Police swarm Sacramento --they want to be able to steal our stuff!

Steven Greenhut wrote a column today about the extreme pressure the state and local police departments are putting on the state legislature to prevent passage of a law to put controls on police forfeiture.  See this link  --His title:  Forget Justice:  Cops just want money!

Police departments like the additional money they are able to take from people they think might be drug dealers.  They can use the money anyway they want.  They can pay overtime, give bonuses, or buy shiny new cool weapons and devices.  All of those expenditures, of course, are outside of the normal budget approval process.

Conceptually, it sounds really good!  If a criminal steals money or sells drugs the police should confiscate those proceeds.  Why should the criminal get rich and keep the fruits of his crime?  The trouble is that while the police say they need this "tool" to go after the big "organized crime drug lords" -- they actually most often use it against the "little guy" who doesn't have the money to defend themselves.  People with $10,000 in cash going to buy a car, can be accused of having the cash for illegal purposes and the cash can simply be taken by police!  The person then has to hire lawyers to get it back, and the cost in time and money may be more than the person can afford --and maybe more than the value of the money they are trying to get returned!  Greenhut cites a situation where the police tried to take a $1.5M piece of real estate because one tenant was accused of selling drugs!  Note, there is no determination that a person is guilty to confiscate the assets!  The police just take it and keep it!

We all need to call and write our State Representative and State Senator and tell them to vote FOR SB443!   The Federal Government also needs some sort of control on their similar practices.  

Police Body Cameras Going the Wrong Way?

The San Diego Union Tribune had an editorial today (Sep 1 2015) that pointed out that the "police camera" revolution that had looked like it was going to help resolve the conflicts over police violence may be stopped in its tracks by new legislation.  See this link.  Steven Greenhut also addressed the subject in his column yesterday.  There has been a series of bills proposed in the California State Legislature (AB66, SB175, AB69) that attempted to put some controls on how the cameras are to be used and how/when data can be viewed or shared with the officers and public.  However the powerful police officers unions have apparently lobbied to stop or "water down" the proposed legislation.  Some have decried "thug cops" for stopping the legislation.
We need our police forces to be admired and respected, not feared and hated.  For years the police have confiscated cameras from bystanders who recorded what they were doing.  I've never heard of a police officer being indicted for doing that, even though it is a crime.  Police departments still confiscate videos of police arrests or police misconduct and then try to bury it.    I believe the state needs to establish some standards that treat the officers and citizens fairly and equally when reporting or documenting crimes.  If the police are permitted to view footage before writing their report, then accused citizens should have the same right before being interviewed by police.  If not, then neither should have access.  If the state does not establish standards, then maybe the Federal Government should draft some standards for use by Federal law enforcement agencies, and then it might become a "defacto" standard for states.  I think FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and TSA officers should also all have body cameras turned on during activities, and that citizens involved should also be treated fairly and uniformly when in comes to access to those videos. 

Trishawn Carey, a mentally ill woman is charged with assault for raising a police baton

The LA Police Department and Prosecutors don't have enough to do.  They have filed "3-strike" charges against a homeless, mentally ill woman for picking up a policeman's baton or "night stick" waving it around and then dropping it.  A good front-page headline article in July 24 2015 LA times by Marisa Gerber and Richard Winton explains the situation.
I think LAPD and Prosecutors are abusing the intent and spirit of the 3-strikes law and they should know better than do this to a person known to be mentally ill.  It seems crazy and expensive to taxpayers to spend the money to have a court trial for such an insignificant charge.  It seems also crazy to send her to prison for 25 years.
On the other hand -- maybe there is more to the story.  Maybe she actually "WANTS" to be in prison where she can get her three square meals, a bed, and her proper medications, rather than live on the street.  

