US troops arrive in Latvia for NATO exercises: Baltic states concerned by Russian military threat – Video

Posted on by


US troops arrive in Latvia for NATO exercises: Baltic states concerned by Russian military threat
US troops arrived in the Latvian capital to begin military exercises together with Latvian troops. US paratroopers from the US Army Europe #39;s 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team arrived in the...

By: Ukraine News One

Follow this link:

US troops arrive in Latvia for NATO exercises: Baltic states concerned by Russian military threat - Video

NATO – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Coordinates: 505234.16N 42519.24E / 50.8761556N 4.4220111E / 50.8761556; 4.4220111

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; //; French: Organisation du trait de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, one of the 28 member states across North America and Europe, the newest of which, Albania and Croatia, joined in April 2009. An additional 22countries participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace program, with 15other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.[4] Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to 2% of GDP.[5]

NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization's member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization was drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which joined the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

Article5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[6] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[7] and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked four times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War, twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria[8] and by Poland in 2014 following the Russian intervention in Crimea.[9]

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.[11] The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The creation of NATO can be seen as the primary institutional consequence of a school of thought called Atlanticism which stressed the importance of trans-Atlantic cooperation.[13]

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so. This differs from ArticleIV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their "vessels, forces or aircraft" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.[14]

The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300Standardization Agreements (STANAG) codified many of the common practices that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.6251 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's FAL, which used 7.62 NATO cartridge, was adopted by 75 countries, including many outside of NATO. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.

The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951.[17] The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion to ninety-six divisions. However this requirement was dropped the following year to roughly thirty-five divisions with heavier use to be made of nuclear weapons. At this time, NATO could call on about fifteen ready divisions in Central Europe, and another ten in Italy and Scandinavia. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Lord Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.[20]

In September 1952, the first major NATO maritime exercises began; Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defence of Denmark and Norway.[21] Other major exercises that followed included Exercise Grand Slam and Exercise Longstep, naval and amphibious exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, Italic Weld, a combined air-naval-ground exercise in northern Italy, Grand Repulse, involving the British Army on the Rhine (BAOR), the Netherlands Corps and Allied Air Forces Central Europe (AAFCE), Monte Carlo, a simulated atomic air-ground exercise involving the Central Army Group, and Weldfast, a combined amphibious landing exercise in the Mediterranean Sea involving British, Greek, Italian, Turkish, and U.S. naval forces.[22]

Greece and Turkey also joined the alliance in 1952, forcing a series of controversial negotiations, in which the United States and Britain were the primary disputants, over how to bring the two countries into the military command structure.[17] While this overt military preparation was going on, covert stay-behind arrangements initially made by the Western European Union to continue resistance after a successful Soviet invasion, including Operation Gladio, were transferred to NATO control. Ultimately unofficial bonds began to grow between NATO's armed forces, such as the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery.[23][24]

Original post:

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NATO Protesters Receive 5- To 8-Year Prison Terms

Posted on by

CHICAGO (AP) Three protesters acquitted of terrorism for plotting Molotov cocktail attacks in Chicago during a NATO summit were sentenced to prison terms Friday of between five and eight years on lesser arson and mob-action charges.

Among the targets the activists discussed attacking during the 2012 event, prosecutors say, was President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's house and police facilities.

Despite their acquittals during a February trial on all terrorism counts brought under a rarely used Illinois statute the issue remained at the forefront of Friday's five-hour sentencing hearing.

Judge Thaddeus Wilson raised it himself in his remarks minutes before imposing the sentences, saying the plan to lob gas-filled bottles at the targets, had it been carried out, would have struck fear in the city.

"It might not be terrorism," the Cook County circuit judge said. "But it is terrorizing."

All three were convicted of the same charges, but Brian Church, 22, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ended up getting the shortest sentence five years. Jared Chase, 29, of Keene, N.H., got the longest, 8 years; and Brent Betterly, 26, of Oakland Park, got six years.

With credit for their two years in jail awaiting trial, all three could end up serving less than a third of their designated sentences. Church could be out in less than a year.

The decision by Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to prosecute the three under the state's terrorism statute raised eyebrows at the time. A conviction on that charge carries a maximum life sentence.

