http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat2.html

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck an important blow for privacy rights, ruling that the police need a warrant to search a cellphone. The court rightly recognized that cellphones today are a lot more than just telephones, that they hold a wealth of personal information and that the privacy interest in them is considerable. This was the first such ruling from a state supreme court. It is a model for other courts to follow.

Searches generally require warrants, but courts have carved out limited categories in which they are not needed. One of these is that police officers are allowed, when they arrest people, to search them and the area immediately surrounding them, as well as some kinds of containers in their possession.

When the police arrested Antwaun Smith on drug charges they seized his cellphone and searched it, examining his call records. The police did not have a warrant or the consent of Mr. Smith.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this month, by a 4-to-3 vote, that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Rather than seeing a cellphone as a simple closed container, the majority noted that modern cellphones — especially ones that permit Internet access — are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information.”

This is information, the court said, for which people reasonably have a high expectation of privacy, and under established Fourth Amendment principles, police officers must get a search warrant before they can look through call logs or examine other data. The court wisely decided that it made no sense to try to distinguish among various kinds of cellphones based on what specific functions they have. All cellphones, the court said, fall under the search warrant requirement.

Few federal courts have considered the issue of cellphone searches, and they have disagreed about whether a warrant should be required. The Ohio ruling eloquently makes the case for why the very personal information that new forms of technology aggregate must be accorded a significant degree of privacy.

Good to hear. A little close however.

FBI anti-terrorism agents raided the Queens home of a self-described anarchist charged with tweeting protesters with instructions on how to evade police at the G-20 summit.

A dozen gas masks, liquid mercury, backpacks containing hammers and anarchist literature were among the dozens of items seized Thursday at the Jackson Heights home where Elliot Madison, 41, lives with his wife Elena, 39.

Madison is free on bail after Pittsburgh cops arrested him on Sept. 24 and charged him with hindering prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possessing criminal instruments.

The two men were seated in front of personal computers and telecommunications equipment, wearing headphones and microphones and surrounded by maps, contact numbers and police and EMS scanners.

Cops claim they were using Twitter to direct the movements of protesters and update them on the location and actions of law enforcement.

But Assistant US Attorney Andrew Goldsmith argued that some of the items raised alarm, including a pound of liquid mercury in the house, alongside “books about poisons” and a microscope.

The feds also found metal triangles that are used to puncture tires and two boxes of ammunition. Goldsmith said agents left a collection of machetes, samurai swords and daggers at the house, because they didn’t fall within the scope of the search warrants.

Two whole boxes of ammo? The man was a real danger obviously. Anyone with a microscope certainly can’t be trusted. I feel so much safer now that Madison and his mercury is off the streets. Err… well I’m glad  his evil Tweeting ways have stopped. Listening to the open, unencrypted radio transmissions of the police and transcribing them to the Internet is a big deal… somehow.

At best this man abused the terms of service for the Internet access service provided by the hotel and that none of the governments business. This story is feels like something out of a dystopia police state story… perhaps V for Vendetta. I’m surprised they allowed for this to be reported on. Perfect scenario for their national security letters.

I guess these guys weren’t using TOR?

I went to to the Bowling Green and took the 4 and then transfered the the 2 just out of spite and to see if there were more cops in the stations.

Note they are enforcing a law they don’t know. Searching bags and refusing people entry “because it says right on the sign.” Also note that they don’t care if I go to another station.

While talking with the three officers the one to the left and right of center stared at pins on my bookbag. These includes “Taxation is Theft”, “This is what an average, responsible gun-owner looks like”, a Ron Paul 2008 pin, Ron Paul patch, “Don’t Tread On Me: Live Free or Die” patch, and “I Do Not Consent To Being Searched” and then the 4th Amendment.

My intent was to confirm they didn’t care about going to another station to show that it’s just security theater. My plan next time is to ask them if I’m suspected of committing a crime and if they have a warrant.

In the Port Authority I saw two National Guard standing near the second floor flower store. I took some footage but it’s really worthless from the distance. Below are some stills from the footage. I should have just asked them. Next time I will.

The camera used is a gumstick spy cam.

Coming into the Port Authority from the subway today I saw this:

The young black gentlemen looked rather nervous and was fidgety. What you can’t tell from the photo is that the officers have the man backed into a corner. I stood at the steps leading to the first floor with my camera ready should the man be arrested. I notice the officers seem to be getting impatient so I stroll over to the info desk behind them and watch as the officer on the right reaches for the man’s front shirt pockets but does not actually grab his person or property. It looks like they are asking him about what he has in his pockets.

