The dangers of our new normal...

[Deranged Rhino]

Police can use illegally obtained evidence in court, SCOTUS rules, sabotaging 4th Amendment

 

A new SCOTUS ruling poses a threat to Americans’ constitutional rights, a Supreme Court justice warns.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police can use evidence they obtained illegally against a defendant in court.

One of the four liberal Supreme Court justices — Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994 — joined hands with the conservative justices in support of the ruling.

The justices voted five-to-three in favor of a lawbreaking police officer in Utah v. Strieff, a drug-related case involving a Utah man.

 

(snip)

Sotomayor warned in a scathing dissent that the ruling jeopardizes Americans’ constitutional rights, and will disproportionately hurt people of color.

“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” she wrote.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Sotomayor said.

“If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant,” she added.

“Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.”

(snip)

Sotomayor warned this ruling will disproportionate impact on Americans of color. “The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated” by police, she said. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

She cited “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,” abook by legal scholar Michelle Alexander that exposes the structural racism in the U.S. justice system.

 

“For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them,” Sotomayor continued.

“By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/police_can_use_illegally_obtained_evidence_in_court_scotus_rules_sabotaging_4th_amendment/

[GG]

Sotomayor's dissent is based on racial preference, not based on legal grounds. This would have been a 6-3 ruling if Scalia was still alive. Not quite a close case.

 

But carry on.

[DC Tom]

Police can use illegally obtained evidence in court, SCOTUS rules, sabotaging 4th Amendment

 

A new SCOTUS ruling poses a threat to Americans’ constitutional rights, a Supreme Court justice warns.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police can use evidence they obtained illegally against a defendant in court.

One of the four liberal Supreme Court justices — Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994 — joined hands with the conservative justices in support of the ruling.

The justices voted five-to-three in favor of a lawbreaking police officer in Utah v. Strieff, a drug-related case involving a Utah man.

 

(snip)

Sotomayor warned in a scathing dissent that the ruling jeopardizes Americans’ constitutional rights, and will disproportionately hurt people of color.

“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” she wrote.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Sotomayor said.

“If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant,” she added.

“Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.”

(snip)

Sotomayor warned this ruling will disproportionate impact on Americans of color. “The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated” by police, she said. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

She cited “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,” abook by legal scholar Michelle Alexander that exposes the structural racism in the U.S. justice system.

 

“For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them,” Sotomayor continued.

“By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/police_can_use_illegally_obtained_evidence_in_court_scotus_rules_sabotaging_4th_amendment/

 

 

From the Supreme Court filing:

 

 

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher,

 

I've had similar happen to me twice - being near a reported crime scene (one a B&E, one a B&E and rape), stopped by police and questioned, had my ID taken and called in to dispatch. I was nearly arrested for the B&E...for far less reason than was presented in this case.

 

The idea that both my stops were unlawful because 1) I wasn't observed at the scenes, 2) I was told to stop and not asked (which were two of the three points the Supreme Court considered) is laughable. The idea that, having stopped me and taken my ID, they couldn't arrest me on an unrelated warrant they found running my ID is even more laughable.

 

And Sotomayor's dissent is ludicrous. An arrest warrant becomes "a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket," witnessing a suspect exiting a suspected drug den under surveillance becomes "no suspicion," and being arrested for an outstanding warrant precludes an arrest for any other illegal activity in evidence, among other things. Sotomayor restates the facts of the case, and prior decisions in an argument so sadly retarded that it makes me wonder (not for the first time) how she ever came to sit on the bench.

 

How retarded? You know if the cop had found an unregistered weapon and not meth, she'd be writing the majority opinion that it was a legal search and seizure, because of public safety. Because she doesn't make any sort of legal argument, just an emotional one.

Edited June 21, 2016 by DC Tom

[GG]

A dissent worthy of a wise Latina.

[Magox]

 

 

How retarded? You know if the cop had found an unregistered weapon and not meth, she'd be writing the majority opinion that it was a legal search and seizure, because of public safety. Because she doesn't make any sort of legal argument, just an emotional one.

 

 

I Know I'm generalizing here but it seems to me that most liberal justices rule with the heart.

[DC Tom]

 

 

I Know I'm generalizing here but it seems to me that most liberal justices rule with the heart.

 

Most liberals, period. It's Critical Race Theory.

[Azalin]

 

Most liberals, period. It's Critical Race Theory.

 

I've always called it "reacting to how you feel about something rather than taking the time to actually think about it".

 

Same difference, I suppose.

