Federal Court: Cops Cannot Push Drug Dog Into Open Car Door

Federal appeals court allows woman with religious license plate to sue cops who made a drug dog alert on a drug-free car.

Utah state troopers who used a drug dog as a pretense to search a car belonging to an innocent woman are in legal trouble. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Friday ruled that the victims could sue the troopers for spending two hours rifling through their vehicle without finding anything unlawful, in violation of their constitutional rights.

Utah State Trooper Brian Bairett had been running a speed trap on Interstate 15 when a Jeep driven by Sherida Felders passed through. Bairett said he developed probable cause during the traffic stop because she was nervous, had an air freshener and her license plate holder said "Jesus."

Trooper Bairett accused Felders, a 54-year-old, of transporting cocaine. She denied the accusation and refused his request to search the car. After a drug dog was called in, Trooper Bairett explained the situation to its handler, Iron County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Malcom.

"This lady -- you know, I walk up to the car and I see air fresheners in the center console and... I start talking to her, you know, just 'So where, you heading to?' 'Oh going to Colorado,' blah, blah, blah," Trooper Bairett said. "To me, I've got probable cause to search the vehicle without her permission or not, so I figured the dog would be the best route to go right now."

Trooper Bairett ordered two teenage passengers out of the Jeep, along with the Chihuahua that was riding in the back. Deputy Malcom explained he intended to leave the door open when the teenagers got out. Dashcam footage recorded what happened.

"Nice of them to leave the door open for you," Deputy Malcom said.

"Yeah it was, wasn't it?" Trooper Bairett responded.

Then the drug dog, named Duke, walked around the car and jumped right through the open door without alerting. Once inside, the dog alerted to the center console. It had two packages of beef jerky. The dog next alerted on the driver's door, which contained nothing. The lower court found the search improper and refused to grant immunity, so Deputy Malcom appealed.

"We agree with the district court that Malcom did not have probable cause to search the car prior to Duke's alert and that the law was then clearly established that, absent probable cause, facilitating a dog's entry into a vehicle during a dog sniff constitutes an unconstitutional search," Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote for the appellate panel. "Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Felders, we conclude that fact questions exist regarding the timing of Duke's alert and Malcom's possible facilitation prior to an alert. As a result, we affirm the district court's decision to deny Malcom summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds."

The court rejected Deputy Malcom's attempt to argue that he was just working on his fellow officer's claim that there was probable cause. The appellate judges said the deputy should have known better.

"The facts Malcom knew -- Felders's nervousness and unwillingness to look at Bairett, possible inconsistencies in travel narratives, a single air freshener, and a religious license plate frame -- could justify no more than reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop," Judge Tymkovich wrote. "A reasonable officer would not conclude that Felders was hauling drugs based on the statements or behavior of either Felders or her two teenage passengers."

A copy of the decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Felders v. Malcom (US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 6/20/2014)

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Video Shows Cop Assaulted Fox News Anchor, Lied About Arrest
- A SWAT Team Blew A Hole In My 2-Year-Old Son
- Woman Says DHS Forced Her to Strip Naked at Gunpoint During Terrifying Dawn Raid
- "Public Authority," Drone Murders, and the Death of the Rule of Law
- The Utter Uselessness of Police: Two Recent Examples from Idaho
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Cop Shot In Face Ambushing Resident In No-Knock Raid
- Sheriff John Urquhart Keeps the "Gang" Together

So, it IS 'suspicious' to have a air-freshener in your vehicle ?
It seems to me judges are about as stupid as cops ..

Regarding dogs 'superior' smelling-senses as a pretext to provide 'probable cause' :
A female friend of mine once had her property raided by the pigs at night.
The first thing this stupid animal does is to stick it's nose in her crotch, since she was having her period ! This alone saved her from being busted for the 2 weed-joints 'hidden' in the paper-basket !

So, my claim is : These stupid animals can't really smell 'drugs', all they can smell is 'something' . The handler then 'interprets' the dogs reaction
in whatever way fits the agenda and hokus-pokus, there you have your 'probable cause' . And the dog gets lots of positive attention, and a treat .

All dogs belong to Ivan Pavlov !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

(I actually kind of like dogs, but there is no way they are 'clever' )

@8750,

> So, it IS 'suspicious' to have a air-freshener in your vehicle ?

Yes it is; as well as Jesus plate. If you read the book "Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face", written by former cop and FBI agent Dale Carson, you will find it all there, it's all part of their official training. Highly recommended.

Speaking of dogs, the funny thing is that nobody can say for sure what dog's actions constitute the drug alert that becomes probable cause to search the vehicle. As I understand, the cop can claim that the dog has alerted in any case, and it will be impossible to dispute. I never heard about a single case where the fact whether dog alerted or not, was disputed.

Yeah well .. I'm not a US citizen or resident so I think I will pass on that book,
it will just make me even more infuriated than I already am .
Besides, in my country there is practically no such thing as an 'illegal search', unless the pigs don't find anything illegal at all.
If they don't, they just look at your kitchen-knives and charge you with possession of a knife with a blade longer than 7 cm or they take your Swiss Army-knife and claim it is 'one-hand operated' and/or has 'a locking blade' .
You won't get convicted for that, but that isn't the point : It magically makes the search 'legal' .

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need Warrants to Search Vehicles

?..heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure..?
Adan Salazar

Pennsylvania?s Supreme Court has ruled police officers in the Commonwealth are no longer required to obtain a warrant prior to searching a vehicle, a decision that essentially overturns the protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in Pennsylvania?s own state constitution.

Yesterday, Justice Seamus McCaffery issued the court?s opinion, stemming from a 2010 Philadelphia police department traffic stop of a man for having dark tinted windows, who was later found to be hiding two pounds of marijuana under the hood of his vehicle.

