State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police

Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property.

All too often, we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.

Well, Indiana has taken action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”

This special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.

Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.

Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

Instead of looking at the beneficial aspect of this law, which creates the incentive for police to act responsibly and just, Hubbard takes the ‘higher than thou’ attitude and is simply worried about himself.

How about questioning the immoral laws that you are enforcing in the first place? Or how about sympathizing with the innocent people whose pets and family members have been slain, due to police negligence?

Who’s to say that a cop pulling you over to extort money from you for the victimless crime of not wearing a seatbelt, isn’t an unlawful act? Or how about breaking down your door in the middle of the night to kidnap you and throw you in a cage for possessing a plant?

Hopefully this legislation will lead to these arbitrary traffic and drug enforcement “laws” in place solely for revenue collection (aka theft), being brought into question.

The law states:

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence.

Woman Forced to Expose Her Body and Remove Tampon as 5 Cops Watch

CHICAGO — A woman is filing a lawsuit after being deeply humiliated when a group of male police officers forced her to strip on the road, joking about her body as they forced her to remove her bloody tampon.

It began when the woman and her two male friends were startled to see an unmarked car driving toward them on the wrong side of the street, according to Courthouse News.

With her bloody tampon exposed, the officer began finger probing her vagina — the other 5 officers looked on and joked about her body.

Officers emerged from the car and decided to perform a “search.”

They detained the woman and her friends and took them to a nearby alley where they could not be seen by residents in the community.

At that point another cop, officer Wherfel, came to the scene and ordered the woman to remove her pants, while surrounded by five other officers — all males.

According to reports, the woman begged the officers to keep her pants on.

She explained that she had a tampon inside of her because she was menstruating.

“Are you really forcing me to strip in front of these men?” asked the woman.

“Yes,” said officer Wherfel, while snapping on latex gloves.

That’s when officer Wherfel ordered the woman to take out her tampon.

Humiliated and crying, the woman was forced to pull out her blood-stained tampon in front of everybody and leave it on the ground, exposing herself to the group of men.

Officer Wherfel got close to the woman and began finger “probing” the woman’s vagina.

As Wherfel did this, the other five officers began making jokes about the woman’s body, adding to her humiliation.

No drugs or other illegal contraband were found on the woman, according to the lawsuit. The woman, however, reports that officer Wherfel planted a sack of heroin on her in order to falsely arrest her after the humiliation.

The woman is now suing for unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, conspiracy to violate civil rights, failure to intervene, and emotional distress and battery, according to the Courthouse News report.

Barrett Brown’s Defense Moves to Protect the Right to Link

Today Barrett Brown’s defense has hit back against a chilling attack on the future and freedom of the internet: the criminalization of linking. In a motion to dismiss the second indictment, his legal team has set forth several reasons for these charges to be thrown out.

Allegations that Brown transmitted a hyperlink in a chat-room, pointing to data that was obtained during the late-2011 hack of Stratfor Global Intelligence, are at the center of the government’s case. For this action he faces numerous charges of identity theft and fraud, altogether adding up to a potential sentence of several decades in prison.

Many have expressed incredulity and concern at the fact that Brown is being charged for sharing a link – since the government’s theory equates transmitting a link to possessing the underlying information, a precedent that poses a great danger to information sharing and routine journalism practices. Arguably, this prosecution has already resulted in chilling effects among those who report on leaks and data dumps.

The link at issue was to an archive containing part of Stratfor’s customer database, which happened to include some credit card numbers, along with information of public interest. Its entries revealed the extensive connections of their clients to the government, private industry, the military and defense world, and think-tanks. Notably, many reporters and outlets who made use of the same link remain unindicted.

The founder of Barrett Brown’s legal defense fund, Kevin Gallagher, said “They can’t even prove that he knew what was in the file he linked to, and downloaded or opened it. He neither hosted the file nor was involved in the theft of the information. His intent was purely journalistic and not criminal. He never gained anything materially from sending a link. What we’re seeing here is the misapplication of the law in order to punish dissent.”

“The government has indicated that it cannot show a connection between Mr. Brown’s republication of the hyperlink and a single transfer of authentication features, transfer of CVVs and/or illicit credit card transactions.”

In interview with VICE last year, Brown stated, “They’re trying to claim that I intentionally tried to spread credit card information, but I was opposed to that. And I was on record being opposed to it… I’ve always been opposed to spreading credit cards.”