House should Join Senate in Torture Ban

Today's Union Tribune had an oped by Dr. David Debus, a San Diego psychologist who has been active in the anti-torture movement.
See this link:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/23/cia-torture-ban-legislation/
Dr Debus is asking the US House of Representatives to pass a bill (McCain-Feinstein Bill) that has already passed the Senate that will ban the CIA from torturing people.  I am writing my congressman, Darrell Issa to ask him to vote for it, and I hope others will encourage their representatives to do likewise.  I tend to doubt that Issa will vote for it, because he has generally voted with all of the right-wingers in favor of torture.  He certainly supported all of Bush/Cheney's torture efforts including rendition, and Guantanamo.  We can hope he might have a change of heart?
I think that the US torturing people is an embarrassment for the US and it violates everything our country stands for. Of course, nobody in the military would be permitted to torture someone, because it is against the US law, and international law, and an order to do so, would be an illegal order.  If we do it to people from other countries, then it would make it "ok" for other countries to do it to our soldiers and citizens when captured abroad.  Apparently, the US even did it to American citizens.  It isn't clear to me why CIA employees should have been "exempt" from US law in the first place.  I have a hard time understanding why nobody has ever been prosecuted for torturing prisoners.
In the series "24" We all saw how torture was dramatized in situations where information might be needed to prevent an imminent disaster that could kill millions. Would torture in that type of situation make sense?  I don't know!  --but keeping people prisoners for years and torturing them seems like punishment, and not a valid method for extracting useful information.

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

I've been a critic of asset forfeiture by law enforcement since it first started.  It seems like a great idea!  If a criminal acquires assets such as homes, cars, or land, using funds obtained illegally, then they should not be entitled to keep those assets.  That, in principle, makes perfect sense!  The assets then should be used to compensate those injured by the criminals.  If the assets were stolen, then they should be returned to the people they were stolen from.  However if the assets were obtained from an illegal activity such as drugs, prostitution, or gambling, who should get the "loot" from the forfeiture?  It would seem logical that the Government should receive the assets, as a representative of the people.  However which Government should get the loot?  City, State, or Federal?  Also how should those funds be used?  Somehow, our laws got twisted to make our Police forces benefit from "looting and pillaging" citizens so the police forces were entitled to take an keep any assets they could "capture" without any judicial process.  They could pull over a car for a "fuzzy dice hanging from mirror" violation, toss a small bag of marijuana in the back and then claim the owner was a "drug runner."  Then they could confiscate and keep the car, and the poor owner would have to spend their own money to hire a lawyer to get their car back.  The car would be "guilty until proven innocent" --.!! There have been notorious cases where drug enforcement agencies have seized valuable real estate when pot plants (wild or planted) were discovered on the property.  Forfeiture makes sense if we thought that the police forces would only use the right when they really were dealing with a criminal.  But who determines that the person is a criminal, unless the person is charged and convicted of being one?

That is not the way our justice system is supposed to work!

It does make sense for the Government and Police to "capture" and "freeze" any assets at the time of the arrest.  I'm sure police and prosecutors don't like the thought that a drug dealer might hire an expensive lawyer to defend them using proceeds from their drug business.  However, who separates the funds obtained illegally from those that might be legal?  The whole process needs to be "adjusted" to protect citizens from police abuse. Changes need to be made to protect citizens, but also capture those assets that might have been obtained illegally before they can be liquidated.  It is a shame that police and prosecutors take laws that make sense when passed and then abuse them against good judgement.  The "Three Strikes Law" made good sense when we passed it in California, and it was advertised and sold to the public as a way to get people who commit three "violent crimes" off the street.  Then the police forces started using it to extort confessions out of people charged with non-violent crimes, and sent far too many people to prison for extended sentences for minor crimes, such as use or sale of recreational drugs.  The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as an attempt to combat the Mafia.  Police forces and prosecutors used that law far beyond what it was intended, and now use it against kids neighborhood clubs, which they call "gangs."  That has further violated many of our bill of rights freedoms.  Now our California legislature is considering a bill (Senate Bill SB443) that will help reduce some of the unchecked powers our police forces have with asset forfeiture.  The bill makes sense!  See this article by Steven Grenhut in today's Union Tribune:

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

However, it is clear that the Police forces really do like "looting and pillaging" their neighbors.  They are fighting hard to keep the right to steal our stuff for their own use, and try to prevent us from getting it back without hiring lawyers at our expense.  I really do hope that the bill passes!