In a 4-2 vote, the court decided "the prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search."

Previously, as explained by Lancaster Online, police were not allowed to search a vehicle unless a driver consented, "or if the illegal substances were in plain view."

"Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant," writes Brett Hambright.

Not surprisingly, police are ecstatic.

"It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs," said New Holland Police Lt. Jonathan Heisse, reports Hambright.

However, in her dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd rightly noted the ruling ?heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright.? Todd also called the decision ?diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions? of Pennsylvania, according to Associated Press.

Several defense attorneys also view the court?s ruling as a monumental government overreach that could negatively impact the normal, day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens.

"It's an expanding encroachment of government power," Jeffrey Conrad, a defense attorney with the law firm Clymer Musser & Conrad told Hambright today regarding the court?s final opinion. "It's a protection we had two days ago, that we don't have today. It's disappointing from a citizens' rights perspective."

"I am concerned," another defense attorney, Christopher Patterson, expressed to Hambright, "that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement."

Another lawyer clarified that the ruling does not grant police the authority to search vehicles arbitrarily.

"This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop," Mike Winters with the law firm McMahon & Winters said. "They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant."

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Deputy Who Shot Dog Indicted on Animal Cruelty Charge
- FBI Investigating Bunkerville Protesters!
- Student Punished for Refusing to Pledge Allegiance to the State
- Call the Cops at Your Peril
- NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police
- The American Criminal Justice System is Dead
- Long Island officers caught on video violently striking driver during traffic stop
- Albuquerque Residents Vow to Storm Another City Council Meeting

Probable cause (rather than "hunch" like reasonable suspicion) is always enough for the police to search a car. That's why the cops bring the dog to sniff, and if the dog alerts, they have their reason to search, no warrant is required. This is well known to anyone cursory familiar with the matter, so it's odd that the article presents it as some new and unheard of practice - see http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-search-your-car/ any pretty much all literature on the subject. If Pennsylvania was an exception, it was amazing, but it ended; the cited court opinion does say "Accordingly, we adopt the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so" - which indeed seems to be the case everywhere else.

In this specific case, the driver told the cops that he had "some weed" in the car; then when they brought the dog to sniff (I wonder why, after that admission), the guy tried to flee and was caught. Seems like more than enough reasons to search the car.

This may end up in the supreme court. That couild be a good thing or a bad thing. Its again going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe night in our lifetime but god willing eventually Americans will realize cops are an occupying gang force that are the enemy and only exist to put people in jail for non-crimes.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Federal Court Rules Stiff Driving Posture Is Suspicious Behavior

A panel of judges unanimously ruled that having hands at "ten-and-two" is suspicious enough to stop drivers inside the USA.

NEW MEXICO ? A federal appeals court has ruled that driving one?s hands at the ?ten-and-two position? is reason enough to pull someone over for further investigation.? No traffic laws have to actually be broken? Additionally, the court ruled that facial acne is reason enough to suspect the driver is a drug smuggler.

The incident took place on April 18, 2012, at roughly 7:45 p.m.? A border patrol agent driving down Highway 80 saw a white Ford F-150 heading the opposite direction.? This took place roughly 40 miles north of the U.S./Mexico border ? well inside the United States.

Although the truck was witnessed breaking no traffic laws,?Border Patrol Agent Joshua Semmerling claimed he noticed several things that drew his suspicions ? while passing the truck at 60 miles per hour.

First was the driver?s upright posture.? The female driver was sitting up straight with her hands properly located on the upper part of the steering wheel.? This was viewed as suspicious activity.

Secondly, the agent claimed that the truck?s tinted windows were suspicious.? It remains unclear how the agent saw driver?s posture through the ?suspicious? tint.

Lastly was the truck?s rear license plate ? which the agent claims to have observed in his rear-view mirror while traveling at a high rate of speed in the opposite direction.? He claimed that he noticed it was from out-of-state, another suspicious characteristic.

The agent decided to make a U-turn and stop the truck.

The driver identified herself as Cindy Lee Westhoven of Tucson, Arizona.? Agent Semmerling then used his keen crime-detecting skills to justify a search of her truck.?? He saw that Mrs. Westhoven had ?acne? on her face and claimed that it was grounds for suspecting her to be a methamphetamine user.

Mrs. Westhoven had already proven she was a U.S. citizen.? She had no warrants and had broken no laws, yet Agent Semmerling claimed that he believed she might be smuggling illegal aliens and/or drugs.?? When she refused to consent to a search, the agent used a drug K9 to sniff her truck.? The dog turned up a small amount of cannabis.? Westhoven was arrested.

Later in court, Westhoven?s defense tried to overturn the arrest due to the shaky ground which the stop was performed upon.? Her attorney argued that the evidence was obtained illegally.?? She was unsuccessful.

?Driving stiffly, having tinted windows, slowing down when seeing law enforcement, and driving in an out-of-the-way area may be innocent conduct by themselves,? Judge Scott M. Matheson, Jr., wrote for the appellate panel. ?But when taken together along with driving a vehicle with out-of-state plates in a mountainous smuggling corridor 40-45 miles away from the border, we conclude Agent Semmerling had reasonable suspicion Ms. Westhoven was involved in smuggling activity.?

The 3-judge panel on the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the search, and rejected Westhoven?s motion to suppress the evidence.

The acceptance of such flimsy suspicions in court is the practical acceptance of zero need for any real indication of a crime occurring before any American can be stopped and searched by federal agents.