[DC Tom]

 

I've always called it "reacting to how you feel about something rather than taking the time to actually think about it".

 

Evidence-based reasoning such as "taking the time to actually think about it" is a Euro-centric philosophy that oppresses minorities and invalidates the feelings of non-Europeans. It stems from the same sort of logical mindset that promoted slavery as being socially and economically beneficial to slaves, because it specifically ignored the slaves' feelings on the matter. So what you're saying is...you believe you should own slaves.

 

[/CRT]

[Azalin]

 

Evidence-based reasoning such as "taking the time to actually think about it" is a Euro-centric philosophy that oppresses minorities and invalidates the feelings of non-Europeans. It stems from the same sort of logical mindset that promoted slavery as being socially and economically beneficial to slaves, because it specifically ignored the slaves' feelings on the matter. So what you're saying is...you believe you should own slaves.

 

[/CRT]

 

Suck my pyramids, white man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Rhino - I got to use it!

[/dev/null]

 

Suck my pyramids, white man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Rhino - I got to use it!

Just don't sit on your pyramids

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Suck my pyramids, white man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Rhino - I got to use it!

 

 

Just don't sit on your pyramids

[Deranged Rhino]

*************

 

As quietly as possible, the government is renewing its assault on your privacy

A report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office harshly criticized the FBI last week for its little discussed but frequently used facial recognition database and called on the bureau to implement myriad privacy and safety protections. It turns out the database has far more photos than anyone thought – 411.9m to be exact – and the vast majority are not mugshots of criminals, but driver’s license photos from over a dozen states and passport photos of millions of completely innocent people. The feds searched it over 36,000 times from 2011 to 2015 (no court order needed) while also apparently having no idea how accurate it is.

Worse, the FBI wants its hundreds of millions of facial recognition photos – along with its entire biometric database that includes fingerprints and DNA profiles – to be exempt from important Privacy Act protections. As the Intercept reported two weeks ago: “Specifically, the FBI’s proposal would exempt the database from the provisions in the Privacy Act that require federal agencies to share with individuals the information they collect about them and that give people the legal right to determine the accuracy and fairness of how their personal information is collected and used.”

In Congress, Senate Republicans are pushing for a vote this week on controversial new warrantless surveillance measures that would let the FBI use unconstitutional National Security Letters to get email records and internet browsing history from countless US citizens – without going to a judge or court at all. The Senate leadership is bringing the measure up to vote by invoking the Orlando attack, despite the fact that we know the FBI had no problem surveillingthe Orlando killer when he was previously investigated. It is a blatant attempt to exploit the tragedy in order to gain powers the FBI has long asked for (powers, by the way, the FBI is already reportedly using, despite the justice department telling them it’s basically illegal). (*DR Note: The Senate voted against this today)

The justice department, meanwhile, is busy attempting to implement a new rule for the court system that would make it much easier for the FBI to hack into computers worldwide – including those of hacking victims. Using the obscure process for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the department has convinced the courts that they should be able to get one warrant to potentially hack thousands of computers, and shouldn’t have to comply with the normal rules involving getting the court order in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted, “this is a recipe for disaster,” and it is being done by circumventing the normal democratic process. Several organizations (including Freedom of the Press Foundation, the organization I work for) have called on Congress to put a stop to it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/22/government-privacy-fbi-justice-department-surveillance

[DC Tom]

The justice department, meanwhile, is busy attempting to implement a new rule for the court system that would make it much easier for the FBI to hack into computers worldwide – including those of hacking victims. Using the obscure process for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the department has convinced the courts that they should be able to get one warrant to potentially hack thousands of computers, and shouldn’t have to comply with the normal rules involving getting the court order in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.

 

 

That's not quite right. The new rule is so that a judge can issue a warrant for internet-related investigations that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. It's a real problem: such warrants are only valid within the jurisdiction they're issued in, but the internet is functionally "boundaryless," making it easy to evade such warrants on jurisdictional arguments.

 

The FBI's solution just isn't a real solution.

