Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Discuss about the world and people freedom as entire.

US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby Shuftin » Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:07 pm

US Supreme Court in Lockstep with the Police State

June 24, 2014

by JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

"[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds.

Yet as I point out in my book "A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State," Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it's police officers breaking through people's front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court's rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

* Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits.

In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

* Police officers can stop cars based only on "anonymous" tips.

In a 5-4 ruling inNavarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of "reasonable suspicion," stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior.

This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you–even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

* Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they're done in the name of security.

In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted "qualified immunity" to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters' First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials "qualified immunity" -- they are not accountable for their actions–in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

* Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it.

The Supreme Court ruled inSalinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

* Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as "search warrants on leashes,"

Justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside.

In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

* Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you've been convicted of a crime.

In Maryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for "serious offenses." While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

* Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike.

The Supreme Court declared in Arizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals–citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

* Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the "offense."

A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches.

In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This "license to probe" is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches -- some involving **** and vaginal probes -- without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

* Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans.

The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

* Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it's the wrong home.

In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

* Police can interrogate minors without their parents present.

In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families,the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

* It's a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks "What's your name?" can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada's "stop and identify" statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

* Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police.

Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas (2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

* The military can arrest and detain American citizens.

In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

* Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school.

The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

* Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren't guilty of breaking the law.

The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle (2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn't have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions -- tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious–violated the Fourth Amendment.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite–government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy–and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses–that is, you and me.

Keep in mind that in former regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the complicity of the courts was the final piece to fall into place before the totalitarian beast stepped out of the shadows and into the light.

If history is a guide, then the future that awaits us is truly frightening.

Time, as they say, grows short.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-U- ... ment496464
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 187 time
Have thanks: 374 time

 

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby BOBT12 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:24 pm

Can we do nothing to remove these black robed imbeciles before they ruin us all? :crap:

”If redress is costly, difficult or dangerous, the purpose of government is to protect the robber – whether Magistrate or common pickpocket – not the honest man.” –Locke


Image
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com
User avatar
BOBT12
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3667
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 472 time
Have thanks: 170 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby palani » Sat Jul 26, 2014 6:41 am

BOBT12 wrote:Can we do nothing to remove these black robed imbeciles before they ruin us all?

Depose the supreme court?
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5793
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 167 time
Have thanks: 478 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby Steve_Lujack » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:14 am

Image
User avatar
Steve_Lujack
Sovereign Dei Gratia
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 650 time
Have thanks: 228 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby indio007 » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:58 am

The public at large is starting to snap out of their Xanax induced haze.
Continuity of Government was activated on 9/11 and never deactivated.
We do not know the exact details of what that plan entails.
The current "government" is a mere figure head at every level.


Peter Dale Scott back in 2010 made an iron-clad demonstration that CoG was activated and still exists now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGne3SP4l8

http://www.globalresearch.ca/supplantin ... ment/19238


Every Federal institution is superseded by an emergency government.
The Old Republic has been maintained in appearance only.

There has been a complete reversal (as the essay demonstrates) of judicial precedent.
The reasoning in the opinions are literally nonsensical jibberish chock full of non sequiturs.

We were warned.
Arthur Kinoy interview from 1990
http://youtu.be/D6vbFItmTaA?t=45m53s
indio007
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:14 am
Has thanked: 189 time
Have thanks: 237 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby lostandfound » Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:56 pm

Coming soon to a city near you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7EFmO260E



Murder Is Murder
Drone-Killing the Fifth Amendment


By Peter Van Buren

You can't get more serious about protecting the people from their government than the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, specifically in its most critical clause: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In 2011, the White House ordered the drone-killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without trial. It claimed this was a legal act it is prepared to repeat as necessary. Given the Fifth Amendment, how exactly was this justified? Thanks to a much contested, recently released but significantly redacted -- about one-third of the text is missing -- Justice Department white paper providing the basis for that extrajudicial killing, we finally know: the president in Post-Constitutional America is now officially judge, jury, and executioner.


