I suppose I have been very naive about the relationship between prosecutors and police. I didn't understand what has been happening each time a police officer is charged with an on-duty crime, such as unnecessary violence against a suspect, or shooting a suspect. Somehow, I always thought that a suspect, whether a police officer or a civilian would get the same treatment by prosecutors and grand jury made up of citizens. I have recently, finally, understood what has been happening. This editorial in USA Today has an excellent explanation of the problem, and what needs to be done to solve the problem.
Reform prosecuting police misconduct: Our view
I didn't understand how the police in the Rodney King situation could be excused for their action. It appeared to me that the chokehold killing in New York, on video certainly had enough evidence to go to trial. In the Ferguson case, there is now way that the police officer needed to fire so many shots into the suspect. The officer had clearly lost control of himself. He may have not been guilty of a crime, but he should have stood for a trial.
I can now see that we probably have the exact same conflict of interest between the FBI, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, DEA, and other Federal police agencies and their Federal prosecutors. I'm sure there is misconduct at times within those organizations, and I wonder how the independence between prosecutors and the federal agencies is maintained.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
How far will cop unions go to halt reform? | UTSanDiego.com
Steven Greenhut wrote about how police unions will "bend the law" in order to protect or increase their pay and benefits. How far will cop unions go to halt reform? | UTSanDiego.com. This is just another example of how by giving police-type agencies additional power and tools, it could be used for political purposes.
The contractor hired by the police union tried to set up a candidate whom the union didn't like for an embarrassing DUI situation. The contractors have been charged by the Orange County prosecutor, however it could be possible that the prosecutor could have a conflict of interest in the situation
The contractor hired by the police union tried to set up a candidate whom the union didn't like for an embarrassing DUI situation. The contractors have been charged by the Orange County prosecutor, however it could be possible that the prosecutor could have a conflict of interest in the situation
Trampling of Rights at Immigration Checkpoints
Peter Rowe wrote an article in Sunday's Union Tribune about what has been happening at immigration checkpoints.
At Border Patrol checkpoints, these critics have nothing to declare | UTSanDiego.com
There are a lot of articles and videos on the web describing the encounters. The article points out that the Supreme Court approved immigration checkpoints. They may have, but as is typical, the police forces will take maximum advantage of every "tool" that they are given. The Border Patrol checkpoints have now become checkpoints not just for immigration, but are also used as part of the "war on drugs." So, instead of just verifying citizenship, they are searching vehicles for drugs. They could search for any so-called contraband under the same guidelines -- which could be harassing political rivals, for example. I'm not sure that the Supreme Court intended that to happen. Apparently the Border patrol sometimes does allow "silence" as an answer: http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/. But apparently not always.
I'm critical of the value of the checkpoints -- Since they aren't open all of the time, pilot cars can warn drug or human smugglers. Meanwhile it violates the rights of all Americans, the Border Patrol causes all citizens who have to pass through the checkpoints long time delays each day.
At Border Patrol checkpoints, these critics have nothing to declare | UTSanDiego.com
There are a lot of articles and videos on the web describing the encounters. The article points out that the Supreme Court approved immigration checkpoints. They may have, but as is typical, the police forces will take maximum advantage of every "tool" that they are given. The Border Patrol checkpoints have now become checkpoints not just for immigration, but are also used as part of the "war on drugs." So, instead of just verifying citizenship, they are searching vehicles for drugs. They could search for any so-called contraband under the same guidelines -- which could be harassing political rivals, for example. I'm not sure that the Supreme Court intended that to happen. Apparently the Border patrol sometimes does allow "silence" as an answer: http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/. But apparently not always.
I'm critical of the value of the checkpoints -- Since they aren't open all of the time, pilot cars can warn drug or human smugglers. Meanwhile it violates the rights of all Americans, the Border Patrol causes all citizens who have to pass through the checkpoints long time delays each day.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Criminal Justice system is failing --From Detroit Free Press
I saw this editorial from the Detroit Free Press as reprinted in the Editorial Section of the San Luis Obispo Tribune. http://www.freep.com/article/20140828/OPINION01/308280015/michael-brown
I totally agree with several of the points made. First, I agree that statistics need to be collected on all police shootings nationwide, and the data base needs to be kept public. Police shootings should include Federal officers (border patrol, DEA, FBI etc) as well as State and Local.
Yes, Police are taught to "shoot to kill" --because often they are in a kill or be killed situation. However, a flexible response might be more appropriate for some situations. When engaging an unarmed citizen, it would seem that a warning shot first, and a wounding shot second might be more appropriate than shots to the heart and head. Training for such a flexible response would definitely be more complicated and expensive. But the result might be more lives saved. .