[Deranged Rhino]

Congress attempting to expand Patriot Act and hoping no one is paying attention:

 

http://rare.us/story/congress-is-going-to-try-to-expand-the-patriot-act-tonight-and-hopes-no-one-will-notice/

The Bill: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20160711/HR5606.pdf

"IN GENERAL.—Section 314 of the USA PA- 8 TRIOT Act (31 U.S.C. 5311 note) is amended—by striking ‘‘terrorist or money laun- 2 dering activities’’ and inserting ‘‘terrorist acts, 3 money laundering activities, or a specified un- 4 lawful activity (as defined under section 5 1956©(7) of title 18, United States Code)’’; 6 and 7 (B) by striking ‘‘activities that may involve 8 terrorist acts or money laundering activities’’ 9 and inserting ‘‘activities that may involve ter- 10 rorist acts, money laundering activities, or a 11 specified unlawful activity’’; and 12 (2) in subsection ©, by inserting ‘‘or a speci- 13 fied unlawful activity (as defined under section 14 1956©(7) of title 18, United States Code)’’ after 15 ‘‘terrorist acts or money laundering activities’’."

 

This is why the definition of "Terrorism" is critically important.

[Joe Miner]

Congress attempting to expand Patriot Act and hoping no one is paying attention:

 

http://rare.us/story/congress-is-going-to-try-to-expand-the-patriot-act-tonight-and-hopes-no-one-will-notice/

 

The Bill: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20160711/HR5606.pdf

 

"IN GENERAL.Section 314 of the USA PA- 8 TRIOT Act (31 U.S.C. 5311 note) is amendedby striking terrorist or money laun- 2 dering activities and inserting terrorist acts, 3 money laundering activities, or a specified un- 4 lawful activity (as defined under section 5 1956©(7) of title 18, United States Code); 6 and 7 (B) by striking activities that may involve 8 terrorist acts or money laundering activities 9 and inserting activities that may involve ter- 10 rorist acts, money laundering activities, or a 11 specified unlawful activity; and 12 (2) in subsection ©, by inserting or a speci- 13 fied unlawful activity (as defined under section 14 1956©(7) of title 18, United States Code) after 15 terrorist acts or money laundering activities."

 

This is why the definition of "Terrorism" is critically important.

If the govt has to write laws with specific definitions, how could they make **** up as they go? That's not just with terrorism, that's any wording.

[Deranged Rhino]

If the govt has to write laws with specific definitions, how could they make **** up as they go? That's not just with terrorism, that's any wording.

 

With this bill (which the House defeated), the attempt is to broaden the definition of terrorism to cover anything the federal government deems dangerous. Which has been one of the constant alarm bells rung in this thread and many others on the topic. We're being conditioned by the media and the government to lump all crimes together as terrorist acts, which in turn expands the scope and reach of these unconstitutional powers the government has given itself.

 

You're watching the slippery slope in real time.

[Joe Miner]

 

With this bill (which the House defeated), the attempt is to broaden the definition of terrorism to cover anything the federal government deems dangerous. Which has been one of the constant alarm bells rung in this thread and many others on the topic. We're being conditioned by the media and the government to lump all crimes together as terrorist acts, which in turn expands the scope and reach of these unconstitutional powers the government has given itself.

 

You're watching the slippery slope in real time.

That's the game the government plays with everything. It's a problem here as well, but it's not unique to this issue.

 

That's one common way govt expands its reach.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's the game the government plays with everything. It's a problem here as well, but it's not unique to this issue.

 

That's one common way govt expands its reach.

 

Sure, I'm not arguing it's unique. It's blatant. But if they press the "War on Terror" button and stoke everyone's fears, it makes their job way easier.

 

The War on Terror is really a war on civil liberties. Always has been.

[Nanker]

The more this happens, the more quickly the dystopian future George Orwell envisioned in his tome 1984.

The Party Leader who thrives in a cult of personality.

The Ministry of Truth - rewriting history to conform to the party line.

Destruction of any records that don't contain their falsifications and forgeries.

Superstates in perpetual war.

[Deranged Rhino]

The more this happens, the more quickly the dystopian future George Orwell envisioned in his tome 1984.

The Party Leader who thrives in a cult of personality.

The Ministry of Truth - rewriting history to conform to the party line.

Destruction of any records that don't contain their falsifications and forgeries.

Superstates in perpetual war.

 

Agreed, though I say we're already smack dab in the middle of that future. At least our overlords are providing us with entertainment though in the form of this non election election. We've been given a horse race between a despotic war monger posing as a progressive and an honest to god walking hard on posing as a human being, what could be more entertaining than that?

 

Of course it's rigged and our new queen will inevitably push us further into the darkness when all is said and done, but remember that time Trump talked about the size of his dick on a national debate stage? What a time to be alive.

 

Maybe it was the Berenstein Bears paradox that brought us here... I still say it's BerenstEIn, not Berenstain. The whole timeline has been warped.