Source: US v. Westhoven (US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 4/24/2014)

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Deputy Who Shot Dog Indicted on Animal Cruelty Charge
- FBI Investigating Bunkerville Protesters!
- Student Punished for Refusing to Pledge Allegiance to the State
- Call the Cops at Your Peril
- NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police
- The American Criminal Justice System is Dead
- Long Island officers caught on video violently striking driver during traffic stop
- Albuquerque Residents Vow to Storm Another City Council Meeting

Judges are not weighing up the probability that a law has been broken , they are RULING the citizen & DICTATING what rights you do or do not have REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
This is modern America today , the most DISFUNCTIONAL democracy on the planet. this is not a democracy. it is a constitutional republic. This is PURE comedy.

Boarder patrol checkstops as far up as the middle of the boarder states.

So the only thing you do is stop citizens while the Hispanic Officers allow Hispanic illegals to sneak right in.

AND if we pushed all these agents down to the boarder, illegals wouldn't be getting in to need those checkpoints.

It's intentional misuse of manpower to pretend we're doing boarder patrol while keeping them as far from the boarder as plausibly believable.

Currently the paranoid drug users and smugglers are now buying pimple cream, keeping the window tint off, learning how to drive like a slacker, and using the main roads. The only suspicious thing was probably that he knows all the local junkies, and they didn't use his friendly neighborhood drug plantation gang to acquire their junk. And with all due respect, are we sure it wasn't something thrown in there, or planted evidence? No we don't. If we quit arresting people for cannabis the police could focus on serious crime.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

US Supreme Court Rejects Marijuana Reclassification Appeal

by Phillip Smith

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear an appeal from medical marijuana advocacy groups who had challenged the DEA's decision to maintain marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for the most dangerous substances.

The court denied in summary order a petition for a writ of certiorari from the groups, led by Americans for Safe Access, which had sought Supreme Court review of a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the DEA's ruling that a change in marijuana's classification required the Food and Drug Administration's recognition of acceptable medical uses for the drugs.

Advocates of rescheduling marijuana have been trying to do so for more than four decades, but have been thwarted by DEA delays and intransigence. This was the third formal rescheduling effort to be blocked by DEA decision making.

Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no acceptable medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Other Schedule I drugs include LSD, MDMA, and heroin. Despite the fact that there is an ever-increasing mountain of research detailing marijuana medicinal effects and despite the fact that 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA continues to insist that it cannot be down-scheduled.

Joe Elford, lead attorney on the case for Americans for Safe Access, told Law360 that the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was in line with its reluctance to overturn lower courts and administrative decisions on medical marijuana.

"It's disappointing, but not altogether surprising," he said.

A fourth effort to reclassify marijuana led by the governors of the medical marijuana states of Rhode Island and Washington was filed in 2011 and is still awaiting action.

[For extensive information about the medical marijuana debate, presented in a neutral format, visit MedicalMarijuana.ProCon.org.]

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest General
- From Conspiracy to Anarchy: James Corbett on Anarchast
- Poll Finds Texans Ready to Legalize Marijuana
- Polls Find Maryland, Florida Ready for Marijuana Reform
- Urban Innovation Exchange: The Mower Gang in Detriot
- Essential Government Worker In Action [Video]
- Adam Kokesh's defense fund stolen while in jail, operation sabotaged
- Has Adam Kokesh Been Robbed of 50k?
- California Volunteer Marijuana Eradicator Falls to His Death

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Cop's Outburst After Man Escapes Petty Marijuana Charge Lands Him In Contempt of Court

Chris | InformationLiberation

A tax-slave escaping a petty marijuana charge?! OUTRAGEOUS!

From the Winston-Salem Journal:

A Kernersville police officer was suspended with pay Wednesday after a Forsyth County judge found him in contempt of court for an incident in which he burst out of the courtroom after a trial and loudly confronted a defense attorney.

Officer S.P. Senor, who joined the Kernersville Police Department in 2000, was ordered to pay a $100 fine by Forsyth District Judge David Sipprell. Senor had become upset after Sipprell had found a man not guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana after a trial in Kernersville District Court.

Senor was the officer who had stopped the defendant, Dennis Bowyer, for a broken license plate light. A K-9 dog sniffed around the car and Senor searched the car, finding a small amount of marijuana in a compartment in the car.

Bowyer denied that the marijuana was his and said that he did not own the car. Sipprell found Bowyer not guilty after determining that prosecutors had failed to prove under state law that the marijuana belonged to Bowyer and that Bowyer was in possession of it, according to John Barrow, Bowyer?s attorney.

When the trial ended, Senor stormed out of the courtroom and angrily confronted Barrow, Barrow said.

The Winston-Salem Journal reports the cop's annual salary is $47,880, which I would assume does not include overtime nor benefits, that's how much taxpayer money the state gives him to put poor people in jail for petty marijuana charges.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Hawthorne, CA Police Arrest Man for Filming Raid, Shoot his Dog in Front of Him
- Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood
- Los Angeles Deputies Kill Armed Man, 80, in Marijuana Raid
- SWAT Team Kills Armed Homeowner in Dawn Drug Raid
- Police Once Again Mistake Cell Phone for Gun - But This Time, They Open Fire
- Cleveland Police Run Fake Drug Checkpoints on Interstate, Arrest People Who Seek to Evade
- Police Chief Attempts to Shoot Dog, Hits Woman Instead
- Deputy Fired for Running Red Light & Killing Teen Reinstated with Back Pay

sigh...more failed 'war on drugs' effort stories created by law enforcement. You would think a rational society would understand by now that drug use is not a criminal activity. Alterations of consciousness in one form or another has been evident in societies since the dawn of man. Any restrictions in this manner are purely suppression efforts by control freaks. Marijuana will ruin your life and the cops will make sure of that. @69171--I agree--after all, 70% of Americans believe in some invisible sky dude who watches them pee.
20461 is the invisible sky dude a NSA agent? @20461 lol, yes the whole god charade. i guess in order for us to get along we need some sort of galactic babysitter until we mature as a species.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

WV Court Officials Trying to Silence Media in Quest to Convict Boy for NRA Shirt

by Carlos Miller

What started off as a routine harassment from a middle school teacher to a student over a t-shirt he was wearing has turned into an embarrassing and infuriating abuse of First Amendment rights in West Virginia.

