Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

Courts are frequently called upon to apply the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to police procedures. Marylands Court of Special Appeals this week reviewed whether the use of fare inspections on a light rail train violated the Fourth Amendment in a case called Kenneth Carter v. State of Maryland.

The opinion indicates that Maryland Transit Authority police gathered on the platform of a Baltimore light rail station, for the purpose of doing a fare inspection to see if passengers had paid for their fare. There was no evidence of any signs posted in the stations that such fare sweeps may be done. Failure to pay the fare is a crime subject to a $50 fine. When the train pulled into the station, an officer entered each train and announced that each passenger had to show their ticket proving they had paid the fare.

Carter approached an officer and admitted he had no ticket, and was directed to another officer on the platform who obtained his identification. A record check showed a possible warrant outstanding for Carter, who then tried to flee and was tackled. During the melee the police found that Carter had a gun, and it turned out he was a convicted felon. At trial, defendants motion to suppress evidence because of an illegal detention was denied, and he was convicted of firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

The appellate Court noted that in determining whether an investigatory detention by police had occurred, it would look at such factors as the use or show of force or authority by the police so that a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave or refuse to answer questions. Here, the appellate Court found that by announcing to all passengers that they could not leave the train until producing proof of fare payment, Carter had in fact been detained even before he admitted he had no ticket.

Since one of the officers at trial admitted that they used fare checks as a means of enforcing outstanding warrants, the appellate Court declared this police misconduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, and the convictions were reversed.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.

Post Views: 139

Follow this link:
Fare Inspections and the Fourth Amendment - Montgomery County Sentinel

SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld the controversial police practice of stop and frisk.

In a ruling published Friday night, the Court acknowledged a close case, but ultimately sided with police in a challenge to the practice, which has largely come under scrutiny in other states for targeting minorities. This case involves a challenge by Bryant Robert Mitchell, a member of a white supremacist gang, who was searched in a traffic stop in Ogden last year.

Mitchell was in a vehicle that was stopped after police saw him stand up in the passenger seat of the car and yell at another person in a convenience store parking lot.

Officers later testified that Mitchell looked very upset and aggressive, and that he began to open the door of the Blazer before it had come to a stop. One of them testified that Mitchells screaming sounded indicative of an intent to get into a confrontation or a fight with the person that he was talking to,' Utah Court of Appeals Judge Ryan Harris wrote.

Police obtained consent to search the vehicle from the driver, and another passenger had a warrant, the ruling said.

Immediately after Mitchell exited the vehicle, one of the officers frisked him. During the pat-down, the officer discovered a switchblade-style knife in the pocket of Mitchells shorts. Because he was a convicted felon, Mitchell was not allowed to possess such a weapon, so the officers then arrested Mitchell for unlawfully possessing the knife. After arresting Mitchell, the officers conducted a more thorough search of his person and discovered a ball of a black tar like substance that was later confirmed to be heroin, Judge Harris wrote.

Mitchell was ultimately charged with drug and weapons possession, and the weapons charge was dropped in a plea deal. He challenged the search as a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure.

In addition to the facts already described, one of the officers testified that, in his experience, gang members typically carry weapons, and that this knowledge was among the reasons he had decided to frisk Mitchell. For his part, Mitchell testified that his profane words to the man in the parking lot were not intended to be aggressive, and that he was just attempting to greet an old friend whom he had not seen in a while, the ruling said. (The ruling noted that police heard Mitchell shout come here you mother-er.)

In his appeal, Mitchell argues he gave no sign that he was going to be violent. The Court acknowledged the usual signs were not there. He was wearing very little clothing, didnt have places to conceal a weapon, nor did he make any movement that police could have perceived as a threat. Prosecutors countered that Mitchell was an admitted member of a violent gang, had acted aggressively toward someone else and appeared to be on the verge of a fight and that police were in the process of arresting someone else when the search took place.

The Court said each factor alone isnt enough, but took the situation in its entirety.

While we consider this a close case, we are ultimately persuaded by the States position that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct aTerry frisk, Judge Harris wrote.

Read the ruling here:

Go here to read the rest:
Utah Court of Appeals upholds the controversial police practice of stop and frisk - KSTU FOX 13 Salt Lake City

Draft legislation to regulate government use of facial recognition software was unveiled and subsequently abandoned Wednesday after some lawmakers worried it did not do enough to protect privacy.