Lead prosecutor Jack Blakey began his statement urging Wilson to hand all three men 14-year sentences by referring to the Boston Marathon bombings one year ago, which left three people dead and hundreds injured.

"Why bring up Boston? Because in Boston there were no undercover (police) to intercede," Blakey said. He suggested that only the successful infiltration of Chicago police posing as activists stopped the defendants from creating similar mayhem.

See the article here:

NATO Protesters Receive 5- To 8-Year Prison Terms

An Inside Look at the NSA With Whistleblower William Binney (Part 2 of 2) – Video

Posted on by


An Inside Look at the NSA With Whistleblower William Binney (Part 2 of 2)
In this video WeAreChange gets an unique inside look at inner workings and evolution of the NSA with NSA Whistleblower William Binney. Binney describes his work with the National Security...

By: WeAreChange

See the article here:

An Inside Look at the NSA With Whistleblower William Binney (Part 2 of 2) - Video

Posted in NSA

National Security Agency – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

The National Security Agency (NSA) is a U.S. intelligence agency responsible for providing the United States government with encrypted communications (information assurance) and the reading of encrypted communications (signals intelligence) of other nations. The NSA also creates and maintains secure computer network operations for the U.S. Government and prepares for network warfare.[8]

Originating as a unit to decipher code communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Truman in 1952. Since then, it has become one of the largest of U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of personnel and budget,[6][9] operating under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and reporting to the Director of National Intelligence.

The NSA is tasked with the global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, including surveillance of targeted individuals in U.S. territory. The agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through clandestine means,[10] among which are bugging electronic systems[11] and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software.[12][13]

The NSA is also responsible for the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems.[14] As part of the growing practice of mass surveillance in the United States, the NSA collects and stores all phone records of all American citizens.[15]

Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA has no authority to conduct human-source intelligence gathering, although it is often portrayed doing so in popular culture. Instead, the NSA is entrusted with coordination and deconfliction of SIGINT components of otherwise non-SIGINT government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary.[16]

As part of these streamlining responsibilities, the agency has a co-located organization called the Central Security Service (CSS), which was created to facilitate cooperation between NSA and other U.S. military cryptanalysis components. Additionally, the NSA Director simultaneously serves as the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and as Chief of the Central Security Service.

The NSA has been a matter of political controversy on several occasions in its short history. During the Watergate affair, as a result of A Congressional Inquiry led by Sen. Frank Church [17] it was revealed that the NSA, in collaboration with Britains secret listening post, GCHQ, had routinely intercepted the international communications of prominent anti-Vietnam war leaders such as Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock.[18] A multi-year investigation by the European Parliament highlighted the NSA's role in economic espionage in a report entitled 'Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information', in 1999.[19]

However, in 2013, the extent of the NSA's secret surveillance programs was revealed to the public by Edward Snowden. According to the leaked documents, the NSA intercepts phone and internet communications of over a billion people worldwide and tracks the movement of hundreds of millions of people using cellphones. It has also created or maintained security vulnerabilities in most software and encryption (by collaborating with, coercing, or infiltrating numerous technology companies), so that the majority of the internet is susceptible to cyber attacks from the NSA and other parties.

The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau and Military Intelligence Branch, Section 8 (MI-8). It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army's organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy's cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley.[20][21]

MI-8 was also called the Black Chamber.[23] Headed by cryptologist Herbert Yardley, the Black Chamber was located on East 37th Street in Manhattan. Its purpose was to crack the communications codes of foreign governments. Jointly supported by the State Department and the War Department, the chamber persuaded Western Union, the largest U.S. telegram company, to allow government officials to monitor private communications passing through the companys wires.[24]

Read this article:

National Security Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in NSA

National Speakers Association New Jersey Chapter NSA

Posted on by

Home Board of Directors About Us Become a Member Find a Speaker Honorary Members Speaker Resources Member Activities Monthly Meetings Upcoming Events Speaker Opportunitites OnLine Payments Vendor Resources The Spirt of NSA Contact Us

Charles Fleisher is highly experienced speaker, mentor and life coach, having spoken to over 50,000 people during his career.