Due Process in Constitutional America


Looking back on the violations of justice that characterized British rule in pre-Constitutional America, it is easy to see the Founders' intent in creating the Fifth Amendment. A government's ability to inflict harm on its people, whether by taking their lives, imprisoning them, or confiscating their property, was to be checked by due process.

Due process is the only requirement of government that is stated twice in the Constitution, signaling its importance. The Fifth Amendment imposed the due process requirement on the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment did the same for the states. Both offer a crucial promise to the people that fair procedures will remain available to challenge government actions. The broader concept of due process goes all the way back to the thirteenth-century Magna Carta.

Due process, as refined over the years by the Supreme Court, came to take two forms in Constitutional America. The first was procedural due process: people threatened by government actions that might potentially take away life, liberty, or possessions would have the right to defend themselves from a power that sought, whether for good reasons or bad, to deprive them of something important. American citizens were guaranteed their proverbial “day in court.”

The second type, substantive due process, was codified in 1938 to protect those rights so fundamental that they are implicit in liberty itself, even when not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Had the concept been in place at the time, a ready example would have been slavery. Though not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it was on its face an affront to democracy. No court process could possibly have made slavery fair. The same held, for instance, for the “right” to an education, to have children, and so forth. Substantive due process is often invoked by supporters of same-*** unions, who assert that there is a fundamental right to marry. The meaning is crystal clear: there is an inherent, moral sense of “due process” applicable to government actions against any citizen and it cannot be done away with legally. Any law that attempts to interfere with such rights is inherently unconstitutional.

Al-Awlaki’s Death


On September 30, 2011, on the order of the president, a U.S. drone fired a missile in Yemen and killed Anwar al-Awlaki. A Northern Virginia Islamic cleric, in the aftermath of 9/11 he had been invited to lunch at the Pentagon as part of a program to create ties to Muslim moderates. After he moved to Yemen a few years later, the U.S. accused him of working with al-Qaeda as a propagandist who may have played an online role in persuading others to join the cause. (He was allegedly linked to the “Underwear Bomber” and the Fort Hood shooter.) However, no one has ever accused him of pulling a trigger or setting off a bomb, deeds that might, in court, rise to the level of a capital crime. Al-Awlaki held a set of beliefs and talked about them. For that he was executed without trial.

In March 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder made quite a remarkable statement about the al-Awlaki killing. He claimed “that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process’ and that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a ‘judicial process.’” In other words, according to the top legal authority in the nation, a White House review was due process enough when it came to an American citizen with al-Qaeda sympathies. In this, though it was unknown at the time, Holder was essentially quoting a secret white paper on that killing produced by the Office of Legal Counsel, located in the department he headed.

In June 2014, after a long court battle to shield the underlying legal basis for the killing, the Obama administration finally released a redacted version of that classified 2010 white paper. In the end, it did so only because without its release key senators were reluctant to confirm the memo’s author, David Barron, who had been nominated by President Obama to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. (Once it was made public, Barron was indeed confirmed.)

The importance of the white paper to understanding Post-Constitutional America cannot be understated. Despite all the unconstitutional actions taken by the government since 9/11 -- including striking violations of the Fourth Amendment -- this paper is to date the only glimpse we have of the kind of thinking that has gone into Washington’s violations of the Bill of Rights.

Here's the terrifying part: ostensibly the result of some of the best legal thinking available to the White House on a issue that couldn’t be more basic to the American system, it wouldn't get a first-year law student a C-. The arguments are almost bizarrely puerile in a document that is a visibly shaky attempt to provide cover for a pre-determined premise. No wonder the administration fought its release for so long. Its officials were, undoubtedly, ashamed of it. Let's drill down.

Death by Pen

For the killing of an American citizen to be legal, the document claims, you need one essential thing: "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government [who] has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." In addition, capture must be found to be unfeasible and the act of killing must follow the existing laws of war, which means drones are okay but poison gas is a no-no.

The rest of the justification in the white paper flows from that premise in a perverse chain of ankle-bone-connected-to-the-leg-bone logic: the president has the obligation to protect America; al-Qaeda is a threat; Congress authorized war against it; and being in al-Qaeda is more relevant than citizenship (or as the document crudely puts it, "citizenship does not immunize the target"). International borders and the sovereignty of other nations are not issues if the U.S. determines the host nation is "unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted." Basically, it’s all an extension of the idea of self-defense, with more than a dash of convenience shaken in.