The issue erupted in July when a report from Georgetown Universitys Center on Privacy and Technology revealed the Utah Department of Public Safety ran more than 1,000 searches through the state drivers license database at the request of federal law enforcement agencies. During many of the searches, images of criminal suspects were run through the database, which contains millions of photos of Utahns, in order to find a potential match.

DPS later admitted that it also runs every new drivers license photo including images of minors through the database in order to prevent fraud.

But none of that is an issue for Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City.

I want to make sure that someone is not getting a fake ID, Thatcher said. So I personally have no problem with my face being searched 2,000 times a day to ensure that were not supporting people in identity theft and identity fraud.

A draft bill he spearheaded would have required the Drivers License Division to disclose the searches on new license applications, but would not have limited those searches in any way.

But Thatcher was largely focused on regulating new technology he said is coming up quick and could be used in surveillance. His bill would have prohibited the use of facial recognition systems to conduct surveillance in public spaces without a warrant. A similar bill was recently introduced by U.S. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Chris Coons, D-DE, at the federal level.

But Utah lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had lingering concerns about the regular searches in the drivers license database and whether they violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy, said running photos of criminal suspects through the database is akin to pulling over every driver when you got a tip that one car in this area has some illegal contraband in it, so you subject everyone to this search.

Thatcher disagreed, saying he believes the Fourth Amendment protects against physical interactions with law enforcement such as interrogations and blood draws, not using a government-issued ID in a database search.

When someone is pulled over, they are physically detained. Their right of movement has been restricted, he said. The idea that were stopping every single Utahn 2,000 times a day to me, that doesnt connect.

Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, said most committee members were concerned with the use of the database to search for matches of criminal suspects.

Were basically taking a drivers license, which is not a criminal proceeding, not a criminal license, and youre allowing it to be used in searches for criminal issues, and thats a Fourth Amendment issue, he said.

Brammer suggested an amendment requiring a warrant in searches requested by law enforcement, an idea Thatcher shot down.

When it appeared the bill would not get enough support to pass, the committee adjourned without voting on it. Afterward, Thatcher said he is not interested in making any changes to the legislation and will abandon it, though he expects a different lawmaker will take up the issue in the 2020 legislative session.

Continue reading here:
Lawmakers Abandon Bill Regulating Facial Recognition Software Over Concerns Of Inadequate Protection - KUER 90.1

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, however, contends the report is contrary to video and audio evidence.

In a police report filed following the Jan. 12 arrest of Kelvin F. Rodriguez, 33, and obtained by The Globe in a public data request, arresting officer Mark Riley reported that based on his belief, Rodriguez slipped on the ice and fell while running through the Scholtes Auto World car lot. Rileys report notes that Rodriguez appeared to have gotten back up and continued running. Upon catching up with Rodriguez, Riley noted witnessing Rodriguez stand up again and put his hands in the air.

Rileys report indicates his vision was obstructed by parked vehicles in the car dealership, and that his information is based mostly on what he could hear.

Rileys ride-along that night, Evan Eggers who the ACLU accused of kicking Rodriguez in the back was interviewed by a police sergeant five days later. In the interview, Eggers, 22, corroborated Rileys report, stating: You could see (Rodriguez) running, see his head above the cars, and then all of a sudden its like he ducked down. I think thats when he fell.

Worthington Police Chief Troy Appel referred comment to legal counsel regarding the department's policy of interviewing ride-alongs. Legal counsel couldn't be reached prior to Friday's deadline.

The ACLU released dash cam footage it obtained of the arrest upon filing its civil lawsuit Oct. 14. The arrest, which was made prior to the police department wearing body cameras, takes place behind a line of parked vehicles.

Warning: The video contains expletives.

Rodriguez was connected to an assault that occurred at The Tap earlier that night, according to police reports filed by multiple officers. Rodriguez's criminal case, in which he was convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, concluded Oct. 15. Because the criminal matter had resolved in court, the police reports became public.

Related:

Plaintiff in ACLU lawsuit sentenced in criminal case

The new information isnt leading the ACLU, who represents Rodriguez, to change its position.

In an amended complaint, the ACLU says Rileys report that Rodriguez slipped on the ice and fell implies a cause for his injuries other than the pressure of Rileys knee to Rodriguezs back. The ACLU calls Rileys report contrary to live video and audio recordings of the incident, and maintains that Rileys action, coupled with alleged delay of medical attention, caused Rodriguez four broken ribs, internal bleeding, a partially collapsed lung, a lacerated liver and injured spleen.