When an apparent unjustified police shooting occurs, we need to treat the situation in the same way as a citizen shooting. Yes, police officers should be given some discretion, and the benefit of the doubt. The officer is risking his life to protect us, of course. But when an unarmed citizen is killed by an officer there should be serious suspicion. Should such an officer be put on "paid leave?" Or should he be held in a jail cell?
During investigations of Police Shootings it appears that all of the facts are kept "secret" to protect the officer. While if a citizen is accused of a shooting, it appears that police "tell all"as information is discovered. We would know all about the shooter, his education, job performance, family, sex life, drinking habits etc. However when a police officer does something the public is kept in the dark --with the promise that it will all be made available later. This promotes suspicion among the public of a cover-up.
I believe the police chief of Ferguson should be held accountable for all of the riots that occurred. Had he stepped up and arrested the officer (2 shots to the victims head?) and kept the public appraised of the progress of the investigation, I believe the situation would have been a LOT different.
26 Sep UPDATE on Ferguson situation: USA Today, Christina Coleman and Greg Toppo reported that Police Chief Thomas Jackson of Ferguson MO officially addressed the public and read a supposed apology to Brown's parents on a video that was produced by a public relations firm.. That sounds like a "forced apology" -- not from the heart of Chief Jackson, but because he had to do it. This apology is over 6 weeks late, and apparently the police officer Darren Wilson is still on paid administrative leave. Information about the shooting of Michael Brown is still apparently being kept secret and is being dribbled out to a grand jury in hopes by the police that the grand jury won't vote to indict the police officer.
I totally agree with several of the points made. First, I agree that statistics need to be collected on all police shootings nationwide, and the data base needs to be kept public. Police shootings should include Federal officers (border patrol, DEA, FBI etc) as well as State and Local.
Yes, Police are taught to "shoot to kill" --because often they are in a kill or be killed situation. However, a flexible response might be more appropriate for some situations. When engaging an unarmed citizen, it would seem that a warning shot first, and a wounding shot second might be more appropriate than shots to the heart and head. Training for such a flexible response would definitely be more complicated and expensive. But the result might be more lives saved. .
When an apparent unjustified police shooting occurs, we need to treat the situation in the same way as a citizen shooting. Yes, police officers should be given some discretion, and the benefit of the doubt. The officer is risking his life to protect us, of course. But when an unarmed citizen is killed by an officer there should be serious suspicion. Should such an officer be put on "paid leave?" Or should he be held in a jail cell?
During investigations of Police Shootings it appears that all of the facts are kept "secret" to protect the officer. While if a citizen is accused of a shooting, it appears that police "tell all"as information is discovered. We would know all about the shooter, his education, job performance, family, sex life, drinking habits etc. However when a police officer does something the public is kept in the dark --with the promise that it will all be made available later. This promotes suspicion among the public of a cover-up.
I believe the police chief of Ferguson should be held accountable for all of the riots that occurred. Had he stepped up and arrested the officer (2 shots to the victims head?) and kept the public appraised of the progress of the investigation, I believe the situation would have been a LOT different.
26 Sep UPDATE on Ferguson situation: USA Today, Christina Coleman and Greg Toppo reported that Police Chief Thomas Jackson of Ferguson MO officially addressed the public and read a supposed apology to Brown's parents on a video that was produced by a public relations firm.. That sounds like a "forced apology" -- not from the heart of Chief Jackson, but because he had to do it. This apology is over 6 weeks late, and apparently the police officer Darren Wilson is still on paid administrative leave. Information about the shooting of Michael Brown is still apparently being kept secret and is being dribbled out to a grand jury in hopes by the police that the grand jury won't vote to indict the police officer.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com
This article by Greg Moran in this morning's Union Tribune points out the total lack of discipline in a typical police force that is tolerated by management.
COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com:
The San Diego County taxpayers had to pay $180,000 to this lady in a settlement due to misconduct of County Sheriff Deputies, and those deputies are still on the job! I hope they are on Bonnie Dumanis' "Brady List" of officers that can be trusted!
If any other resident of San Diego County called the Sheriff Department and complained that a boyfriend or girlfriend had run up unauthorized charges on their credit card, would they get a response with a swat team of between six and ten deputies with arms drawn? I tend to doubt it!
In addition to the $180K to be paid to the plaintiff, Michelle Martin, these rogue deputy sheriffs also incurred significant other costs to the county. Apparently we don't know if it was 6 or 10 deputies who traveled from San Marcos to Ocean Beach to perform the arrest. Are we to understand that the officers involved weren't deposed, and that the Sheriff department really doesn't know where their deputies are at all times? However if there were ten, they probably had to travel in at least three vehicles. Three vehicles, ten people for a 90 mile round trip probably caused specialized vehicles to be driven a total of 270 miles (at cost of 75 cents/mile minimum) and the trip itself probably took at least 2 hours. The time for the home invasion, arrest of Michelle and booking probably another 2 hours. The hourly labor cost with all overhead probably is close to $150/hour to the County -- so 10 officers for 4 hours would be about $60,000 + $200 for vehicle mileage expense. In addition there was the cost of keeping Martin in jail for 5 days. On top of all of this, there was the County's legal expense involved in considering Martin's case, dropping the charges, and then defending the County against her lawsuit and then settling. The legal costs to the County, state and federal government were immense from looking at the various legal documents and news articles over the years this case was pending. (see bottom for articles) There were many cases filed, huge amounts of lawyers time, judges time, and court administration involved.