First, school officials suspended 14-year-old Jared Marcum because he was wearing an NRA shirt.

Then police arrested him because he had argued in the principal?s office that the shirt wasn?t breaking school policy.

This week, prosecutors tried to keep him from speaking to the media through an emergency gag order, which they said would serve in his ?better interest.?

But Logan County prosecutors Christopher White and Sabrina Deskins are the same people trying to convict him on a charge of obstruction, which could land him in jail for a year, so they are the last people looking out for his better interest.

Read More

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Hawthorne, CA Police Arrest Man for Filming Raid, Shoot his Dog in Front of Him
- Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood
- Los Angeles Deputies Kill Armed Man, 80, in Marijuana Raid
- SWAT Team Kills Armed Homeowner in Dawn Drug Raid
- Police Once Again Mistake Cell Phone for Gun - But This Time, They Open Fire
- Cleveland Police Run Fake Drug Checkpoints on Interstate, Arrest People Who Seek to Evade
- Police Chief Attempts to Shoot Dog, Hits Woman Instead
- Cop's Outburst After Man Escapes Petty Marijuana Charge Lands Him In Contempt of Court

Don't stand for that shit mate! Talk up a storm to the entire world. Set up a blog, post on Facebook, call Alex Jones, and ask for donations from the public so that you can hire a high profile lawyers to stick it to the man. This is your new summer vacation.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest

Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals allows false arrest lawsuit to proceed against cops who arrested motorist for being up to no good.

A motorist who was less than cooperative when police performed a traffic stop on her property was vindicated Friday. A federal appeals court made it clear that taking a longer than expected time to produce identification and "being up to no good," was not grounds for arrest.

In an unpublished ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit allowed Gina Petithomme to sue the Miami-Dade, Florida police department over the treatment she received at the hands of officers on February 6, 2009. Officers Ronald Martin and Jesus Gonzalez had been dispatched to investigate a suspicious White Dodge with two black men inside at the corner of 148th Street and Northwest 10th Place. Before reaching that location, the officers saw a silver Nissan with a piece of white paper allegedly blocking the license plate. The Nissan was parked on private property.

Petithomme, a black woman, was inside the Nissan when officers came on her property to say they were investigating a suspicious vehicle.

"What was the description of the vehicle?" Petithomme asked.

The officers did not say they were looking for a white Dodge, and asked Petithomme to produce identification and for permission to search her vehicle. Petithomme refused the search. On a third request for identification, Petithomme asked if she could go inside her home to retrieve it. It was granted, and as soon as she left the officers began searching through the Nissan. She returned and upon being asked a fourth time, she said the license must be in her car. She finally found it.

"Here's my identification," Petithomme said, holding within Officer Martin's line of vision.

Enraged, Officer Martin arrested Petithomme on the spot, charging her with disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. The officers said the woman's attitude showed she was "up to no good." The court of appeals disagreed.

"Plaintiff's questions directed towards the officers cannot demonstrate arguable probable cause for disorderly conduct," the court ruled in a per curiam decision. "Under Florida law, screaming obscenities at an officer is not sufficient to violate the statute, and thus, no reasonable officer could have concluded that asking an officer a benign question could constitute a violation of the statute."

Petithomme successfully argued her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated with an illegal search.

"Here, plaintiff and her vehicle did not match the descriptions or the location given by dispatch," the court found. "Thus, the only circumstances suggesting illegal activity was the white paper obstructing plaintiff's tag. The obstructed tag, however, is insufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence relating to this infraction would be found inside the vehicle."

Because official immunity cannot be granted to an officer who violates a constitutional right, Officers Martin and Gonzalez are now liable for damages in Petithomme's false arrest lawsuit.

A copy of the decision is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Petithomme v. County of Miami-Dade (US Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 3/8/2013)

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled
- Woman injured in LAPD manhunt says cops won't pay taxes on replacement truck

Awesome! I hope she and her lawyer hang the cops out to dry.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Practice of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns by Police & Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Missouri High School

The Rutherford Institute

SPRINGFIELD, Mo.? In a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools, the court deemed a Missouri school district?s policy of imposing a ?lockdown? of the school for the purpose of allowing the local sheriff?s department, aided by drug-sniffing dogs, to perform mass inspections of students? belongings to be a ?reasonable procedure to maintain the safety and security of students at the school,? and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of students.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had challenged the school district?s practice of conducting random lockdowns and mass searches of students. Institute attorneys had asked the appeals court to reverse a federal district court?s January 2012 ruling that Springfield Public Schools and the Greene County Sheriff?s Office did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of students when they executed the April 2010 lockdown at Central High School.

?Random, suspicionless lockdown raids against children teach our children a horrific lesson?one that goes against every fundamental principle this country was founded upon?that we have no rights at all against the police state,? said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. ?Americans should be outraged over the fact that school officials are not only defending such clearly unconstitutional practices but are actually going so far as to insist that these raids are a ?standard drill? that will continue.?