Rodriguez was reportedly airlifted by medical helicopter to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where he spent five days in the intensive care unit.

On behalf of the defendants, defense counsel filed a response to the litigation denying each and every thing, matter and particular alleged in the complaint.

The defenses answer also indicates that, upon good faith belief, Riley and Eggers performed actions that were lawful, constitutional, proper and pursuant to probable cause. The defense also denies any deliberate indifference to (Rodriguezs) medical needs.

The defenses answer also denies that Eggers ever had physical contact with Rodriguez.

The ACLU is requesting a jury trial seeking reasonable compensation related to damages, attorney fees and declaring that Rodriguezs Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

The defense requests the litigation be permanently dismissed.

A pretrial conference on the matter is scheduled at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 12. The conference is scheduled in judges chambers at the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in St. Paul.

Original post:
New information released in ACLU excessive use of force lawsuit - The Globe

Want the best of VICE News straight to your inbox? Sign up here.

Right now, cops can easily track and pull over millions of people not because theyre swerving or speeding, but because theyre driving a car registered to a person with a suspended license.

Now, the Supreme Court could soon put an end to those traffic stops to uphold drivers Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches or seizures. It's not always clear that the driver of the car is also the registered owner, which means people could get pulled over even if they weren't doing anything wrong.

The case, Kansas v. Glover, addresses whether cops can pull someone over because the car theyre driving is registered to someone with a suspended license. To initiate these stops, police rely on the assumption that a cars driver is also its owner, but drivers often share cars with their family members or friends. And being pulled over can subject them to searches or arrests they may not have otherwise had to deal with.

Thats especially dangerous for people of color, according to advocates. Black men like Philando Castile, Walter Scott, and Samuel Debose were shot and killed by police in what started as routine traffic stops.

The consequences for black drivers here are enormous when an officer is operating on an assumption that may or may not be true, said said Lisa Foster, the co-director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, which participated in a brief urging the Supreme Court to put an end to the stops. We know that black drivers get pulled over in some studies, at ten times the rate of white drivers; we know black drivers are more likely once theyre pulled over to be searched.

Police say pulling someone over for a suspended license is necessary because the driver might be actively committing a crime, and the officer can always let the person go if theyre wrongly identified. Officers also want to be able to freely use automatic license plate readers which have become standard in even the smallest police departments over the last decade to pull someone over when its too difficult to manually scan a license plate, search for a description of the driver, and match that description.

But at least 11 million licenses across the country are suspended solely because of unpaid court or traffic debts and not because the indebted person is a dangerous driver, according to the Free to Drive campaign. That doesnt even include people who have lost their licenses over unpaid child support, minor drug crimes, or other non-traffic offenses.

The consequences for black drivers here are enormous."

Before automatic license plate readers, cops often only discovered a drivers license was suspended after they had pulled them over for some other traffic violation. And if the Supreme Court affirms the practice of pulling over anyone suspected of driving with a suspended license, police will essentially have a database of cars ready to stop, according to William Maurer, the managing attorney for the Institute for Justices office in Washington state. The non-profit law firm joined with the Fines and Fees Justice Center in urging he Supreme Court to reconsider the stops.

It creates a two-tiered justice system: People who are able to afford the fines and fees debt that accompany things like traffic tickets and parking tickets will not feel this intrusion, Maurer said.

The case stems from a 2016 traffic stop where a Kansas police officer scanned the license plate of a pickup truck and noticed it was registered to a person with a suspended license. Based on the assumption that the owner of the truck was also the person driving the car, the officer pulled over Charles Glover Jr., who wasnt committing any other traffic violation. It turned out the car was Glovers, and he was cited for driving unlawfully.

But Glover appealed, arguing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer didnt have a good enough reason to pull him over. The car couldve just as easily been driven by someone who wasnt Glover, but the officer wouldnt have had any way of knowing until they had already initiated the traffic stop. The Kansas Supreme Court took Glovers side, but the state appealed to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in Glovers favor, several state attorneys general, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and even the Trump administration argue that public safety would be put at risk. But if the decision is struck down, they say cops will have the official greenlight they need to to make more routine traffic stops and keep suspended drivers off the road.