The Sheriff deputies who were involved in this should clearly be disciplined, and any such discipline should be made public, so that the public understands that our Sheriff department will not stand for this sort of misuse of resources. This is important so we know that our tax dollars are being spent properly and that our police forces are trustworthy.
The case seems to revolve around an $8000 charge that Michelle made for furniture after being thrown out of the house she shared with the Deputy--and apparent father of Michelle's two children. Somehow the Deputy must be responsible for the support and care of the children. I found no mention of any child support payments from the Deputy for care of the children. $8000 for furniture doesn't sound unreasonable for starting a new home from scratch with two children. Why is that relatively small amount of money such a big deal? I'm not sure what the standards are now for police officers. However "in my day" in the US Air Force, officers would have been disciplined for living with someone of the opposite sex and unmarried. Having children out of wedlock would have also initiated discipline. Abandoning those children would have caused the officer's pay to be attached to pay for support of the children. From what I read in the news articles, apparently the Deputy was a "deadbeat dad" during this period.
It is also disturbing to me that the action took place in December 2008, Michelle filed the suit in 2009, and it is just now being settled -- around 5 years later! And the case was settled because the County didn't want the publicity that would be involved with a jury trial. How long would the County have been able to drag out the case if it actually went to trial?
Here is the results from the Court of Appeals: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/04/16/11-55927.pdf
It appears that the San Diego District Attorney agrees that the Deputy actions were inappropriate--see the bottom of this: http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/0813.pdf
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/16/56744.htm
It is pretty clear that Michell's neighbors supported her position: http://obrag.org/?p=73026
Appeals court concerning police conspiracy: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Apr/23/san-diego-sheriff-suit-revived/
Appeals court believes there was no conspiracy: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/came041713.htm
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2013/04/michelle-cameron-v.-michelle-craig.html
COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com:
The San Diego County taxpayers had to pay $180,000 to this lady in a settlement due to misconduct of County Sheriff Deputies, and those deputies are still on the job! I hope they are on Bonnie Dumanis' "Brady List" of officers that can be trusted!
If any other resident of San Diego County called the Sheriff Department and complained that a boyfriend or girlfriend had run up unauthorized charges on their credit card, would they get a response with a swat team of between six and ten deputies with arms drawn? I tend to doubt it!
In addition to the $180K to be paid to the plaintiff, Michelle Martin, these rogue deputy sheriffs also incurred significant other costs to the county. Apparently we don't know if it was 6 or 10 deputies who traveled from San Marcos to Ocean Beach to perform the arrest. Are we to understand that the officers involved weren't deposed, and that the Sheriff department really doesn't know where their deputies are at all times? However if there were ten, they probably had to travel in at least three vehicles. Three vehicles, ten people for a 90 mile round trip probably caused specialized vehicles to be driven a total of 270 miles (at cost of 75 cents/mile minimum) and the trip itself probably took at least 2 hours. The time for the home invasion, arrest of Michelle and booking probably another 2 hours. The hourly labor cost with all overhead probably is close to $150/hour to the County -- so 10 officers for 4 hours would be about $60,000 + $200 for vehicle mileage expense. In addition there was the cost of keeping Martin in jail for 5 days. On top of all of this, there was the County's legal expense involved in considering Martin's case, dropping the charges, and then defending the County against her lawsuit and then settling. The legal costs to the County, state and federal government were immense from looking at the various legal documents and news articles over the years this case was pending. (see bottom for articles) There were many cases filed, huge amounts of lawyers time, judges time, and court administration involved.
The Sheriff deputies who were involved in this should clearly be disciplined, and any such discipline should be made public, so that the public understands that our Sheriff department will not stand for this sort of misuse of resources. This is important so we know that our tax dollars are being spent properly and that our police forces are trustworthy.
The case seems to revolve around an $8000 charge that Michelle made for furniture after being thrown out of the house she shared with the Deputy--and apparent father of Michelle's two children. Somehow the Deputy must be responsible for the support and care of the children. I found no mention of any child support payments from the Deputy for care of the children. $8000 for furniture doesn't sound unreasonable for starting a new home from scratch with two children. Why is that relatively small amount of money such a big deal? I'm not sure what the standards are now for police officers. However "in my day" in the US Air Force, officers would have been disciplined for living with someone of the opposite sex and unmarried. Having children out of wedlock would have also initiated discipline. Abandoning those children would have caused the officer's pay to be attached to pay for support of the children. From what I read in the news articles, apparently the Deputy was a "deadbeat dad" during this period.
