Here's a Youtube video
of people refusing to submit to questioning and searches by the Department of Homeland Security and California's produce checkpoints. [more inside]
posted by deborah
on Feb 27, 2013 -
Remember Kentucky v. King from last year
? The mis-reported conclusion was that police could enter a home without a warrant to prevent destruction of evidence based on hearing movement after knocking. A week ago the supreme court of Kentucky published
(pdf) its revisiting of the case given instructions from the US supreme court, and found in favor of King (via
): [more inside]
posted by a robot made out of meat
on May 3, 2012 -
In admitting that they have no expertise in running a corrections system, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that officers have unfettered authority to conduct full strip searches
of any arrested individual, even for the most minor of offenses and in situations where officers lack any suspicion of contraband. The ruling comes days after the NY Times ran an analysis suggesting that the current supreme court is the most conservative court
in modern history.
posted by GnomeChompsky
on Apr 2, 2012 -
How “secure” do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?
Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches [more inside]
posted by AceRock
on May 17, 2011 -
A new twist in the controversy over the (ab)use of tasers.
A judge in Niagara County, NY has decided
that tasing a suspect who refused to submit to DNA testing was a reasonable use of force. Ryan Smith, accused of robbery and kidnapping, already submitted one sample, which was contaminated when the government sent it to the wrong laboratory, and refused to give one a second time. The police asked a prosecutor what to do. His response: they could use force to get the sample, but as little as possible. So they tased Smith, who then submitted to the buccal swab. [more inside]
posted by R_Nebblesworth
on Jun 5, 2009 -
On December 18, 2004, Ascension Alverez-Tejeda
and his girlfriend were stopped at a traffic light near La Pine Oregon, and when the light turned green, the car in front of them stalled. Alverez-Tejeda stopped in time but a pickup truck behind him rear-ended him. When he got out to look at his bumper, the police showed up and arrested the truck driver for drinking and driving. The cops then convinced Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend to go to a nearby parking lot, ordered them out of their car and into in the back of the cop car for 'processing.' While they were in the cruiser, a person jumped in their car and took off. The cops ordered the pair out and set off in full pursuit up the road.
But it was all a set up worthy of David Mamet. DEA agents were tracking a drug gang and. . .decided to stage something, perhaps even a carjacking, in order to seize the drugs without tipping off the conspirators. They never consulted a judge, but every person in the story, other than Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend, was a cop of some sort.
posted by EarBucket
on Jun 9, 2007 -
"And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government."
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, publicly responds to criticisms
on the publication of information about clandestine surveillance of private bank records of Americans
, offering a rare glimpse into the Fourth Estate's complicated negotiations with the government over issues of public interest.
posted by Mr. Six
on Jun 26, 2006 -
The Supreme Court
ruled a week ago that police may enter a private home without a warrant to break up a fight. Does this have any bearing on the War On Terror? Some people think so.
posted by EarBucket
on May 29, 2006 -
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held
in a 5-3 decision
(.pdf) that police may not search a home if any inhabitant of the home is present and objects to the search, even if another inhabitant consents. The Court drew what it acknowledged is a “fine line” – if a co-inhabitant is at the door and objects, the police can’t enter; but if the co-inhabitant is somewhere else – even in a nearby police car – and has no opportunity to object, then police don’t need his or her consent. Chief Justice Roberts issued his first written dissent, blasting the majority’s “random” and “arbitrary” rule and suggesting that the ability of police to respond to domestic violence threats could be compromised. The zingers in the footnotes
may reveal “strains behind the surface placidity and collegiality of the young Roberts court.”
posted by brain_drain
on Mar 23, 2006 -
The ACLU wants to protect your privacy
from government electronic surveillance programs like Echelon and Carnivore. Their full page ad
in today's NYT claims 4th amendment
rights are being violated by the US government, which is overstepping their bounds, and nearly free of up-to-date laws. Is it to late or can anything be done to protect civilian electronic communication?
posted by mathowie
on Apr 15, 2001 -