During arguments earlier this month, the Supreme Court appeared to lean toward the side taken by police and prosecutors. Justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said that officers use common sense when they assume the driver of a car is also its owner and shouldnt have to rely on much else.

Reasonable suspicion does not have to be based on statistics, it does not have to be based on specialized experience. As we've said often, it can be based on common sense, Roberts said.

Cover image: Policeman pulls over a driver for speeding, getting out of police car to write a traffic ticket. (kali9 via Getty Images)

Follow this link:
Cops Can Pull Drivers Over Who Aren't Breaking the Law. The Supreme Court Could Change That. - VICE

When the United States Supreme Court ruled last year that Fourth Amendment protections apply to location data on mobile devices, it was hailed as a significant privacy victory for individuals. But what wasnt clear is how intelligence and law enforcement agencies would handle the ruling when it came to using their authority under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to collect phone location data.

But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has sent a letter to a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirming that the intelligence community and Department of Justice have not been collecting mobile device location data using Section 215 since the ruling in June 2018. That section is what gives agencies the authority to gather information, including some telephone record information as part of national security investigations, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That power has been highly controversial for many years, and privacy advocates and some legislators have been pushing for Section 215 to be reformed to provide better privacy protections for individuals.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that mobile phone location records are afforded Fourth Amendment protections. In a letter responding to questions from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Assistant DNI for Legislative Affairs Benjamin Fallon said that the intelligence community has stopped collection of those records, including cell site location information (CSLI), under Section 215.

While neither the Department of Justice nor the INtelligence Community has reached a legal conclusion as to whether the traditional Title V provision may be used to obtain CSLI in light of Carpenter, given the significant constitutional and statutory issues the decision raises for use of that authority to obtain such data, the Intelligence Community has not sought CSLI records or global positioning system (GPS) records pursuant to Title V of FISA since Carpenter was decided, the letter says.

Both GPS and CSLI records can be used to reconstruct the historical location and movements of an individuals device, which raises serious privacy concerns. In July, Wyden sent a letter to Dan Coats, who was then the DNI, asking how the Carpenter ruling affected the intelligence communitys ability to collect CSLI. The response from Fallon makes clear that for right now, intelligence agencies are not collecting that information under Section 215, but that does not preclude the government from getting that data with a warrant.

Wyden said the decision not to use Section 215 to gather CLSI data should be codified in law.

The Intelligence Community has now publicly revealed that, since the Supreme Court decision more than a year ago, it hasnt used Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to track Americans, Wyden said in a statement.

At the same time, the government is hedging its bets by not formally acknowledging that the Supreme Court case applies to intelligence surveillance. The Supreme Court has confirmed that tracking our movements without a warrant is unconstitutional. Now that Congress is considering reauthorizing Section 215, it needs to write a prohibition on warrantless geolocation collection into black-letter law. As the past year has shown, Americans dont need to choose between liberty and security Congress should reform Section 215 to ensure we have both.

Read the original:
US Government Has Stopped Warrantless Collection of Phone Data - Decipher

U.S. protects rights

I noticed an article in The World-Herald about a federal court in Boston ruling that warrantless U.S. government searches of phones and laptops of international travelers at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper said U.S. border agents need reasonable suspicion of contraband such as classified national security information or child pornography in order to search travelers devices at U.S. ports of entry without a warrant.

I wondered where in this world but in the good old U.S.A. can the rights of both the citizens of a country and those from other countries rights be protected?

Thats why I call the good old U.S.A. the greatest country on the planet.

Robert Martinez Sr., Omaha

Kudos to youth ballet

A huge shout-out and congratulations to the members of Heartland Youth Ballet for another outstanding performance.

These pre-professional dance students performed Madelines Rescue, a delightful childrens story, in front of hundreds of people last weekend, inside the beautiful Kish Theater at Marian High School.

Under the direction of Rachel Vickrey Hartley, these students were absolutely amazing. Thank you to Rachel for providing these students such fantastic opportunities to perform in so many beautiful ballets.

Our family is looking forward to the next production in April, Hansel and Gretel.

Janet and Rich Phipps, Papillion

Anxiety on campus

Rick Ruggles authored an excellent and thought-provoking article on counseling of college students in the Nov. 18 World-Herald (UNL is putting counselors in dorms to meet growing need for mental health care in college).