It is also disturbing to me that the action took place in December 2008, Michelle filed the suit in 2009, and it is just now being settled -- around 5 years later! And the case was settled because the County didn't want the publicity that would be involved with a jury trial. How long would the County have been able to drag out the case if it actually went to trial?
Here is the results from the Court of Appeals: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/04/16/11-55927.pdf
It appears that the San Diego District Attorney agrees that the Deputy actions were inappropriate--see the bottom of this: http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/0813.pdf
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/16/56744.htm
It is pretty clear that Michell's neighbors supported her position: http://obrag.org/?p=73026
Appeals court concerning police conspiracy: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Apr/23/san-diego-sheriff-suit-revived/
Appeals court believes there was no conspiracy: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/came041713.htm
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2013/04/michelle-cameron-v.-michelle-craig.html
Monday, July 28, 2014
DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com
I thought this Union Tribune article by Jeff Brady was interesting. Apparently all DAs now have a secret list of police officers whom they no longer trust -- called the Brady List.
DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com:
I can certainly understand why the DA would need such a list, and agree that it probably should be kept "secret."
I hope that the regional defense attorneys also maintain a similar list of officers whom they believe may have lied under oath. The DA needs to trust the testimony of officers.
I also hope that the Chief of Police is aware of all of the names on the list. Being on that list probably shouldn't be the "kiss of death" for promotions or other advancement. However, it should be considered when the individuals come up for promotions --particularly to the higher ranks.
DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com:
I can certainly understand why the DA would need such a list, and agree that it probably should be kept "secret."
I hope that the regional defense attorneys also maintain a similar list of officers whom they believe may have lied under oath. The DA needs to trust the testimony of officers.
I also hope that the Chief of Police is aware of all of the names on the list. Being on that list probably shouldn't be the "kiss of death" for promotions or other advancement. However, it should be considered when the individuals come up for promotions --particularly to the higher ranks.
Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com
It always seemed clear to me and to most legal professionals that police searching a person's cell phone without a warrant was an illegal act. The June 25, 2014 unanimous US Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California confirms that understanding.
Even though most judges, courts, prosecutors and police understood that, they did those illegal searches for years because there was no "firm ruling" against this type of search, and because there was no penalty to police if they violated citizen's rights. They had no orders to "not search" people's phones, so in the interest of "fighting crime" they went ahead and did it. This is their "good faith exception."
Now it appears that Riley v. California is complicating prosecutions in progress and previous convictions based upon this "illegally obtained evidence" See this article by Kristina Davis in the San Diego Union Tribune: Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com: The article cites a few cases of pretty horrible crimes that were uncovered and prosecuted based upon illegal searches of a suspect's cell phone. I would assume that there are similar situations now all over the US. Yes, in these cases the cell phone searches were keys to prosecution, and I'm sure there were other cases. However how many thousands (or millions across the US) of illegal searches were done by police in cases of stops or arrests for minor offenses (broken tail light) were there when nothing illegal was found? How many times has TSA illegally searched (without a warrant) American's cell phones or laptops when they are returning to the US after a trip abroad? From the news, it appears that the practice was very common, and that the police even would extort passwords from suspects so they could get into phones and online accounts.
It would be appropriate to fine or discipline those who conducted, or directed the illegal cell phone searches prior to the Riley vs California ruling, since it seemed so obvious to everyone (including the Supreme Court) that what they were doing was illegal. However, (per the "good faith exception") they will argue that they were "just doing their job the best way they knew how." However any illegal search AFTER Riley vs California should be an immediate cause for legal prosecution. Any officer doing so should be immediately suspended and prosecuted! I can still see police pulling me over for a broken tail light asking for my phone and passwords. They can say: "Either give me your phone and passwords, or you can sit here on the side of the road and wait a couple of hours until another officer brings a search warrant." -- Or they will say "Do you have something to hide on your phone? If not, give it to me, and you will be quickly on your way!" It is a very awkward situation. This ruling doesn't seem to stop that from happening.
On the other hand, I totally disagree with the concept overturning convictions based upon "illegally obtained" evidence. These suspects were clearly sleazebag criminals and deserve to be convicted and punished. When the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision was made, and police were then suddenly forced to read everyone their rights and, many convictions were overturned where the suspect wasn't properly "Mirandized." . It was clear that the suspect was guilty, but the conviction was reversed as a way to "punish" the police and prosecutors" for violating the citizen's rights. When police, prosecutors, or judges clearly violate citizens rights, there needs to be some other form of sanctions, discipline, or punishment for doing so. --Not letting convicted criminals go free!