On April 22, 2010, the principal of Central High School announced over the public address system that the school was going into ?lockdown? and that students were prohibited from leaving their classrooms. School officials and agents of the Greene County Sheriff?s Department thereafter ordered students to leave all personal belongings behind and exit the classrooms. Dogs were also brought in to assist in the raid. Upon re-entering the classrooms, students allegedly discovered that their belongings had been rummaged through. Mellony and Doug Burlison, who had two children attending Central High School, complained to school officials that the lockdown and search were a violation of their children?s rights. School officials allegedly responded by insisting that the search was a ?standard drill? and policy of the school district which would continue.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute sued the school district in September 2010 on behalf of the Burlisons and their two children, asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to declare that the practice of effecting a lockdown of the school and conducting random, suspicionless seizures and searches violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the similar provision of the Missouri Constitution. In its January 2012 decision, the district court declared that the random lockdown and mass searches did not violate students? rights. In its ruling issued March 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the school?s interest in combatting drug use outweighed the privacy rights of students. Affiliate attorney Jason T. Umbarger of Springfield, Mo., is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the Burlison family.

Case History

03/08/2013 ? Federal Appeals Court Upholds Practice of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns by Police & Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Missouri High School

06/13/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Challenges Missouri School Over Constitutionality, Continuation of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns

04/24/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Asks Appeals Court to Declare Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Unconstitutional

01/31/2013 ? U.S. District Court Declares Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Legal, Dismisses Fourth Amendment Lawsuit

09/28/2010 ? Rutherford Institute Files Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Against Missouri School Demanding End to Mass Student Searches, Random Lockdowns

Legal Action
The Rutherford Institute's complaint and subsequent reply brief in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

Check your Constitution at the door, kiddies!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

A Victory for Colombia: Constitutional Court Strikes Down Draconian Copyright Expansion Bill

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); BY MAIRA SUTTON, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Good news hails from Colombia today, where the Constitutional Court has struck down a sweeping copyright enforcement law because Congress had fast tracked the bill and overstepped various legislative procedures. The Court also ruled on the constitutionality of the law itself, over provisions on the retransmission of TV content and signals over the Internet as well as its language on technological protection measures (TPMs, also known as DRM). The law, nicknamed Ley Lleras 2, was passed to implement copyright enforcement obligations from the Colombia-US free trade agreement. Colombians and civil society groups, however, have been arguing that this law violates the right of education and culture because it would dramatically restrict access to knowledge online.

The law would have set forth copyright regulations that went even beyond the requirements of their trade agreement with the US and had many negative consequences for Internet users' rights to free expression and privacy. Ley Lleras 2 would have banned the circumvention of digital handcuffs that restrict copying and other uses of works, and also prohibit the creation and distribution of tools to circumvent TPMs, even if the end use is legal. While the Colombia-US FTA only requires punishment for "willful" criminal infringers, the new Colombian Copyright law is defined in a way that could even put someone in jail for a minimum of 4 years for burning a CD of music for their friend. In addition, it would have expanded copyright protection terms from 50 years to 70 years after first publication, and added further restrictions on broadcast content and its signals, even if the content itself was not subject to copyright protection.

It is very welcome news that Ley Lleras 2 has been repealed. It was a law that was poorly crafted, based upon a trade agreement with defective policies, and enacted by throwing democratic rulemaking processes out the window. Unfortunately, we expect another flawed copyright law to come down based upon Colombia's trade obligations with the US. We stand with Fundación Karisma, RedPaTodos, American University's Info Justice, ONG Derechos Digitales, and other digital rights organizations around the world to ensure another malformed copyright policies does not become law and threaten Colombians' digital rights again.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Student's Recording Catches Public School Teacher Preaching War With Iran
- School Will Not Back Down Over Five-Year-Old Girl's Bubble Gun "Terroristic Threat"
- TSA Toys With the Serfs
- Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Land?
- Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case Two Days Before He Was Arrested
- European Newspapers Seek Royalties for Linking and Citing to News Content
- CNN: Iran Trying To Hack YOUR Bank Account!
- Texas Judge Rules Schools Can Force RFID Chips on Students

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Illinois Citizens Still Being Arrested For Filming Cops Despite Court Ruling Which Blocked Unconstitutional Law

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); Naperville woman arrested on eavesdropping charges for recording forced installation of ?smart meter?
Paul Joseph Watson

Illinois citizens are still being arrested for recording police officers despite a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last year that blocked the enforcement of the law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Following yesterday?s story concerning residents of Naperville who attempted to resist utility workers invading their private property to install so-called ?smart meters? ? which have been linked with health issues ? it emerged that one of the refusniks, Malia "Kim" Bendis, was arrested on attempted eavesdropping charges for recording police officers during the incident.

The irony of citizens being arrested for supposedly ?eavesdropping? on cops in public where there is no expectation of privacy, while simultaneously the government forcibly installs devices on people?s property that really do eavesdrop on them in total violation of the 4th amendment, is staggering. Remember ? this is a state that threatens to send people to prison for life for recording police officers.

Bendis filmed her friend?s confrontation with city workers and police but at no time attempted to interfere in their actions. The video clip shows an officer asking Bendis not to film him, an order with which she immediately complies.

However, the Chicago Tribune reports that Bendis was arrested and ?Charged with two misdemeanors -- attempted eavesdropping and resisting a peace officer.?

The state of Illinois is still directing its police officers to enforce a law that has repeatedly been found unconstitutional.

As the PINAC blog notes, ?Bendis was charged with misdemeanor eavesdropping which indicates they may have kept the law intact but reduced it to a misdemeanor from a felony. Or more likely means the newspaper wasn't very clear in their reporting,? adding that the Illinois legislature introduced a "technical change" to the law a day before the incident, but that no one seems to be aware of what exactly the change is.

In May 2012, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the enforcement of a law that made it a felony to film police officers in the state of Illinois. This followed a case involving Illinois resident Michael Allison ? who at one point was facing life in jail for recording cops.

?The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment's free speech and free-press guarantees,? wrote Judge Diane Sykes.

Furthermore, when Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez appealed the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman re-affirmed it. In states all across the country, Americans arrested for filming police officers in public have won their cases. In August 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that it is not illegal for citizens to videotape police officers when they are on public duty.