Accordingly, the motion just filed by Brown’s legal team, while examining the relevant statutes and case law, makes several points: about the meaning of authentication features, that the hyperlink itself didn’t contain CVVs and so cannot constitute a transfer, that Brown’s republication of a link is protected speech, and the statutes are vague and overbroad. Foremost, that merely linking to information which is already publicly available should be protected by the First Amendment.

“Republishing a hyperlink does not itself move, convey, select, place or otherwise transfer, a file or document from one location to another. The information sent. . . is not the information content itself, but rather a short text string—a URL—that identifies and locates content on the internet.”

A related dataset of Stratfor e-mails published by WikiLeaks as the Global Intelligence Files has been continuously cited as a source in stories filed by journalists all over the globe in recent years. Jeremy Hammond, the politically-motivated hacker responsible for the breach is currently serving a 10 year sentence, while Brown faces considerably more time for researching and reporting on the story.

We hope that the Court recognizes the constitutional issues at stake and their importance to basic press freedoms and grants a swift and just dismissal. The precedent that is established here will affect all internet users and their rights to link.

“The activities prohibited include those of everyday members of the public desiring to conduct research on the internet, cyber security researchers who wish to analyze and prevent cyber-attacks and journalists who wish to perform routine press activities such as newsgathering and verification of sources.”

Read some previous statements by organizations about the significance of this issue.

The TSA is looking for Bitcoin

by Davi Barker

It seems like every time I fly I have an interesting interaction with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). I make it a point to always opt out, and if possible always strike up a conversation with the man molesting me. But yesterday was by far the most frightening, as well as cautionary for Bitcoin users. I’m going to begin simply by relaying the facts as observed, including some that will seem insignificant at first. Then I will provide some analysis, as well as speculation what’s going on here. What’s absolutely clear is that the TSA is looking for Bitcoin, and Bitcoin users need to be conscious when they travel, especially internationally.

I was flying out of Manchester, on my way home from the New Hampshire Liberty Forum. By coincidence I ran into Bill Buppert from ZeroGov.com and his wife while checking my luggage. And we happened to be taking the same flight. I met Bill last week at the Freedom Summit in Arizona, spent time with him again at Liberty Forum, and we have become fast friends. Without his help, I’m not sure what would have happened to me.

I was wearing my Bitcoin Not Bombs hoodie which features an image of a B17 bomber dropping Bitcoin from its bomb bay doors. The sweatshirt does not feature the words “Bitcoin Not Bombs” only the image.

We approached the TSA screening and began to put our things in the gray bins. My things required two bins. One for my backpack and shoes, and the other for my laptop and phone. I asked the greeting officer to point me to the opt-out line. Bill immediately told the agent that he would also like to opt-out, and he thanked me for making that choice.

Bill went first, but I was told to stand right beside him. Bill’s strategy is very simple, and effective. He plainly told the officer, “I understand, but please don’t touch my dick.” This immediately perturbed the agent, a man named Tinker, which was the only name badge I saw clearly. Tinker immediately called over a superior officer.

Bill continued to converse with Tinker, however I could not make out the conversation as my pat down had begun. His name began with a Y, and looked Russian in origin, but I cannot say with certainty what it was. Y asked me to identify my property in the gray bins, then he placed it right in front of me and asked me to keep an eye on it for my own peace of mind. He emphasized watching my property three times, which they don’t usually do. I appreciate that, but I didn’t say so. I try to say as little as possible.

A moment later a plump female agent told me she had to pull my backpack aside for further inspection. She asked if I would like to be present for that inspection. I said, “If I have a choice, of course I would like to be present when you search my belongings.” She replied “Of course you have a choice” which struck me as odd, since I had virtually no choices during most of my molestation. She picked up my backpack and began to leave with it.

I protested. “Wait! The other agent instructed me to keep an eye on my property. How can I do that if you put it in two different places?” The choices ended there. She informed me that she would watch my backpack while I was patted down, and I could watch her inspect it when Y was finished.

Y began to give me the standards speech he is required to give by law. I said I didn’t want a private screening, to which he responded, “If you are uncomfortable in any way, at any time we can stop and move to a private screening.” Apparently being made uncomfortable in private is somehow better.

When he explained that he was going to put his hands on my inner leg and move upward toward my torso until he “met resistance” I said, “If that’s all it takes I’m ready to resist now.” He paused, but only repeated the line finishing with “Believe me, I am as uncomfortable with this as you are.” That was my hook. I always prefer an appeal to humanity over an appeal to law. When an agent reveals something human about himself that is the area I like to explore. Y was uncomfortable. So, I asked him why he was uncomfortable. He said, “Why would anyone be comfortable doing this?” I replied, “I just find it interesting. I’ve never heard an agent say that before.” He said, “Well, we’re not all part of the security club around here.” The term struck me as strange, “the security club.”