On October 10, 1988, Charles was the passenger in a vehicle driving at speeds over 100 miles an hour. The ride ended with him being thrown from the vehicle for over 100 feet, resulting in a broken neck and sustaining a paralyzing injury.Charles now devotes his life to sharing the awareness he has received from living with paralysis. He works with audiences and individuals to manage change and capitalize on difficulties.

In his recently released book, The Secret of Difficulties: 4 Steps to Turn Tragedies into Opportunities, Charles profiles individuals who have taken difficult situations and turned them into opportunities they would not have had if they had not had the difficulty in the first place. It provides 4 clear steps to take your own difficult situations and turn them into opportunities to improve your own work, organization, or personal life.

Your Story Blows Me Away: Secrets of Amazing Storytelling for Businesses

Speaker: Dave Leiber

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Stop beating around the bush. Get people to pay attention. Scrap those bullet points. Talk in a way that makes hearts flutter. Learn how to tell your story so that everyone who hears it cares and remembers. Columnist Dave Lieber has been working for more than 30 years to get his newspaper audiences to not turn the page on him. In today's world, it's harder than ever to get people to notice you. But there's one tried and true method that works every time. Dave will share his simple-to-use storytelling method and customize it for your industry. You can use these techniques immediately to increase sales, get that contract, and increase your loyal fan base whose members will help you, fund you, support you and care about you.

About Dave Lieber:

See the rest here:

National Speakers Association New Jersey Chapter NSA

Posted in NSA

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: NSA critics got lucky because agency had no PR strategy

Posted on by

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking by Skype at SXSW today. Daniel Terdiman/CNET

AUSTIN, Tex.--National security reporters are a new kind of political refugee, but for the first time they've had a extremely powerful opponent without an effective public relations strategy.

Those were two of the main points delivered by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during a teleconference interview at South by Southwest today.

Assange, speaking over Skype from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, said that while the Internet had, over the last few years, been co-opted by the U.S. National Security Agency, the Pentagon, and other government organizations in what could amount to the "most aggressive form of state surveillance" ever created, critics had in some ways gotten lucky.

In the past, Assange said, the NSA had run a public relations strategy that relied on radio silence, to essentially not exist. But, he said, it appears that the intelligence agency was not prepared for the worldwide outcry that resulted from the release by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden of documents revealing the organization's massive surveillance efforts. "The Pentagon has [always had] that strategy of trotting out soldiers wrapped in flags trying to demonstrate bravery, but the NSA didn't have that strategy," Assange said. "We got lucky, because we ended up with an opponent that didn't have a PR strategy."

What that's meant, he suggested, is that while the NSA has almost certainly not curtailed its surveillance actions, it has come under much brighter scrutiny than ever before, with substantial coverage of what it does, and intense criticism, both at home and abroad. And that, though change may be slow, can only be a good thing.

To be sure, many of the leading voices in the community of critics of national-security surveillance have had to run from prosecution. Assange, for example, has been forced to hole up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for nearly two years to avoid prosecution. Similarly, Snowden is in exile in Russia, and four other vocal critics, Glenn Greenwald, Jacob Applebaum, Sarah Harrison, and Laura Poitras are all living outside the United States and Britain. Greenwald is in Brazil, while Applebaum, Harrison, and Poitras are all living in Berlin.

To be sure, those critics have lost much of their personal freedom, at least insofar as where they live and work, and as such have become what Assange called "a new type of [political] refugee."

In addition to Assange, both Snowden and Greenwald will be speaking to SXSW by teleconference.

At the same time, though, Assange said he and the others have a freedom few political critics, especially those on the run, have never had before. Thanks to the Internet, each can still work and criticize organizations like the NSA, and similar institutions abroad. And in Assange's own situation, because he is protected inside an embassy, he is outside the reach of British police or other attempts to silence him. "To some degree," he said, "it is every national security reporter's dream, to be in a land without police."

Read the original:

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: NSA critics got lucky because agency had no PR strategy

Posted in NSA

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Posted on by

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects against abuse of government authority.

The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury; the Grand Jury Clause is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights not held to have been incorporated to the states, most of which have replaced grand juries. The Amendment also provides several trial protections, including the right against self-incrimination (held to also apply to custodial interrogations and before most government bodies) as well as the right to be tried only once ("double jeopardy") in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with "just compensation" for those whose property is taken.