Eavesdropping charges against Illinois resident Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped in August 2011, after a "Criminal Court jury quickly repudiated the prosecution's case, taking less than an hour to acquit Moore on both eavesdropping counts."

Despite numerous different courts not only in Illinois but across the United States continually ruling that it is not illegal to record police officers in public, Americans continue to be arrested for doing so.

This sets a dangerous new precedent in America?s decline towards an authoritarian state, where laws that have clearly been blocked as unconstitutional are being enforced illegally on a whim for the convenience of police officers to abuse the rights of citizens without their actions being documented.
_
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- AZ Cop Investigated For Having Allegedly Used Stun Gun On Stepson Over 'Unsatisfactory Report Card'
- An Anger Management Class?
- Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho
- Cop Who Shot Puppy Runs Away Like a Little Girl After Owners Win In Court
- Yes, They Intend to Draft Your Daughter
- The Obama Administration Prepares for War -- Against Us
- Police Pack Courtroom of Cop Facing Felony Charges for Shooting & Killing Restrained Dog
- Honesty is Not a Job Requirement for Police Officers

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Court To Twitter: No Time For Appeal, Hand Over Info Or You're In Contempt

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Mike Masnick

We've been covering the legal fight concerning the government's desire to access Tweets and other information related to Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protestor who was arrested. Twitter had jumped into the case to argue that users have standing to protect their own information, which the court denied. Twitter then said it would appeal, but it appears that NY State Supreme Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. doesn't care, claiming that its failure to hand over the info may put it in contempt of court:

The judge had asked Twitter to show why it wasn?t in contempt of court after refusing to produce information about Twitter posts by protester Malcolm Harris in response to a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

?I can?t put Twitter or the little blue bird in jail, so the only way to punish is monetarily,? Sciarrino said.

Twitter and Harris's lawyers point out that this seems to completely ignore Twitter's right to appeal the ruling. Sciarrino again doesn't seem to think this is an issue, insisting that his original ruling was "fair" and Twitter has had more than enough time to comply with the order. Harris' lawyer notes that this appears to be an attempt at railroading, preventing due process from happening:

?It?s pretty outrageous that the D.A.?s office wants to prohibit Twitter from exercising its right to appeal,? said Martin Stolar, a lawyer with the National Lawyers Guild who represents Harris, after the hearing.

Unfortunately, that seems to be how things work these days...

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans
- 16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over YouTube Video
- New Results From Our Nationwide Cell Phone Tracking Records Requests
- Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition
- Google Adds Pirate Bay Domains to Censorship List
- The Prisons We Call "Airports"
- FBI begins installation of $1 billion face recognition system across America
- Hackers Get Personal Info On 12-Million Apple Users... From An FBI Laptop

Twitter will now go by the wayside as did google and facebook.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Federal court enjoins NDAA

An Obama-appointed judge rules its indefinite detention provisions likely violate the 1st and 5th Amendments
BY GLENN GREENWALD

A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which?preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon?s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs ? including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Brigitta Jonsdottir ? alleging that the NDAA violates??both their free speech and?associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as?due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United?States Constitution.?

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ?s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack ?standing? to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3)?the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

As for the DOJ?s first argument ? lack of standing ? the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities.

Read More

Latest Resistance
- Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge
- IP-Address Can't Even Identify a State, BitTorrent Judge Rules
- Anarchast Ep. 25 with Josh Luther
- Drone Bombings Truther Caught on Video
- You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop
- Pokemon Theme Song Creator Creates Parody Re-Mix For Ron Paul
- Rand Paul Launches Campaign to End the TSA
- Montreal Protesters Go Fishing For Cops w/ Donuts On Sticks [Pic]

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Woman Shows Court Order to NYPD, Gets Punched in Face.

Chris | InformationLiberation

This is a good example of government in theory vs government in practice. The woman is waving a piece of paper (a "court order") at some heavily armed state goons, they respond by allegedly punching her in the face. (Here's another angle, it's not entirely clear.)

Regardless, all the laws in the world (like the constitution, for example) are completely irrelevant when it comes to armed agents of the state using violence against their subjects. They have the guns, they make the rules.

Government is the opposite of the supposed "law and order" it claims to represent, it's raw force exercised against unwilling subjects justified by the idea they're "representatives" and "public servants."

They're gang members with guns and stupid costumes who rule with an iron fist, nothing more.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- UC Davis Campus Police Pepper Spray Student Protesters Sitting Doing Nothing
- Woman Places Sign On Her Car Stating Police Do Not "Protect and Serve," Police Respond By Arresting Her For Crimes She Did Not Commit
- Protect and Serve: NY Cops Violently Drag Woman By Her Hair
- Video Released: Oakland Police Strike Army Ranger With Nightsticks On His Back, Ribs, Shoulders and Hands, Lacerating His Spleen and Causing Internal Bleeding
- "What can you offer to get out of a DUI?" -- Cop solicits women he pulled over
- Dash-Cam Video Shows Sam Houston State Police Beating Student
- Two cops fired over horrific video which shows them beating up suspect - then CELEBRATING
- DEA Sweeps Across Western Washington With Dispensary Raids

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Forced Home Entry Over DUI

Federal appeals court rules a police officer who suspects drunk driving can break into a home without first obtaining a warrant.

The US Supreme Court ruled 27 years ago that police could not forcibly enter someone's home over suspected drunk driving. The Fourth District US Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision is looking to change the precedent. A three-judge appellate panel considered the case of Alan J. Cilman who had filed a false arrest lawsuit after Officer M.A. Reeves busted down his door, without a warrant, on October 3, 2004.