He mentioned that a sizable number of students suffer from anxiety, depression, loneliness and feelings of hopelessness. Why is this happening? This old school retiree offers these causes:

Many of the students are not academically prepared for college life. Statewide testing of high school students indicates that many are deficient in various areas of study. This is not a good indication that they will be successful as college students.

The misuse of social media contributes to wasted time and lack of discipline on hitting the books. What portion of students who require counseling use their phones more than two hours per day? The answer would probably be alarming.

Student debt has soared to over $1 trillion. Much of that can be attributed to undisciplined and ill-prepared students who are wasting time on a college campus.

There is no easy answer for the dilemma outlined in Ruggles article. One suggestion is offered to address this situation. Parents should be realistic before their sons and daughters are sent off to college. Check their ACT scores and their study habits. If they are not ready, help them consider an alternative path for their early and formative years.

Counter-arguments dont track

I am really having problems with the counter-arguments for President Donald Trumps guilt in the impeachment hearing:

1. The witnesses so far did not have direct contact with the president. Perhaps these civil servants more than anyone would know what was going on as they implement the orders from their superiors, including Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Each has refused to testify, which doesnt make sense as they certainly could clear things up if the president is innocent.

2. The aid to Ukraine was released after the whistleblowers complaint was made known. Therefore, the argument goes, Trump only attempted bribery, and his behavior is not impeachable. This is like saying attempted robbery or attempted murder is not a crime. Come on.

3. The whistleblower must testify. I really dont know what this would do as he/she only alerted superiors of the problem, and plenty of people have confirmed his/her account. Also, it is illegal to out a whistleblower.

4. The Democrats are not allowing equal time for Republicans to speak and question witnesses. Not true. I observed both parties questioning the witnesses. Reps. Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff both had time for opening remarks. Both parties attended the closed-door hearings.

5. President Barack Obama did not allocate as much aid to Ukraine as Trump has. I dont really know what this has to do with what the president did or didnt do in terms of a quid pro quo, etc.

Charlotte Shields, Papillion

Questionable accomplishments

Before deciding the merits of President Donald Trumps possible impeachment, we need to remember some of his questionable accomplishments.

1. Provided a sugar rush to the economy and the stock market by passing massive tax cuts that largely benefited corporations and the richest Americans. Sadly, these tax cuts added a trillion dollars to the U.S. deficit.

2. Nominated two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

3. Saved money for U.S. taxpayers by not buying beds for immigrant children crowded in cages.

4. Provided paper towels to desperate hurricane victims of Puerto Rico.

5. Helped diversify Americans diets by allowing coal companies to dump mining debris into rivers, increasing Americans chances of getting mercury and arsenic in their diets.

6. Helped teach Americans concepts such as: quid pro quo, emoluments clause, campaign-finance violations, obstruction of justice and foreign election interference.

Hold on tight. There will be more questionable accomplishments to come.

David and Barb Daughton, Omaha

Gift of groceries

I would like to thank the generous lady who paid for my groceries recently at the WalMart at Interstate 80 and Highway 370. It was a pleasant surprise and such a nice gesture. It was very much appreciated by this Korean War veteran.

Read the rest here:
Public Pulse: U.S. protects rights; Kudos to youth ballet; Reasons behind anxiety on campus - Omaha World-Herald

A 13-count federal indictment filed in court Thursday charges James W. Millegan, 62, a former Oregon securities broker, with investment account churning and tax evasion.

Millegan of McMinnville owned and operated J.W. Millegan Inc., an investment advisory business that served clients in the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas.

From March 2010 through May 2017, Millegan is accused of having bought and sold securities for clients investment accounts to generate commissions for himself. He generated more than $2.5 million in trading commissions while he cost 12 investors more than $4.3 million in unrealized investment gains, according to prosecutors.

Millegan also is accused of not paying more than $3.3 million in taxes between July 2006 and September 2016. He allegedly transferred funds to hidden bank accounts to conceal his multimillion dollars in commissions.

Millegan has not yet appeared in federal court.

The charges come more than two years after federal authorities executed a search warrant and raided Millegans home at gunpoint and took his client files, according to his lawyer. Millegan is set to make his first appearance in U.S. District Court in Portland on Dec. 6.

Mr. Millegan will appear in court as required and looks forward to clearing his name,'' said his lawyer, Oregon Federal Defender Lisa Hay. "In litigation that has already occurred, weve successfully addressed government over-reaching, failure to return property, and apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment. We look forward to continuing to protect Mr. Millegans constitutional rights and to vigorously challenging the governments allegations.