This Riley vs California situation is very similar to Miranda in that sense. The arrests, prosecutions and convictions cited in this article for child sex, child pornography etc are heinous crimes and the evidence, while obtained illegally, is still valid evidence of the crime. In these cases, it would be reasonable to think that the police would have had grounds to obtain a legal search warrant, and would have searched the phone(s) anyway, if it weren't for the "good faith exception" they were operating on.
Even though most judges, courts, prosecutors and police understood that, they did those illegal searches for years because there was no "firm ruling" against this type of search, and because there was no penalty to police if they violated citizen's rights. They had no orders to "not search" people's phones, so in the interest of "fighting crime" they went ahead and did it. This is their "good faith exception."
Now it appears that Riley v. California is complicating prosecutions in progress and previous convictions based upon this "illegally obtained evidence" See this article by Kristina Davis in the San Diego Union Tribune: Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com: The article cites a few cases of pretty horrible crimes that were uncovered and prosecuted based upon illegal searches of a suspect's cell phone. I would assume that there are similar situations now all over the US. Yes, in these cases the cell phone searches were keys to prosecution, and I'm sure there were other cases. However how many thousands (or millions across the US) of illegal searches were done by police in cases of stops or arrests for minor offenses (broken tail light) were there when nothing illegal was found? How many times has TSA illegally searched (without a warrant) American's cell phones or laptops when they are returning to the US after a trip abroad? From the news, it appears that the practice was very common, and that the police even would extort passwords from suspects so they could get into phones and online accounts.
It would be appropriate to fine or discipline those who conducted, or directed the illegal cell phone searches prior to the Riley vs California ruling, since it seemed so obvious to everyone (including the Supreme Court) that what they were doing was illegal. However, (per the "good faith exception") they will argue that they were "just doing their job the best way they knew how." However any illegal search AFTER Riley vs California should be an immediate cause for legal prosecution. Any officer doing so should be immediately suspended and prosecuted! I can still see police pulling me over for a broken tail light asking for my phone and passwords. They can say: "Either give me your phone and passwords, or you can sit here on the side of the road and wait a couple of hours until another officer brings a search warrant." -- Or they will say "Do you have something to hide on your phone? If not, give it to me, and you will be quickly on your way!" It is a very awkward situation. This ruling doesn't seem to stop that from happening.
On the other hand, I totally disagree with the concept overturning convictions based upon "illegally obtained" evidence. These suspects were clearly sleazebag criminals and deserve to be convicted and punished. When the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision was made, and police were then suddenly forced to read everyone their rights and, many convictions were overturned where the suspect wasn't properly "Mirandized." . It was clear that the suspect was guilty, but the conviction was reversed as a way to "punish" the police and prosecutors" for violating the citizen's rights. When police, prosecutors, or judges clearly violate citizens rights, there needs to be some other form of sanctions, discipline, or punishment for doing so. --Not letting convicted criminals go free!
This Riley vs California situation is very similar to Miranda in that sense. The arrests, prosecutions and convictions cited in this article for child sex, child pornography etc are heinous crimes and the evidence, while obtained illegally, is still valid evidence of the crime. In these cases, it would be reasonable to think that the police would have had grounds to obtain a legal search warrant, and would have searched the phone(s) anyway, if it weren't for the "good faith exception" they were operating on.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Issue of Cell Phone Searches
I think this US Supreme Court decision could have a huge impact on many aspects of our lives, as well as international relations.
There have been lots of write-ups and articles about it:
I'm disappointed that my state, California is actually defending themselves in this case. The state depends upon the electronic, internet and semiconductor industry for most of its growth, and it appears that they could put a damper on growth if they won this case --which I believe is clearly a violation of citizen privacy. I'm also disappointed that the Obama administration is defending the Government's right to search all of anyone's cell phone for any trumped-up charge.
Police searches for years have focused more and more on the electronics, and it appears that the trend will continue. Searches, for other than illegal drugs, have moved from searching file cabinets and desk drawers to hard drives. Searches for pornography, drug sales, and terrorism plots have all moved to the computer data bases. Immigration and customs officials have been searching laptops and hard drives on routine basis. This type of "fishing expedition" done by police often turns up some sort of violation that allows the police to charge an individual with a crime.