Earlier that day, Cilman had left Neighbors Restaurant where he watched a football game and had dinner and drinks. Reeves claimed Cilman drove out of the Neighbors parking lot at a "high rate of speed." Reeves followed, noting that Cilman had run a stop sign, failed to signal and accelerated quickly in turns. Accounts differ over whether Reeves turned on his police lights before Cilman made it to the driveway of his home, which was not far away. Reeves got out of his cruiser as Cilman was walking briskly to the door. Reeves told Cilman to stop, but he did not say the man was under arrest. Cilman told the officer to get off his property as he went inside and locked the door.

Reeves waited for backup, then kicked in Cilman's door and arrested him for being drunk in public and evasion without force -- not driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Prosecutors later dropped those charges. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed that kicking in Cilman's door without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but a jury awarded Cilman $0 in damages as compensation. Officer Reeves appealed the judge's finding that he had violated the Constitution, because under state law he would be forced to resign if found guilty of a second constitutional violation.

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- UC Davis Campus Police Pepper Spray Student Protesters Sitting Doing Nothing
- Woman Places Sign On Her Car Stating Police Do Not "Protect and Serve," Police Respond By Arresting Her For Crimes She Did Not Commit
- Protect and Serve: NY Cops Violently Drag Woman By Her Hair
- Video Released: Oakland Police Strike Army Ranger With Nightsticks On His Back, Ribs, Shoulders and Hands, Lacerating His Spleen and Causing Internal Bleeding
- "What can you offer to get out of a DUI?" -- Cop solicits women he pulled over
- Dash-Cam Video Shows Sam Houston State Police Beating Student
- Two cops fired over horrific video which shows them beating up suspect - then CELEBRATING
- DEA Sweeps Across Western Washington With Dispensary Raids

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Supreme Court Blocks Government Plan To Claim Ownership Of DNA

Collecting and storing every newborn?s blood violates Genetic Privacy Act
Steve Watson

In a long running case, a Supreme Court has ruled to limit the use of blood samples collected from newborns by the government.

The case has exposed the fact that there is an ongoing semi-covert movement by state and federal governments to claim ownership of every newborn baby?s DNA for the purpose of genetic research without the consent of individual citizens.

The Minnesota Court ruled Wednesday that the Minnesota Department of Health is violating the law in storing, using and disseminating newborn screening test results and newborn DNA.

Overruling a lower court?s decision, the state Supreme Court found that the samples are ?Genetic Information? under the State Genetic Privacy Act, and held that ?unless otherwise provided, the Department must have written informed consent to collect, use, store, or disseminate [the blood samples].?

In 2003, The Citizens? Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), formerly known as The Citizens? Council on Health Care (CCHC), discovered that The Minnesota Department of Health had been indefinitely storing the blood of newborns since the mid 1980s, and using the samples for purposes beyond the State?s newborn screening program since 1997.

The state treated the activity as an ?opt out? program, whereby if the parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes its has "informed consent" and that the parents have opted in.

Consequently, the DNA of nearly a million children is considered government property under Minnesota law.

Without the knowledge or consent of the person or their parents, the government has been selling the DNA for genetic research purposes.

In 2008, state Health Department officials began seeking exemption for the so called ?DNA Warehouse? from Minnesota privacy law.

Essentially this would mean that eventually every person?s DNA would be collected at birth, warehoused by the state in what is known as a ?genomic biobank?, and sold or given away to private or governmental genetic researchers, who may manipulate, alter or splice the DNA in any way they see fit.?Hundreds of samples have already been used in government comissioned studies.

Such information would represent a goldmine to employers, insurance companies, medical institutions, and big pharma.

Under such conditions we are faced with the prospect of a society that is literally the mirror image of the nightmarish vision outlined by Aldous Huxley in his 1932 novel Brave New World, where individuals are categorized in a social hierarchy according to their genetic traits.

In a statement, Justice Helen M. Meyer, voicing the majority opinion in this week?s ruling, writes:

?The Genetic Privacy Act ? restricts the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of blood?samples collected pursuant to the newborn screening statutes?

?The newborn screening statutes provide an express exception to the Genetic Privacy Act only to?the extent that the Department is authorized to administer newborn screening by testing the?samples for heritable and congenital disorders, recording and reporting those test results,?maintaining a registry of positive cases for the purpose of follow-up services, and storing those?test results as required by federal law.?

The case was brought by 9-families who sued the Minnesota Department of Health for violation of the state genetic privacy law.

The following video shows the oral argument brought before the court back in March and breaks down the issue in much more detail:

In a press release concerning the court ruling, Twila Brase, president of CCHF writes:

?We are cheered by this good news, says. ?When our organization discovered the state health department?s Baby DNA warehouse in 2003 and the use of newborn DNA for genetic research without parent consent, we determined to do all that we could to stop this practice. No state law expressly permits these activities.?

?We are pleased that these nine families were willing to sue the State of Minnesota,? adds Brase. ?Their action and this decision now secures the genetic privacy rights and informed written consent rights of all Minnesota parents and newborn citizens."

Ms. Brase has been warning of the ongoing move for a a number of years. In January 2007 she issued a written testimony to the Minnesota legislature on the unethical and hidden uses of harvested DNA by the state.

Watch Twila Brase explain the possible consequences of the pending DNA profiling legislation:

Though the Minnesota case has received recent public attention, such DNA harvesting is not restricted to that state and is being undertaken nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns? DNA is being collected.

DNA of newborns has been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with by all 50 states. In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

In April 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill which formerly announced the process that the federal government has been engaged in for years, screening the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months of birth.

Described as a ?national contingency plan? the justification for the?law S. 1858, known as?The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of ?public health emergency.?

