extended indefinitely, the man in charge of the offensive said yesterday.

Despite a number of recent high-profile shootings, including one involving a taxi driver who chased after a stolen car in Nechells, West Midlands Police said it was pleased with the impact of Operation Dulverton.

The initiative, which involved extra officers being drafted in to carry out high-profile patrols in hotspot areas of Birmingham and armed road checks, began five weeks ago.

They've got it bad in the British Isles. This is what happens when you try to ban firearms; the bans don't work, people who want the weapons can still get them, and the police become steadily more authoritarian and brutal in their efforts to stamp out the "gun problem" while your civil rights disappear.

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assured the public on Monday that their rights would be respected at checkpoints, which were set up to curb criminality. "Our law enforcers shall strictly implement their mandate with professionalism and right conduct," Ms Macapagal said in a statement released by Malacaņang. "Civil rights will be protected but armed persons or groups that dare resists the authorities shall be engaged," Ms Macapagal said. "I ask our people for cooperation and patience as we undertake this massive drive for law and order," the President said.

Some 10,000 police and 1,000 soldiers were deployed to man 24-hour checkpoints in Metro Manila starting Monday, Chief Superintendent Ricardo De Leon, director of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), said on radio and television. Strict guidelines to be implemented at the checkpoints include questioning drivers of "suspicious looking" vehicles - those that are heavily-tinted, do not have license plates or whose license plates do not match their vehicles.

Hmm. "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to bend over. You have the right to..."

These are not the actions of a society where civil rights are enforced. Luckily, it's not in the US.

Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Cyber Crime Squad have been approaching O'ahu computer-repair specialists, network consultants and software developers and asking them to report any overtly criminal activity they find in customers' computers.

Owners of computer repair shops reported that FBI agents have come calling for at least a year.

So let's get this straight. The FBI is asking computer repair shops to perform searches that the FBI itself is not legally permitted to perform due to the Fourth Amendment. And they are doing this proactively; they aren't waiting for someone to notice something and bring it to their attention, which might be valid, but are actually soliciting this kind of snooping.