The litigation surrounding his lawyers challenge of the search warrant and seizure of Millegans files remains sealed.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email at mbernstein@oregonian.com

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian http://twitter.com/maxoregonian

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.

Original post:
Former Oregon securities broker charged with investment fraud, tax evasion - OregonLive

Even with the looming expiration of Section 215 and other key provisions of the Patriot Act, it took the Intelligence Community almost four months to respond to a letter written by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) seeking clarification on how the Intelligence Community interprets the landmark Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States and whether it is using Section 215 to collect Americans location data.

Wydens concerns were entirely justified. We know that the NSA has used Section 215 to collect cell phone location data in the past. But last year in Carpenter, the Supreme Court held that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they collected days of cell site location information about a robbery suspect without a warrant. In his letter, Senator Wyden noted that he and other senators had repeatedly asked others in the government what it saw as Carpenters effects on the intelligence community, but hadnt gotten any answers. Indeed, EFF, ACLU, and others have been asking these same questions. If Congress is to reauthorize Section 215 before it expires in December, Wyden wrote, it needs to know how this law is being interpreted now, as well as how it could be interpreted in the future.

Senator Wyden sent that letter to the then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats on July 30, and then he waited. And waited. And waited.

Now, we finally have a response. Unfortunately, its not a very satisfying one. In his November 14 response, Assistant DNI Benjamin Fallon wrote that although the DOJ and ODNI have not used Section 215 to collect location data since Carpenter was decided, they had not reached a legal conclusion about whether they were authorized to do so.

We recognize this belated nonanswer for what it isa signal that the intelligence community is not taking its duties of transparency and oversight seriously. Carpenter may be the most important privacy decision from the Supreme Court in a generation, and it should have clear and immediate impact on any warrantless collection of location data as part of criminal investigations and intelligence activities alike. And even if lawyers for the intelligence community read the case differently, they should be able to reach a legal conclusion eighteen months after it was decided.

Congress and the public deserve to see these legal conclusions, especially given the NSAs track record of reaching secret interpretations of Section 215 that crumble under scrutiny by courts. Moreover, waiting this much time only to reveal such paltry information about how these far-reaching surveillance programs function is unacceptable. Politics takes time. Legislation takes time. And to leave these types of answers until the last-minute shows how little regard the Intelligence Community has for Congressional oversight of their invasive surveillance programs.

Now, a 90-day reauthorization of Section 215 and other provisions of the Patriot Act is being shoved into a continuing resolution to fund the government. This tactic will no doubt be touted as a necessity because of the short timespan before the December 15 sunset. The government might not be feeling the pinch, of course, if it took this more seriously and engaged in even the most basic transparency.

Now that we have ODNIs paltry response to Senator Wydens question, it is even more important that Congress pass Section 215 legislation that includes clarification that the law cannot be used to collect location information. Simply put, Congress and the Intelligence Community cannot put off reckoning with Section 215 indefinitely. EFF and others have been pushing for significant reforms to the lawincluding codifying Carpenters effectand we will fight just as hard as the new sunset date approaches.

More:
The Intelligence Community Took Months to Respond to a Key Question About Section 215, And It Still Doesn't Have Any Legal Conclusion - EFF

During Michael Bloomberg's three terms as mayor of New York City, the number of people detained under the NYPD's "stop, question, and frisk" (SQF) program skyrocketed from fewer than 100,000 in 2002 to more than 685,000 in 2011. The program was perennially controversial because it seemed to violate the Fourth Amendment and because it overwhelmingly targeted young black and Hispanic men. Bloomberg nevertheless was always a staunch defender of ituntil yesterday, when he told the congregation of a large African-American church in Brooklyn he has seen the error of his ways.

"I was wrong," Bloomberg said in a speech at the Christian Cultural Center, "and I am sorry." The dramatic reversal may be the surest sign yet that Bloomberg is entering the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. But it is transparently insincere, since he cannot offer a plausible explanation for his convenient conversion, aside from crass political considerations.

"I got something important really wrong," Bloomberg said. "I didn't understandback then the full impact that stops were having on the black and Latino communities. I was totally focused on saving lives. But as we know, good intentions aren't good enough. Now, hindsight is 20/20. But as crime continued to come down as we reduced stopsand as it continued to come down during the next administration, to its creditI now see that we could and should have acted sooner, and acted faster, to cut the stops. I wish we had, and I'm sorry that we didn't."