When the white paper addresses the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process, and to a lesser extent, the Fourth Amendment’s right against unwarranted seizure (that is, the taking of a life), it dismisses them via the "balancing test." Not exactly bedrock constitutional material, it works this way: in situations where the government's interest overshadows an individual's interest, and the individual’s interest isn't that big a deal to begin with, and a mistake by the government can later be undone, the full due process clause of the Fifth Amendment need not come into play.

The three-point balancing test cited by the white paper as conclusive enough to justify the extrajudicial killing of an American comes from a 1976 Supreme Court case, Mathews v. Eldridge. There, the court held that an individual denied Social Security benefits had a right to some form of due process, but not necessarily full-blown hearings. In Anwar al-Awlaki's case, this translates into some truly dubious logic: the government's interest in protecting Americans overshadows one citizen's interest in staying alive. Somehow, the desire to stay alive doesn’t count for much because al-Awlaki belonged to al-Qaeda and was in the backlands of Yemen, which meant that he was not conveniently available by capture for a trial date. Admittedly, there’s no undoing death in a drone killing, but so what.

The white paper also draws heavily on the use of the balancing test in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. rendered from Afghanistan Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi-American citizen, and sought to detain him indefinitely without trial. After a long legal battle that went to the Supreme Court, the balance test was applied to limit -- but not fully do away with -- due process. Despite limiting Hamdi’s rights in service to the war on terror, the court was clear: Yaser Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his status. Fearing that giving him his moment in court would expose the brutal reality of his capture, interrogation, and detention, the U.S. government instead released him to Saudi Arabia.

Hamdi's case dealt with procedural questions, such as whether he should be allowed a trial and if so, under what conditions. As with Mathews v. Eldridge, Hamdi never focused on issues of life and death. Cases can be (re)tried, prisoners released, property returned. Dead is dead -- in the case of al-Awlaki that applies to the drone’s target, the balance test, and the Fifth Amendment itself.

What Do Words Mean in Post-Constitutional America?


Having dispensed with significant constitutional issues thanks to some exceedingly dubious logic, the white paper returns to its basic premise: that a kill is legal when that "informed, high-level official” determines that an “imminent threat” to the country is involved. In other words, if the president is convinced, based on whatever proof is provided, he can order an American citizen killed. The white paper doesn’t commit itself on how far down the chain of “high-level officials” kill authority can be delegated. Could the Secretary of the Interior, for instance, issue such an order? He or she is, after all, eighth in the line of succession should the president die in office.

The white paper does, however, spend a fair amount of time explaining how the dictionary definitions of "imminent" and “immediate” do not apply. For kill purposes, it says, the U.S. must have "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." However, the paper goes on to explain that “immediate” can include a situation like al-Awlaki’s in which a person may or may not have been engaged in planning actual attacks that might not be launched for years, or perhaps ever. The paper claims that, since al-Qaeda would prefer to attack the U.S. on a continual basis, any planning or forethought today, however fantastical or future-oriented, constitutes an "imminent" attack that requires sending in the drones.

And if, as perhaps the author of the paper suspected, that isn’t really enough when faced with the bluntness of the Constitution on the issue, the white paper haphazardly draws on the public authority justification. According to this legal concept, public authorities can, in rare circumstances, violate the law -- a cop can justifiably kill a bad guy under certain conditions. By extension, the white paper argues, the government of the United States can drone-kill a citizen who is allegedly a member of al-Qaeda. The white paper conveniently doesn’t mention that police shootings are subject to judicial review, and those who commit such unlawful acts can face punishment. The laws behind such a review are unclassified and public, not the rationed fodder of a redacted white paper.

For the final nail in the coffin of some American citizen, the white paper concludes that, Fifth Amendment violation or not, its arguments cannot be challenged in court. In cases of “foreign policy,” courts have traditionally almost always refused to intervene, holding that they are in the realm of the executive branch in consultation, as required, with Congress. Killing an American abroad, the white paper insists, is a foreign policy act and so none of any courts' business.