Since many of us now have "our whole lives" on our computer --and most are moving it towards the cell phone, this random search could find chargeable offenses such as income tax violations, child support violations, or even building code violations. From our phones we can now access our bank & investment accounts, our address book, the locations we've been, all phone calls and text messages, all photos, all email, income tax filings and records, all our music, books, videos, and web site visits
It is easy to sympathize with the situation the police are in. They are rated upon their effectiveness. If they pull someone over and don't find something to charge them with, they have, in effect, wasted their time. They really want to stop crime, but are also rated on how many "busts" they score, and how much fine revenue they bring in for their city, county or state. They want to get as much bang for the taxpayer's "buck" they can get --that means writing tickets, citations, or making arrests. Looking through a citizen's cell phone is probably a quick and easy way for them to find something to write a citation for. Even if the Supreme Court does decide that the police need a search warrant to go through a person's phone, they still will use the argument: If you have nothing to hide, why don't you let us quickly search your phone --if we have to get a search warrant, you'll have to stand out along side this highway for an hour or so until someone brings a warrant --and this will be much quicker!
Some privacy problems may not seem too important in a metropolitan area where it is unlikely that you will ever see the same police officer twice. However is rural or small town areas, everyone knows everyone. Friendships and grudges can last a long time. Police are more able to "get even" with old rivals, lovers who have done them wrong, or business competitors of family members.
There are a lot of ancillary questions about police taking and searching a cell phone or laptop:
There have been lots of write-ups and articles about it:
- ABC News: Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Issue of Cell Phone Searches - ABC News:
- National Journal: Supreme Court is about to decide the future of cell phone privacy
- Reuters: US Justices weigh limits on cell phone searches
- The Wire: Looks like the Supreme Court Brushed up on Tech Lingo for this Cell Phone Privacy Case
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) - Riley v. California
I'm disappointed that my state, California is actually defending themselves in this case. The state depends upon the electronic, internet and semiconductor industry for most of its growth, and it appears that they could put a damper on growth if they won this case --which I believe is clearly a violation of citizen privacy. I'm also disappointed that the Obama administration is defending the Government's right to search all of anyone's cell phone for any trumped-up charge.
Police searches for years have focused more and more on the electronics, and it appears that the trend will continue. Searches, for other than illegal drugs, have moved from searching file cabinets and desk drawers to hard drives. Searches for pornography, drug sales, and terrorism plots have all moved to the computer data bases. Immigration and customs officials have been searching laptops and hard drives on routine basis. This type of "fishing expedition" done by police often turns up some sort of violation that allows the police to charge an individual with a crime.
Since many of us now have "our whole lives" on our computer --and most are moving it towards the cell phone, this random search could find chargeable offenses such as income tax violations, child support violations, or even building code violations. From our phones we can now access our bank & investment accounts, our address book, the locations we've been, all phone calls and text messages, all photos, all email, income tax filings and records, all our music, books, videos, and web site visits
It is easy to sympathize with the situation the police are in. They are rated upon their effectiveness. If they pull someone over and don't find something to charge them with, they have, in effect, wasted their time. They really want to stop crime, but are also rated on how many "busts" they score, and how much fine revenue they bring in for their city, county or state. They want to get as much bang for the taxpayer's "buck" they can get --that means writing tickets, citations, or making arrests. Looking through a citizen's cell phone is probably a quick and easy way for them to find something to write a citation for. Even if the Supreme Court does decide that the police need a search warrant to go through a person's phone, they still will use the argument: If you have nothing to hide, why don't you let us quickly search your phone --if we have to get a search warrant, you'll have to stand out along side this highway for an hour or so until someone brings a warrant --and this will be much quicker!
Some privacy problems may not seem too important in a metropolitan area where it is unlikely that you will ever see the same police officer twice. However is rural or small town areas, everyone knows everyone. Friendships and grudges can last a long time. Police are more able to "get even" with old rivals, lovers who have done them wrong, or business competitors of family members.
There are a lot of ancillary questions about police taking and searching a cell phone or laptop:
- How long can the police keep the cell phone? While in their possession, are police responsible for any damage to hardware, software or files?
- Do they provide citizens with another phone to use while they have yours? If they have taken all of your files and records within the phone, can they provide you a copy back to use -- some business are dependent upon it.
- Do citizens have to give police their pass code, or finger print scan to be able to access their phone? Are there penalties if they don't provide that access? My phone has an SD memory card that can hold a lot of files. Will we also have to provide that chip? If we have multiple chips, will we have to provide all of them?
- Do you have to give police passwords so they can get onto your "cloud" files from your cell phone? In fact, a lot of the information that appears to be on the phone, is often, actually on a server accessible from the phone.
- Are police permitted to crack your passwords to go through your phone, laptop hard drive, or cloud files?
- How are we, as citizens, protected from police sneaking files or records onto our phone or laptop that could incriminate us? There are strict protocols for crime scenes, but probably not for cell phone searches.
- Are police permitted to make a copy of everything on your phone, hard drive, or cloud? How will the integrity of that copy be maintained?