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

Ann McFeatters had a well-written column in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune that pointed out the dilemma that we have in trying to stop terrorism.

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

She explained that TSA caught her gift of perfume that was slightly more than the 3 oz maximum, but apparently misses many of the guns and knives that their own inspectors are able to pass through the airport inspections. Apparently bomb-making materials got through 67 out of 70 attempts.   The good news is that TSA does have a program to "test" their inspection system.  I hope their statistics improve!  I wonder if they are too focused on collecting up the loose change ($675,000 in  year) and miss doing what they are supposed to be doing (See this link).   I've often thought that TSA designed the airport checkpoints to maximize opportunity for people to leave change and valuables.  It is also now reported (Ashley Halsey, Washington Post) that TSA is trying to catch whoever "leaked" the report on the results of the security tests with guns & knives. It appears to me that again, the Government is trying to "kill the messenger" by finding the "leaker" rather than correcting the problem.  NSA did the same thing with Snowden, who reported the Government was spying on Americans.  Of course nobody in NSA has been prosecuted for violating the law, or lying to congress, but they do want to catch Snowden!

It is obvious that it is much easier for a terrorist to cause damage, death, or injury, than it is to defend against the terrorism.  To a terrorist, every place and every person is a target.  To the defenders, a target terrorist could be anyone, and their weapon could be almost anything!  It could be a liquid, a solid, a powder, a knife, a gas, or even a sharp stick!  That's what makes terrorism so easy to do, and difficult to defend against. When a terrorist is willing to give up his life, it is even more difficult!

The terrorists have seemingly "won" most of the war so far.  They have successfully caused all citizens in almost all countries to take expensive and cumbersome actions which have reduced our freedoms.  Perversely, terrorist organizations can then say that the governments in our countries are taking away freedoms, and use that as a rallying cry for recruitment!  Government now spies on our bank accounts, our internet usage, our telephone calls, and our location, all in the name of fighting terrorism.  We and our vehicles are searched at transportation nodes, and our computers can be searched at any time.  Yes, the terrorists have caused all of us to lose many freedoms.  We have also had to pay for all of this additional layer of security.  The cost of the immense amount of additional security has become a huge tax on our economy.  Think of the salaries paid to all of the additional TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and border patrol employees involved with physical inspections, and sitting in rooms listening to all of our telephone calls and internet use!.  The latest Gallup Poll shows that a majority of the US believes we should worry about protecting our rights more than protecting against terrorism.  However it does amaze me that there are a lot of people who are willing to give up their privacy to protect against terrorism.  It is funny how people think.  So many people won't fly because they are afraid of a one in a million crash, but will buy a lottery ticket for that one in a million chance of winning.  So they are willing to give up all of their personal and financial privacy to help protect them from that one in a million chance of being a victim of terrorism

I'm afraid that a lot of these techniques that are being used to counter terrorism are being done to make the public think that we are safer because of them. It is clear that the TSA airport inspections aren't all that effective. But it does give travelers the feeling that something is being done for their safety.  Maybe that's why TSA wants to keep their "testing program" secret!  I'm not sure that they will do all that much to actually stop it.  I sure wish there were an easier answer!

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian

I can understand the need for having a good screening system at the US-Mexico border.  It is important to make sure that people crossing the border have correct papers, and to verify that they aren't smuggling.  It takes significant time to perform all of the necessary checks for each person entering the country.  Because of that, and the appearance that the border patrol is "under-staffed" there are often huge hours-long waits at the border crossings.

That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego.  The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation.  Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of  15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation.  So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation.   When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.

It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive.  It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.



Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken.  I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail.  The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County.  There are many daily commuters!



This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area.  A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas.  In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't.  See this article:

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian  Is it racial profiling?  Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense?  Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint?  Do we need to allow our car to be searched?



I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose.  I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology.  By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means."  Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings.  In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.



If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years.  Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border?  We could set up random checkpoints all over the region.  Would that help fight the war?  Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights?    However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war.  The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us.  We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement.  I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it.  For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.



I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this.  However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right!   One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor.  So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.