Principles

Substantive due process legally applies only to legislation, and it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration will seek legislative sanction for its kill process. So it is in one sense not surprising that the white paper makes no mention of it. However, looking at what we can read of that redacted document through the broader lens of substantive due process does tell us a lot about Post-Constitutional America. In Constitutional America, the idea was that a citizen’s right to life and the due process that went with it was essentially an ultimate principle that trumped all others, no matter how bad or evil that person might be. What is important in the white paper is not so much what is there, but what is missing: a fundamental sense of justness.

As medieval kings invoked church sanction to justify evil deeds, so in our modern world lawyers are mobilized to transform government actions that spit in the face of substantive due process -- torture, indefinite detention without charge, murder -- into something “legal.” Torture morphs into acceptable enhanced interrogation techniques, indefinite detention acquires a quasi-legal stance with the faux-justice of military tribunals, and the convenient murder of a citizen is turned into an act of “self-defense.” However unpalatable Anwar al-Awlaki's words passed on via the Internet may have been, they would be unlikely to constitute a capital crime in a U.S. court. His killing violated the Fifth Amendment both procedurally and substantively.

Despite its gravity, once the white paper was pried loose from the White House few seemed to care what it said. Even the New York Times, which had fought in court alongside the ACLU to have it released, could only bring itself to editorialize mildly that the document offered “little confidence that the lethal action was taken with real care” and suggest that the rubber-stamp secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court be involved in future kill orders. The ACLU's comments focused mostly on the need for more documentation on the kills. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans, 52%, approve of drone strikes, likely including the one on Anwar al-Awlaki.

The Kind of Country We Live In

We have fallen from a high place. Dark things have been done. Imagine, pre-9/11, the uproar if we had learned that the first President Bush had directed the NSA to sweep up all America's communications without warrant, or if Bill Clinton had created a secret framework to kill American citizens without trial. Yet such actions over the course of two administrations are now accepted as almost routine, and entangled in platitudes falsely framing the debate as one between “security” and “freedom.” I suspect that, if they could bring themselves to a moment of genuine honesty, the government officials involved in creating Post-Constitutional America would say that they really never imagined it would be so easy.

In one sense, America the Homeland has become the most significant battleground in the war on terror. No, not in the numbers of those killed or maimed, but in the broad totality of what has been lost to us for no gain. It is worth remembering that, in pre-Constitutional America, a powerful executive -- the king -- ruled with indifference to the people. With the Constitution, we became a nation, in spirit if not always in practice, based on a common set of values, our Bill of Rights. When you take that away, we here in Post-Constitutional America are just a trailer park of strangers.


Eleanor Holmes Norton says 'you don't have a right to know' what's going on in government

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk44AMmG1Oo
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby indio007 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:53 pm

The greatest danger to the masses is the growing technology asymmetry.


any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic


I will fix that quote.
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from GOD.


We are 10 years away from technology which makes modern tracking caveman like. i.e. non-linear electromagnetic time reversal

Combine that with an orbiting maser and anyone disagreeable is a pile of dust.

Think you can hide?

How bout one attached to a insect sized drone that will fly into you ear canal and put a hole in your brain stem?
indio007
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:14 am
Has thanked: 189 time
Have thanks: 237 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby Shikamaru » Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:48 am

William Orville Douglas aka "Wild Bill" aka "Willie O" is my favorite Supreme Court Justice.

You'll want to pick up one of his writings, "Points of Rebellion" :D.
Shikamaru
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:56 am
Has thanked: 326 time
Have thanks: 283 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby lostandfound » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:20 pm

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... cument/p21

Drug Dogs Don't Even Have To Be Right Half The Time To Be Considered 'Reliable' By The Courts
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160 ... urts.shtml
from the good-news,-K9s:-even-if-you-suck-at-your-job,-you-can-keep-your-job dept


All in all, this motion to suppress evidence worked out for the plaintiff, but it does little to address concerns that drug dogs are basically blank permission slips for inquisitive cops.