After I take a few seconds of video the officer on the right notices or is alerted to me somehow and walks over just as I’m temporarily putting away the camera. The conversation was short and went something like this:

• Can’t take pictures inside the building.
• Why?
• Weren’t you around for 9/11? You know what happened?
• Yes.
• You can film outside but not inside the Port Authority. It’s private. We are conducting police business.
• Can you tell me the law indicating this?
• It’s PAPD policy.
• But, people, tourists do it all the time.
• It’s policy. You’re not in trouble or anything.
• I know. Why the policy?
• I’m just letting you know… just in case another officer would have seen you. We don’t know who you are. Could be taking pictures of the security system or pillars or people or steps.
• Can I see the policy?
• We’re conducting police business here and can’t be filmed. You can take photos outside. I’ve got to get back to this. (Turns slightly to his left as to walk back to the other officer and civilian.) Where are you headed?
• I don’t need to tell you.
• (Pinches or bites lip, nods in displeasure and starts walking back while keeping an eye on me)

I make my way to the steps where I started and he’s watching me the whole way. Knowing I’d be pushing it if I continued to stand there I walked upstairs in order to circle around and catch the conclusion of the incident. Unfortunately the 45ish seconds it took me was enough for them to do whatever it was they were intending and vacate the area. I did a quick look around but couldn’t find them.

I’ve said this before but I’ll do so again because I failed to follow my own advice. Don’t stop recording. Record, record, record. Turn it on when you realizing you need to and shut it off when you get fully clear of the incident, the batteries go dead or the memory card fills up (tape runs out). Nothing serious occurred in this incident thankfully but next time may not be so easy.

I’m unable to find PAPD policy on the website and they don’t have an email address but they do have a phone number for Port Authority Police Department Inquiries: 201-239-3500. I’ll likely call them tomorrow and ask about their no photo policy.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/…

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that checkpoints set up by District police in neighborhoods beset by violence are unconstitutional, effectively ending a crime-fighting tactic that officials say was used in only the most dire circumstances to protect residents.

In a strongly worded opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit condemned the roadblocks, which police used last summer in the city’s Trinidad neighborhood in Northeast Washington. The checkpoints, which have not been used in about a year, were a response to a spate of shootings, including a triple homicide.

“It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access,” Chief Judge David B. Sentelle wrote for a three-judge panel. “It is apparent that appellants’ constitutional rights are violated.”

With homicides and other crimes on the decline, officers said they had no plans to set up more roadblocks. But D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said that officers would work to find a “more creative way to deal with very unusual circumstances that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Nickles said that he was disappointed in the opinion and that the city would consider whether to appeal to the full appellate court or the Supreme Court.

An article was published today by Donald Roscoe Brown that details how he was pulled over and questioned for no apparent reason.  He believes he was profiled because he was black.  I’ve seen many people pulled over at the same circle, in fact a friend of mine received a ticket there for not having registration.  It’s a pretty well known police hangout and they will pull you over without justification.  Interestingly enough the author of the article spends a lot of time in Trenton municipal court since he works as a lawyer in Ewing.  His familiarity with the court system and laws makes the article even more insightful.  Here are some excerpts:

The officer then looked at my license, registration and insurance card and politely returned them to me in about 30 seconds. I initially felt perturbed and offended, realizing that I had been stopped without what we lawyer-types refer to as either “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause.” Realizing further that the landmark l979 United States Supreme Court decision in Delaware vs. Prouse has for the ensuing 20 years disallowed law enforcement officers from stopping motor vehicles for the sole purpose of ascertaining the validity of the operators’ driving credentials, I could not help but conclude that, but for my blackness, I probably would not have been stopped in Lawrence Township in late May.

That the attending officer thought I “might” not be wearing a seat belt was not a sufficient justification for stopping me after only seeing me for all of about five seconds. If that was indeed the officer’s suspicion, he certainly could have — and, in fact, should have — followed me for a reasonable distance until he was able to better determine whether my seat belt was engaged. Such a period of surveillance would have constituted excellent police work.

As reported by The New York Times, New York City police officers made more than 170,000 stops on their streets in the first three months of 2009, the most for any quarter in the eight years since the department began recording such data. The percentage of stops that yielded arrests or summonses, however, has remained consistent at a lowly 10 percent. Particularly troubling was that the vast majority of those stops (144,000) were of blacks and Latinos. As such, racial profiling by municipal police officers, regardless of whether they be situated in Lawrence Township or New York City, is a practice that needs — finally — to be put to rest.

Now I disagree that following someone to ascertain whether or not they are wearing their seat belt would be “excellent police work”.  Preventing violent crimes would be excellent police work.  If someone wants to endanger their own life, that’s fine with me.  I do however support Mr. Brown in his belief that this traffic stop was unreasonable.  Most of the stops at that circle are.