I believe that the Supreme Court has a very tough challenge in making this decision. I hope they agree to error on the side of freedom vs police state. We've lost too much freedom and privacy lately. Police argue that they need these powers to fight crime. However crime is down --way down in the US and the world. If recreational drugs weren't illegal they would have nothing to do, and they know that they would need less than half of the existing numbers of police, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, prisons and prison guards --all part of the "business" they are in.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Drug enforcement gone wrong
I read this editorial ( Drug enforcement gone wrong - latimes.com:) in the LA Times today by Theshia Naidoo and Lynne Lyman about using undercover police agents in schools to "bait" kids into committing drug offenses. Theshia and Lynne are staff for the Drug Policy Alliance and have had lots of experience on this. Apparently Riverside County allows undercover agents to work on a school campus to try and get kids to violate drug laws. Yes, I recognize that drugs on campus is a serious problem. Yes, I would like to keep children away from drugs. Yes, I do understand how frustrating it can be to try to keep drugs off campus and away from children. It is a very difficult task! However this technique done by the Riverside County Sheriff is "over the top" when it comes to common sense.
I can imagine that when I was in 9th or 10th grade, how an attractive female senior might have easily influenced me to steal a couple of pills from my mothers medicine chest to win her appreciation. However apparently the Riverside sheriff department not only does that but also preys upon children with special needs, such as a boy with autism.
I've always thought that the "bait" technique was questionable for any situation. I'm not sure it has ever been tested with a supreme court decision, but it should border on being unconstitutional. Bait systems are similar to speed traps: Police in a small town put a small 25 mph sign up on a nice, wide, 60 mph highway and then collect lots of money from the tickets they issue.Easy money! Very easy policing! Police Women dress up as prostitutes and then "hook" Johns and arrest them -- more easy arrests and money! I think the police department employees enjoy doing it too! Police or agents visit a politician and offer to "donate" a million dollars to their campaign if they'll vote a certain way. That makes for great publicity!
Some people may believe that right and wrong is simply "black and white" --so the politician, John, or high school student should know what is right and wrong. Many religions try to teach that "black and white" definition. However in real life, we all know, it is much more of a "shades of gray issue." We all know the story of the man asking a woman if she'll go to bed with him for a million dollars. When she says yes, he says: "now that you've established yourself as a prostitute, lets haggle about the price." I believe that everyone has a price. We've seen it in bad, immoral decisions made by "unfailable Popes" as well as TV evangelists who have studied and espoused those black & white moral definitions. How can we ever expect young teenagers to be able to always make the correct decision? Why would our police and sheriff departments even dream about baiting these kids into becoming a criminal?
I can imagine that when I was in 9th or 10th grade, how an attractive female senior might have easily influenced me to steal a couple of pills from my mothers medicine chest to win her appreciation. However apparently the Riverside sheriff department not only does that but also preys upon children with special needs, such as a boy with autism.
I've always thought that the "bait" technique was questionable for any situation. I'm not sure it has ever been tested with a supreme court decision, but it should border on being unconstitutional. Bait systems are similar to speed traps: Police in a small town put a small 25 mph sign up on a nice, wide, 60 mph highway and then collect lots of money from the tickets they issue.Easy money! Very easy policing! Police Women dress up as prostitutes and then "hook" Johns and arrest them -- more easy arrests and money! I think the police department employees enjoy doing it too! Police or agents visit a politician and offer to "donate" a million dollars to their campaign if they'll vote a certain way. That makes for great publicity!
Some people may believe that right and wrong is simply "black and white" --so the politician, John, or high school student should know what is right and wrong. Many religions try to teach that "black and white" definition. However in real life, we all know, it is much more of a "shades of gray issue." We all know the story of the man asking a woman if she'll go to bed with him for a million dollars. When she says yes, he says: "now that you've established yourself as a prostitute, lets haggle about the price." I believe that everyone has a price. We've seen it in bad, immoral decisions made by "unfailable Popes" as well as TV evangelists who have studied and espoused those black & white moral definitions. How can we ever expect young teenagers to be able to always make the correct decision? Why would our police and sheriff departments even dream about baiting these kids into becoming a criminal?
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Death row inmate Glenn Ford released 30 years after wrongful conviction | World news | theguardian.com
I'm glad that justice was partially served in this case. However, I think it is wrong that the prosecutors who withheld important evidence,and the witnesses who lied under oath, the the appeals judges who knew Ford was likely innocent are all getting off scott-free.
Death row inmate Glenn Ford released 30 years after wrongful conviction | World news | theguardian.com:
I would think it would be fair if those individuals had to pay some compensation to Mr. Ford, if not serve some "hard time" for their actions.
30 years is a long sentence for an innocent person. The part I hate about the fight to release wrongfully convicted prisoners is that so often the original prosecutors, even though now presented with convincing evidence of innocence still fight back against releases as if they are protecting their "baby"...That clearly isn't fulfilling their oath of office to promote justice.