The defendant -- Emile Martin -- was in a vehicle driven by another person (simply referred to as "Montgomery" in the opinion). This vehicle crossed the centerline multiple times and was pulled over by Deputy Brandon Williams. The driver could not produce registration or proof of insurance, which led to the issuance of a citation… eventually. But the citation process was unnecessarily prolonged to provide the deputy with a chance to have a K9 unit brought in to sniff the car for drugs.

Based on its findings of fact, the court agrees that the stop was unduly prolonged in order to allow time for the canine and its handler to reach the scene. Prior to the point that the dog alerted, at 3:37 a.m., there was merely a hunch, but neither probable cause nor reasonable articulable suspicion, that criminal conduct was afoot. The lapse of 33 minutes from 3:04 a.m. to 3:37 a.m. for the stop in this case constituted a plainly unjustifiable seizure for that length of time under the Fourth Amendment. As noted above, when Deputy Williams returned to his cruiser with Montgomery’s driver’s license and the Grand Prix title at or shortly after 3:11 a.m., he had everything he needed to begin writing the traffic citations.

However, Williams did not begin writing the citations until 3:21 a.m., and had not completed them when Dul alerted on the vehicle following the open-air sniff at 3:37 a.m. While Deputy Williams spent some time awaiting confirmation from dispatch of the license’s validity and the results of the warrant search, that does not excuse his failure to even begin writing the citations until ten minutes after he could have done so. The stop here was unduly prolonged far beyond the time reasonably required to complete the stop’s mission.

Under the Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision, officers cannot artificially prolong traffic stops in hopes of stumbling across something "better" than a traffic violation. Once the stop's "mission" has reached its conclusion, drivers are free to go, no matter how many more questions -- or dog sniffs -- the officer might wish to pursue.

Still, a drug dog was brought in and it did alert during its "search" of the vehicle. This alert was also challenged, presumably in case the defendant's citation of Rodriguez failed to result in suppression. Data was obtained on the dog's ("Dul") "hit" rate. The data wasn't exactly a confirmation of Dul's superlative skills.

The defendant has not presented any evidence challenging the adequacy of Dul’s training and certification regimen. However, he questions Dul’s reliability based on a review of the dog’s performance record, both in training sessions and in the field. The defendant argues that Dul’s training and field performance records suggest a failure rate of up to 25%. The evidence offered on this phase of the motion is generally undisputed.

Considering law enforcement officers "ask" dogs for permission to effect warrantless searches, one would hope 75% wouldn't be an acceptable success rate. Of course, many arguments were presented by the government as to why being right only three-fourths of the time is nigh unto infallibility. According to law enforcement testimony, there are any number of reasons why a drug sniff might result in a false positive, but none of those are reasons to doubt a dog's assertions.

This is the case because officers are unable to confirm false negatives in the field (as no search is conducted), may fail to find drugs where a dog correctly alerts, and may not realize a dog has alerted based on a residual odor of drugs no longer present.

This would be one thing if law enforcement was alone in finding this acceptable. Unfortunately, the court also finds this lack of accuracy to be of little import when discussing the justification of a search. Dul may only be right 75% of the time, but the bar has been set so low by previous decisions that drug dogs whose intuition is worse than a coin flip are considered to be trustworthy generators of probable cause. (h/t Brad Heath)

Notwithstanding the dispute regarding Dul’s failure rate, the court is satisfied that in conjunction with his training and certification, his performance record amply supports the officers’ reliance on his alert to support probable cause to conduct a search. Dul’s performance record is superior to that of dogs which have been found to be reliable by other courts. See Green, 740 F.3d at 283-284 (affirming district court’s finding that dog with 43% success rate was reliable); United States v. Bentley, 795 F.3d 630, 636 (7th Cir. 2015) (accepting field detection rate of 59.5%); United States v. Holleman, 743 F.3d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir.) (57%).