The bill states that the federal government should ?continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening? and ?maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening? ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the internet and is updated at least quarterly?.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests, both by the government and by researchers chosen to handle the DNA samples and the information that goes with them.

Read the full bill?here.

Many have described the law as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database, like the one in the UK.

In?2006 and?2007, then Senator Obama filed legislation that would create a national DNA database. The same bill was filed by Sen. Patrick Kennedy?in 2008. The bills required parental consent, but all three died in the Senate.

In certain states, authorities are required to destroy a child?s DNA sample if a parent demands they do so. Ludicrously, parents wishing to do this must fill in a form like?this one from Texas.

In other states, parents have to put their request in writing, however, there is no legal requirement for states to destroy the samples.

The subject made national headlines last year as CNN?s?Senior Medical Correspondent probed the issue:

The practice of taking DNA from all newborns is not limited to the U.S.

In the UK, a similar DNA harvesting program was?rejected in 2005 by The Human Genetics Commission, who cited cost and ethical problems in a report to government ministers.

However, DNA profiling of all newborn babies has since been called for by lawmakers and senior police officers.

In December 2009,?a Dublin hospital was revealed to have built a secret database containing the DNA of almost every person born in the country since 1984 without their knowledge.

The retention of newborn screening cards has also caused controversy in Australia and New Zealand where the DNA has been used by police to help to solve crimes. A sample in New Zealand was used to identify the father of a dead child against the wishes of the mother.

There is no doubt that the practice is in operation all over the developed world.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling is a small victory on this issue. However, unless this practice is further exposed, publicized, and taken to courts across the country, and indeed the world, we could find ourselves sleepwalking towards the basis for a new eugenics movement, the practice of ?perfecting? the human race through genetic manipulation, previously endorsed by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and toyed with by the likes of Adolf Hitler.
__
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones? Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

View the original article here

What If A Court Gave An Important Ruling, But We Were Not Allowed To Know What It Was?

by Mike Masnick, Techdirt

That Anonymous Coward alerts us to the news that DC federal appeals court has issued a ruling (pdf) in the case of Gitmo detainee Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif, but the entire ruling is classified, so the public has no idea what it says.

A ruling last year at the district court had ordered the administration to release Latif for lack of evidence that he had anything to do with Al Qaeda. And now... we have no idea what the government is ordered to do or not do. So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Australia: Bill would fine people $12,000 for insulting politico
- File-Sharing Admins Jailed For Linking To Copyright Works
- House Bill Would Criminalize Satire of TSA
- UK: Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in
- VeriSign Demands Power To Kill "Abusive" Websites
- US Citizen Facing 15 Years In Jail For Linking From His Blog To An Unauthorized Bio Of Thai King
- Police Threatened Dad With Terror Law For Taking Photos of Daughter
- Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Court Pleadings Point to CIA Role in Alleged "Cartel" Immunity Deal

Mexican Narco-Trafficker?s Revelations in Criminal Case Force US Government to Invoke National Security Claims
by Bill Conroy

The fingerprints of the CIA have surfaced in a controversial federal criminal case pending in Chicago against Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, an alleged kingpin in the Sinaloa ?drug cartel.?

US government prosecutors filed pleadings in the case late last week seeking to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), a measure designed to assure national security information does not surface in public court proceedings.

?The government hereby requests that the Court conduct a pretrial conference ? pursuant to CIPA ? at which time, the government will be prepared to report to the Court and defendant [Zambada Niebla] regarding the approximate size of the universe of classified material that may possibly be implicated in the discovery and trial of this case,? states a motion filed on Friday, Sept. 9, by US prosecutors in the Zambada Niebla case.

Read More

Latest Cover-Up/Deceptions
- CIA investigates whether laws broken helping NYPD
- 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
- Airplane bathroom sex blamed for terror alert
- Never Forget: No Plane Hit This Building
- Infowars Man on the Street: Poll on WTC Building 7 Collapse
- MSNBC distorts post-debate poll results to falsely depict Ron Paul as just barely winning
- The lie that began the endless war on Iraq
- Solving the Mystery of WTC 7

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Louisiana Supreme Court Allows Vehicle Searches on a Hunch

Talking on a cell phone, and entering and exiting another car is sufficient justification for a warrantless search in Louisiana.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday gave a green light to police officers looking to search automobiles without a warrant. The court ruled on an interim appeal in the ongoing trial of Derrick R. Kirton, 30, and Crystal N. Strate, 27, who were charged on February 23 with distribution and possession of heroin, respectively. A judge in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court had ruled that the police search of Kirton's vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The prosecution appealed.

Louisiana law allows for rulings on individual motions to be appealed without waiting for the end of the trial, and the state succeeded in convincing the high court to overturn the motion to suppress the evidence from the vehicle search. New Orleans Police Detective Roccoforte had seen Strate in parking lot of a fast food store using her cell phone and "looking about anxiously." Strate drove a short distance to pull up to Kirton's parked vehicle, remained in it for less than a minute, then returned to her car and drove away. Roccoforte followed and approached Strate after she had parked her car. He noted "furtive movement" of Strate's right hand and decided to perform a warrantless search of her car. The supreme court found this acceptable.

"We simply observe that based on the totality of facts and circumstances known to Detective Roccoforte and his experience in the field of narcotics investigations, there was at least objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the approach to the car was made," the court wrote in a footnote. The full decision added: "In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, courts must take into account the totality of the circumstances in a process that allows police to draw upon their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might elude an untrained person."

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- The Ethics of the Police
- The Drug War's Einsatzgruppen
- SWAT Team Honored For Raiding Wrong House?
- Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps
- District Attorney Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Cops
- The American Police State is the 'New Normal'
- Rochester police use selective enforcement of parking laws to harass attendees at a meeting in support of Emily Good
- Former cop says his lies sent people to prison

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here