SQF's racially disproportionate impact was always one of the main complaints against it. The issue figured prominently in a federal judge's 2013 decision deeming the tactic unconstitutional as practiced by the NYPD. It is impossible to believe that Bloomberg took this objection to heart only recently. Even after U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin concluded that the program violated the Fourth and 14th amendments, Bloomberg continued to defend it.

Scheindlin found that police were commonly detaining, questioning, and searching New Yorkers without the "reasonable suspicion" the Supreme Court has said the Fourth Amendment requires. She also concluded, based on data showing who was stopped and what happened afterward, that cops were deciding who was suspicious based partly on race, thereby violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Scheindlin's analysis of data on 4.4 million stops from January 2004 to June 2012 strongly suggested that reasonable suspicion was the exception rather than the rule. During this period, she noted, only 12 percent of people subjected to the "demeaning and humiliating" experience of being treated like criminals were arrested or issued a summons. And although police were supposed to frisk a subject only if they reasonably believed he was armed, 52 percent of these encounters included pat-downs, only 1.5 percent of which discovered a weapon. Even when officers reached into people's clothing after feeling what they claimed to think was a weapon, they found one just 9 percent of the time.

The fact that people stopped by police turned out to be innocent nine times out of 10 also figured in Scheindlin's equal protection analysis. "The City and its highest officials believe that blacks and Hispanics should be stopped at the same rate as their proportion of the local criminal suspect population," she wrote. "But this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocentnot criminal.While a person's race may be important if it fits the description of a particular crime suspect, it is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals. The Equal Protection Clause does not permit race-based suspicion."

Bloomberg was outraged by Scheindlin's decision, which he immediately promised to appeal. "There is just no question that stop-question-frisk has saved countless lives," he said. "And we know that most of the lives saved, based on the statistics, have been black and Hispanic young men." He complained that Scheindlin "made it clear she was not interested in the crime reductions" and "ignored the real-world realities of crime."

The assertion that SQF "saved countless lives" is highly dubious, but Bloomberg's result-oriented reasoning was notable in any case. Rather than defending the program's constitutionality, he has consistently defended its effectiveness. In his view, the tiny and declining percentage of stops that yielded guns showed the program was workingas a deterrent. He thereby conceded that the searches generally were unconstitutional because they were not justified by reasonable suspicion. His attitude was: So what, as long as it works?

Scheindlin answered that question in her decision. "This case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk in deterring or combating crime," she wrote. "This Court's mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, notits effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crimepreventive detention or coerced confessions, for examplebut because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."

That point always seemed to elude Bloomberg. But now that he is about to run for the Democratic presidential nomination, he says he gets it, sort of:

By my final year in office, support for the department had eroded. And the main reason was the practice of something called stop and frisk.

Our focus was on saving lives. The fact is, far too many innocent people were being stopped while we tried to do that. The overwhelming majority of them were black and Latino. That may have included, I'm sorry to say, some of you here today. Perhaps yourself or your children, or your grandchildren, or your neighbors, or your relatives.

I spoke with many of the innocent people affected, and listened to their frustrations and their anger. And as I said at the time, I'd be angry, too.

So in 2012, in my third term, we began putting more safeguards in place, and we began scaling back the number of stops. As we did that, we noticed something important: crime did not go back up.

So we began scaling the stops back fasterand further. And by the time I left office, we had cut stops by 94 percent.

While Bloomberg implies that he saw the light on SQF by the end of his third term, he continued to defend the program after leaving office, arguing, without much evidence, that it reduced violent crime. In an interview with The New York Times last year, he suggested that his record of supporting SQF would prove to be an asset if he entered the presidential race. "I think people, the voters, want low crime," he said. "They don't want kids to kill each other." As recently as March, he was mocking the notion of launching "an apology tour," la Joe Biden, to make up for a history of supporting anti-crime policies that are now unpopular with Democratic primary voters.

Bloomberg may have changed his mind about the political risks of continuing to brag about SQF. But the idea that he suddenly realized the program was unfair and unconstitutional after defending it for nearly two decades, even if you believe it, is hardly reassuring. It makes you wonder what mistakes he would make as president that he would come to regret years after leaving office.

Visit link:
Michael Bloomberg's Convenient 'Stop and Frisk' Conversion Is Transparently Insincere - Reason