Death row inmate Glenn Ford released 30 years after wrongful conviction | World news | theguardian.com:
I would think it would be fair if those individuals had to pay some compensation to Mr. Ford, if not serve some "hard time" for their actions.
30 years is a long sentence for an innocent person. The part I hate about the fight to release wrongfully convicted prisoners is that so often the original prosecutors, even though now presented with convincing evidence of innocence still fight back against releases as if they are protecting their "baby"...That clearly isn't fulfilling their oath of office to promote justice.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
The Espionage Act needs revision -- Reference Leon Panetta's "pass" on enforcement
The LA Times published an "op-ed"editorial written by John Kiriakou who is currently serving time in prison for releasing information about the CIA's torturing of captives.
I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass? - latimes.com:
John Kiriakou believes he was a "Whistle Blower" who was revealing the clearly illegal activities of the CIA in doing waterboarding. Apparently he knew he was releasing information to the press.
On the other hand, Panetta thought he was talking to a room of cleared people, but there happened to be some uncleared press people.
Over 25 years ago, I was involved in similar situations where a political appointee was speaking to a large audience and inadvertently released classified information to people who were not authorized. In that situation, and I would assume also in the referenced "Panetta" situation mentioned in the article, a security officer detained all attendees to that conference and debriefed everyone. That debriefing, in effect, swore all to keep the secrets that were inadvertently released. There are standard procedures for handling the inadvertent release of classified information. I get the impression that it happens a few times every year.
In John Kirakou's situation, he released information without giving Government security an opportunity to "debrief" the reporters. This is a significant difference. He, in effect, intended to release that information to the public.
I do agree with Kirakou, that the Espionage Act needs some serious updating. It is currently too vague and can be applied inconsistently and unfairly. A lot has changed over the years --and the use of the internet has changed almost everything! Too many times our country has given prosecutors new powers and they have abused them in order to get a "win" instead of trying to achieve "justice."
I certainly agree that any new version of Espionage Act needs to be very tough on the release of information. However we do seriously need a way to protect "whistle blowers." That protection needs to be built-in to any new law. I believe that if we had a good, somewhat independent, method of doing whistle-blowing, that a lot of classified information could be protected even better than it is. For example, if Snowden knew he could have reported his concern to someone who could have done something about the NSA spying on Americans or foreign leaders, would it have provided an outlet for him, and protected some of the information?
The real question is: Who would be that "independent" contact for a whistle-blower to talk to? Clearly the organization's "Inspector General" is not the right spot. I would suspect that if Kirakou or Snowden reported to their IG, the first thing that would be done was that Kirakou or Snowden would be locked up in a cell and never heard from again. Should it be an office of the GAO? An independent organization, similar to the FED? How could this be implemented? It is a very tough problem!
'
I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass? - latimes.com:
John Kiriakou believes he was a "Whistle Blower" who was revealing the clearly illegal activities of the CIA in doing waterboarding. Apparently he knew he was releasing information to the press.
On the other hand, Panetta thought he was talking to a room of cleared people, but there happened to be some uncleared press people.
Over 25 years ago, I was involved in similar situations where a political appointee was speaking to a large audience and inadvertently released classified information to people who were not authorized. In that situation, and I would assume also in the referenced "Panetta" situation mentioned in the article, a security officer detained all attendees to that conference and debriefed everyone. That debriefing, in effect, swore all to keep the secrets that were inadvertently released. There are standard procedures for handling the inadvertent release of classified information. I get the impression that it happens a few times every year.
In John Kirakou's situation, he released information without giving Government security an opportunity to "debrief" the reporters. This is a significant difference. He, in effect, intended to release that information to the public.
I do agree with Kirakou, that the Espionage Act needs some serious updating. It is currently too vague and can be applied inconsistently and unfairly. A lot has changed over the years --and the use of the internet has changed almost everything! Too many times our country has given prosecutors new powers and they have abused them in order to get a "win" instead of trying to achieve "justice."
I certainly agree that any new version of Espionage Act needs to be very tough on the release of information. However we do seriously need a way to protect "whistle blowers." That protection needs to be built-in to any new law. I believe that if we had a good, somewhat independent, method of doing whistle-blowing, that a lot of classified information could be protected even better than it is. For example, if Snowden knew he could have reported his concern to someone who could have done something about the NSA spying on Americans or foreign leaders, would it have provided an outlet for him, and protected some of the information?
The real question is: Who would be that "independent" contact for a whistle-blower to talk to? Clearly the organization's "Inspector General" is not the right spot. I would suspect that if Kirakou or Snowden reported to their IG, the first thing that would be done was that Kirakou or Snowden would be locked up in a cell and never heard from again. Should it be an office of the GAO? An independent organization, similar to the FED? How could this be implemented? It is a very tough problem!
'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)