No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.[1]

Whether a crime is "infamous" is determined by the nature of the punishment that may be imposed, not the punishment that is actually imposed;[2] however, crimes punishable by death must be tried upon indictments. In United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), the Supreme Court held that incarceration in a prison or penitentiary, as opposed to a correction or reformation house, attaches infamy to a crime. In Mackin v. United States, 117 U.S. 348 (1886), the Supreme Court judged that "'Infamous crimes' are thus, in the most explicit words, defined to be those 'punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.'", while it later in Green v. United States 356 U.S. 165 (1957), stated that "imprisonment in a penitentiary can be imposed only if a crime is subject to imprisonment exceeding one year". Therefore an infamous crime is one that is punished by imprisonment for over one year. Susan Brown, a former defense attorney and Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law, concluded: "Since this is essentially the definition of a felony, infamous crimes translate as felonies."[3]

Grand juries, which return indictments in many criminal cases, are composed of a jury of peers and operate in closed deliberation proceedings; they are given specific instructions regarding the law by the judge. Many constitutional restrictions that apply in court or in other situations do not apply during grand jury proceedings. For example, the exclusionary rule does not apply to certain evidence presented to a grand jury; the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments cannot be introduced in court.[4] Also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present in the grand jury room during hearings. An individual would have such a right during questioning by the police while in custody, but an individual testifying before a grand jury is free to leave the grand jury room to consult with his or her attorney outside the room before returning to answer a question.

Currently, federal law permits the trial of misdemeanors without indictments.[5] Additionally, in trials of non-capital felonies, the prosecution may proceed without indictments if the defendants waive their Fifth Amendment right.

Grand jury indictments may be amended by the prosecution only in limited circumstances. In Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), the Supreme Court held that the indictment could not be changed at all by the prosecution. United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) partly reversed Ex parte Bain; now, an indictment's scope may be narrowed by the prosecution. Thus, lesser included charges may be dropped, but new charges may not be added.

The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not protect those serving in the armed forces, whether during wartime or peacetime. Members of the state militia called up to serve with federal forces are not protected under the clause either. In O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969), the Supreme Court held that only charges relating to service may be brought against members of the militia without indictments. That decision was overturned in 1987, when the Court held that members of the militia in actual service may be tried for any offense without indictments.[6]

The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.[7] This means that the grand jury requirement applies only to felony charges in the federal court system. While many states do employ grand juries, no defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury for criminal charges in state court. States are free to abolish grand juries, and many (though not all) have replaced them with preliminary hearing.

The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[9] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is empaneled in a jury trial, when the first witness is sworn in during a bench trial, or when a plea is accepted unconditionally.[10]

Excerpt from:

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...

Fifth Amendment – The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the …

Posted on by

Text of Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a 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. Indictment by a Grand Jury: Nobody can go to trial for a serious crime, except in a military setting, without first being indicted by a grand jury. Double Jeopardy:

The Fifth Amendment also mandates that defendants, once acquitted on a charge, may not be tried again for the same offense at the same jurisdictional level. Defendants may be tried again if the previous trial ended in a mistrial or hung jury, if there is evidence of fraud in the previous trial, or if the charges are not precisely the same--for example, the police officers who beat Rodney King, after being acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal charges for the same offense.

The best known clause in the Fifth Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself") protects suspects from forced self-incrimination. When a suspect invokes his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as "pleading the Fifth." It should not by any means be taken as a sign of guilt, but it is generally portrayed as such in courtroom television dramas.

View post:

Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ...

5th Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond

Posted on by

We are considering offers for the sale of this website. Use the contact form in the left column to contact us for more information.

The 5th Amendment is better known to most Americans than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights because of the familiar phrase "I plead the fifth," often used as a defense in criminal trials. The 5th Amendment also guarantees Americans several other basic rights, including the right to trial by Grand Jury for certain crimes, the right not to be tried or punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried only with due process of law and the right to be paid fair compensation for any property taken by the government for public use. The Fifth Amendment reads like this:

"No person shall be held to answer for a 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."

The 5th Amendment is made up of 5 specific parts containing 6 different clauses, including:

On the page below, you can read a little about each clause. Then, if you would like to know more about that particular clause of the 5th Amendment, just click on the link for more information.