The only upside here is that the Rodriguez decision will provide a remedy for those whose stops have been artificially extended to bring in drug dogs whose "alert" means nothing more than ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

In this case, the extension of the stop resulted in suppressed evidence, not the drug dog's questionable reliability. At some point, drug dogs may start being mentioned in the same breath as other law enforcement pseudoscience -- like bite mark evidence or hair comparison. But until then, dogs that can't even manage a 50% hit rate will still be allowed to give officers permission to perform warrantless searches.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: US Supreme Court In Lockstep With The Police State

Postby lostandfound » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:22 pm

http://www.sott.net/article/311134-No-c ... er-manhunt

Exposing the double standard between police and civilians, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced Wednesday that no criminal charges will be filed against the eight LAPD officers responsible for nearly killing an innocent woman and her daughter. Although the cops ambushed the unarmed women without warning and fired over 100 bullets without provocation, the district attorney justified the case of mistaken identity due to the fact that the officers involved were afraid and incompetent.

At 5 a.m. on February 7, 2013, Margie Carranza and her mother, Emma Hernandez, were delivering newspapers throughout a residential neighborhood in Torrance when eight LAPD cops suddenly opened fire. As Carranza suffered cuts from the flying glass, Hernandez was shot twice in the back while trying to protect her daughter. One bullet exited just above Hernandez's collarbone, while the other bullet struck her lower back, near her spine. A fragment of shattered glass also flew into her eye.

After firing 107 bullets at the innocent women, the LAPD cops ordered them out of the vehicle and immediately realized their mistake. Instead of a 33-year-old black man, two Hispanic women exited the pickup truck and demanded to know, "Why did you shoot at us?"

Instead of rendering first aid or even apologizing for the act of attempted murder, the officers called for paramedics while refusing to offer any explanation for the ambush. Awakened by the gunfire, residents emerged from their homes to find their vehicles, houses, and front doors riddled with bullets. With five bullet holes in the entryway to his house, one neighbor asked, "How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?"

Twenty-five minutes after the shooting, Torrance police officers stopped David Perdue a few blocks away as he was driving to the beach to go surfing before work. After the officers questioned him and ordered Perdue to turn around, he complied with their commands and began driving away when another Torrance police cruiser raced towards his vehicle and broadsided him. Suffering from a concussion and back pain, Perdue remained in his vehicle as an officer opened fire on him.

Although Torrance PD and LAPD were searching for a black man driving a gray Nissan Titan, Perdue is a white man who was driving a black Honda Ridgeline. Carranza and Hernandez were driving a blue Toyota Tacoma when the officers ambushed them without bothering to confirm their identities.

The officers responsible for nearly killing Carranza and her mother had been tasked with guarding the house of LAPD Capt. Justin Eisenberg. Because the police captain had been a member of the Board of Rights that voted to terminate former Officer Christopher Dorner, police suspected Dorner might attempt to kill Eisenberg or his family. The police captain was also named in Dorner's manifesto, which he posted online after the initial murders.

In his manifesto, Dorner accused Sgt. Teresa Evans of kicking a restrained suspect named Christopher Gettler in the chest and face. After filing a complaint against Evans, Dorner was labeled a liar by the department and subsequently fired. Dorner also pointed out in his manifesto that many of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating and Rampart scandal during the 1990s have been promoted to supervisory or command positions within the LAPD and surrounding departments.

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced that LAPD officers Jess Faber, Marlon Franco, Sergio Gramajo, John Hart, Geoff Lear, Deshon Parker, Jonathan Roman, and Sgt. John Valdez would not face charges for the attempted murders of Carranza and her mother. Due to the fact that the entire police department was scared of one man and could not be held accountable for their incompetent actions, none of the officers who fired 107 bullets at two unarmed, innocent women will face prosecution. Although the women received a $4.2 million settlement and a new pickup truck, no cop will be held accountable for firing the first shot or failing to correctly identify the make/model of the vehicle along with the race and gender of its occupants.

Although LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced during the manhunt that officials would re-examine Dorner's allegations of police misconduct, nearly three years have passed without any results. Instead, Sgt. Teresa Evans filed a lawsuit against the LAPD last year alleging racial discrimination against her. Evans is white.


Wrong color,wrong make,wrong race and missed over 100 shots. But they are taken off the street and put behind a desk so the public won't have to witness their incompetence.

http://firsttoknow.com/government-emplo ... y-noticed/
http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/e ... loyees.pdf
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time


Return to End of America

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred