New Jersey looking to further erode the 4th Amendment

Posted on September 22nd, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

http://www.nj.com/…

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether to change the circumstances under which police may search cars on Garden State roadways.

State prosecutors argue the current method needs a tune-up because it creates real-world problems for police trying to make decisions in the field. Under current rules, if police want to search a car without first getting a judge’s approval, they must determine that there is probable cause, whether the evidence might disappear and if the safety of the officer or public is at risk.

Instead, the state want to see the state’s high court adopt the method used by the federal courts, which lets police search a car on the belief there is contraband inside.

“It’s a rule that makes sense and is by no means a radical departure of the last 30 or 40 years,” said assistant Attorney General Ronald Susswein.

But criminal defense lawyers say the current system helps preserve important constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“There is not a crisis with regard to automobile searches. The sky is not falling,” said assistant deputy state public defender, Stephen Kirsch.

And former Attorney General John Farmer Jr., who represents the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — New Jersey , argued the advances in technology have so changed the landscape that there are fewer instances in which a warrantless search is necessary.

During arguments in Trenton, the justices peppered lawyers with questions about the law, such as what circumstances dictate when a vehicle might be impounded in connection with a stop and how the courts have defined the situations in which a warrantless search was okay.

“We’re defining it differently in difference circumstances,” said Justice Barry Albin.

If they really want to search your vehicle they will find a way to justify it. Rarely are you going to get the search found illegitimate by the courts. As with all other situations with police and the threat of a search: Just say no. Then say nothing. Anything, and I mean anything, can and will be used against you. If you are stopped by cops refuse to search you query whether you are being detained, if not ask to leave. Continue with the same questions until allowed to leave.

Syracuse asks not to be responsible for officers ruining womans home

Posted on July 29th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.syracuse.com/…

The city of Syracuse has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman whose 303 Gere Ave. apartment was gassed last year during a police standoff with her neighbor.

The motion to dismiss, filed this week in U.S. District Court, responded for the first time to Eileen Malay’s allegations that police violated her constitutional rights March 17, 2007, during a 29-hour standoff with her landlord, Thach Ros, 62.

Ros, who lived in an attached house, fatally shot his son and wounded his wife before eventually killing himself.

While arguing Malay, 59, has no grounds to sue the city, the motion did not dispute Malay’s account of the gassing. She fled the apartment that day and hasn’t been back.

In the motion, the city argues police officers were confronted with a deadly situation and didn’t know whether Malay was in her apartment.

“A reasonable police officer would not believe that deploying gas to diffuse a lethal situation could (violate) Plantiff’s civil rights, particularly if they were not even aware that she was inside the apartment,” wrote Jennifer Savion, assistant corporation counsel.

Also, the city argued, police didn’t violate Malay’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure because of the imminent danger the gunman posed.

“There can be no doubt that there were exigent circumstances sufficient to allow police action to try and diffuse the situation,” Savion wrote. “That meant using CS gas inside the property to try to disarm Ros.”

CS gas is a type of tear gas that the U.S. military has agreed under international treaty not to use in warfare.

How does the fact that the gunman posed an “imminent danger” negate the fact that they ruined her property with a chemical that even the military has agreed not to use? They harmed this woman and she should be paid restitution. Period. If anyone other then government thugs tried to use this excuse the public would be outraged. Collateral damage is still damage and those officers are still responsible. The gang of which they are a member of and the colors they were do not put them above to fundamental societal concepts.

Happy Birthday Bill of Rights

Posted on December 15th, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

The Bill of Rights, the name for the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution, came into effect on this day 1791. While many believe the Bill of Rights defines rights which those under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States of America it is in fact a list which explicitly restricts the government from infringing on the rights which we all have inherently. They were a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists where the latter were afraid of a centralized government infringing on the rights which they had just recently fought a war over. There was in fact 12 amendments proposed but only 10 ratified at the time. The 27th amendment which was ratified in 1992 was one of the two which hadn’t made it in 1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
  • Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

For more information I highly recommend reading James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

National Security Letter component of The USA PATRIOT Act found to be unconstitutional

Posted on September 6th, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://hosted.ap.org/…

A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court’s approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act “offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.”

In 2004, ruling on the initial version of the Patriot Act, the judge said the letters violate the Constitution because they amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement - under which an Internet service provider, for instance, would not be allowed to tell customers that it was turning over their records to the government - violated free speech.

This is good but it could be overturned in appeal. This was one of the more egregious unconstitutional parts of the PATRIOT Act. An FBI agent could issue an NSL, created out of thin air without anyones authority but his own, written on the back of a matchbook, and then decide if the recipient could even talk about what was going on. No OK from the Attorney General or a judge. Just instant search warrant and gag order. Now we need the rest of the Act struck down. Like the part that allows the government, with an order from a judge, to break into your home when you’re out, steal your things, place bugs in our bedroom and make it look like your house was broken into without telling you or the police. It also allows the government to withhold for up to six months that its agents where the ones that did it.



Jailed Activist Info

© 2008 blog of bile is powered by Wordpress