The 5th Amendment opens with the Grand Jury Clause. It reads like this:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

The Grand Jury Clause guarantees that Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes except with an indictment by a grand jury. This is generally considered to be a protection from corrupt government officials who might try to prosecute people unfairly, because a group of fellow citizens is required to look over the evidence first.

Click to enlarge

Grand Jury at the Arcadia Hotel fire in Boston, 1913

Visit link:

5th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond

Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

Posted on by

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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." Ultimately, these words endeavor to protect two fundamental liberty interests - the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.

A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent of the government. Private individuals who are not acting in either capacity are exempt from the Fourth Amendment prohibitions.

A seizure refers to the interference with an individual's possessory interest in property. To meet the definition of an unreasonable seizure, the property's owner must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the items seized. A person is seized when law enforcement personnel use physical force to restrain the person if a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would not feel free to leave the situation. The previous owner of abandoned property cannot allege an unreasonable seizure of that abandoned property. Abandoned property is property left behind by its owner in a manner in which the owner abandons the possessory interest in the property and no longer retains a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search.

The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures particularly affects the work of law enforcement personnel by restricting the actions that they may take in performing a criminal investigation; however, the ban also disallows unreasonable searches and seizures in the civil litigation context. Law enforcement may only conduct a search if individualized suspicion motivates the search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.

To sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have standing. Standing with respect to Fourth Amendment violations requires that the plaintiff have had a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. A legitimate expectation of privacy must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires that the plaintiff actually and genuinely expected privacy, and the objective test requires that given the circumstances, a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would have expected privacy as well.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies the Fourth Amendment's provisions against the states as well as the federal government. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Courts ordinarily suppress evidence obtained during an unreasonable search or seizure and offered against the accused. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This rule, known as the exclusionary rule, applies equally to both the investigatory and accusatory stages of a criminal prosecution.

In order to avoid illegally searching or seizing the property of a suspect, law enforcement personnel typically obtain search warrants. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause, must support the showing by oath or affirmation, and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. A judge can find probable cause only be examining the totality of the circumstances.

Different types of warrants exist. A knock-and-announce warrant requires law enforcement personnel to knock on the door of a residence and announce their identity before entering, giving the owner or occupier an opportunity to answer the door. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that law enforcement's failure to knock or announce when in possession of a knock-and-announce warrant does not necessitate use of the exclusionary rule. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).

No knock warrants allow law enforcement personnel to enter a building or home without announcing their presence and without knocking on the door first. Courts reserve these warrants for situations in which a building's owner or occupier could destroy the sought-after evidence by the time law enforcement waits for the owner or occupier to open the door.

Read the original:

Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age

Posted on by

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments over whether police can search a person's cellphone without a warrant upon arrest. That will give the justices a rare opportunity to draw a bright line about what police can do in the digital age.

The court should conclude that searching smartphones should require a warrant. That is what law enforcement needs in most cases to search a home.

More than 50 percent of Americans now carry smartphones, and those phones' search histories, photos, emails, chats and contacts offer not only a window on the owner's mind, but also can document their every step and communication.

Courts have given mixed rulings how the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure, applies to cellphones. The right to privacy in these cases conflicts with the important public interest in police solving and preventing crimes.

The high court will have to balance these two interests in a decision that makes sense not just for smartphones, but also for tablets, laptops and the new gadgets down the road.

"Some members of the court will certainly try to consider the place mobile devices play in modern life," said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.

The justices' ruling will involve two cases. In 2007, Massachusetts police searching a man's rudimentary flip phone noticed a phone number that led to the suspect's home where they found drugs, cash and guns. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government is appealing the decision.

In 2009, San Diego police stopped David Riley for expired registration tags. A search of his smartphone revealed images tying him to a gang shooting and other evidence. Convicted of attempted murder and serving a 15-year sentence, Riley has challenged the evidence police found on his cellphone. In a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the cellphone search in the case.

In taking on the Riley case, the high court said it would decide the narrow question of whether evidence admitted at Riley's trial as part of the smartphone search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Legislative attempts to clarify the rules in California have not succeeded. In 2011, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, proposed a bill that would have required a warrant to search cellphones. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.

View post:

Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age