He continued for a bit. Putting his hands in my pants and cupping my butt. Then I asked, “Did you work here before they implemented this policy?” He said no, that he had only been there a short time. He had been training to become a pilot, but that the government sequester meant that this was the only job available to him in aviation. He hoped to get out as soon as he found another opening. I wish I could remember this part of the conversation more specifically, but the names of the licenses and agencies that contributed to him being stuck in this job went by very quickly. The next thing I clearly remember is him saying, “There are a lot of us who are not on the security track. There’s a girl here waiting to be chemist.” Another interesting term, “the security track.”

I decided not give him any more flak. I thanked him for sharing with me, and wished him the best of luck becoming a pilot. He responded by wishing me luck in whatever my pursuits were, and after checking the swabs for chemical explosives, he cleared me for my enhanced backpack inspection.

The plump woman was very nice. She explained that there was a lot of metal in my bag and she needed to confirm what it was. I was carrying a few hundred metal lapel pins from ShinyBadges.com that I’d been selling at the conference. She began to remove my inventory, which was stored in clear plastic tubes each containing about 50 pins. 5 tubes in all, plus a blue display case with about another 50 pins. The pins were clearly visible without opening these cases with the exception of one. I had an opaque white plastic container which held about 100 pins. I had used it to deliver custom pins to Mandrik from Blockchain.info, and he returned it when he was finished. It had the Blockchain “B” logo drawn on the outside, which is similar to the common Bitcoin “B” logo, but not the same. I had no visible Bitcoin pins anywhere in my inventory. I sold out of them at the conference, and had only a small quantity of Blockchain pins in the opaque container. I also had no Bitcoin related flyers in my bag. I had given them all to other activists to bring home to their Bitcoin meetups.

The plump agent put all my containers in a separate gray bin to be screened again. She asked “Do you have any coins in these?” I replied, “No, why?” and she answered, “I just want to make sure you don’t have anything valuable.” Actually,” I replied “those are all valuable to me.”

She took both the bin with my backpack, and the bin with my inventory back to the front of the TSA screening area. I attempted to follow her, but was quickly cut off another male agent with a large imposing figure. “You can’t go that way. Stay here.” I protested, “The other agent instructed me to keep an eye on my property.” The plump woman continued out of sight and large agent told me I could stand in the area where people were putting their shoes back on. I could not see my property from there.

The plump woman returned, swabbed the inside of my backpack for chemical explosives, and said I was clear to leave. She offered to help repack my bag, but I said I’d rather do it myself.

Bill and his wife were sitting on a bench in the terminal waiting for me as I approached them. Then two men stepped between us, both wearing dress shirts, one orange and one blue. The orange shirt asked where I was traveling to. I replied “Earth.” This was not intended to be antagonistic. I usually reply that way when asked where I am from. It’s a product of my love for science fiction. He asked me to be more specific and I said, “The Northern part.” Admittedly snarky, but still not malicious. I didn’t know who these men were. I had already been cleared by security, and based on their attire and their forwardness I thought they might be other attendees of the conference on their way home. I was joking with them, like I do with most equals.

Then blue shirt said, “Just answer the question.”

Full stop. State speech is hate speech. I then noticed their name badges, but I didn’t have the forethought to commit them to memory. I responded, “Are you conducting some kind of an investigation, or do you have reason to suspect me of something?”

They identified themselves as “managers” and the orange shirt said he was obligated to inquire whether or not I was traveling internationally, which was not an answer to my question. I replied, “Am I obligated to answer your questions?” He replied, “If you are traveling internationally you are.” I replied, “Do you have any reason to suspect that I’m traveling internationally?” The orange shirt said “We’re the ones asking the questions here” and the the blue shirt asked to search my bag for my boarding pass. I told him that my bag was already inspected and didn’t contain anything dangerous, and that I didn’t consent to another search. He said until I was cleared by security he was free to search. I said I was cleared by security.

I was about to ask for my attorney, who happens to be my wife, when the orange shirt said, “What about Bitcoin?” I was flabbergasted. This was above and beyond any scrutiny I had ever received from the TSA, and a little frightening that they were looking for Bitcoin. I said I didn’t understand the question. He continued, “We saw Bitcoin in your bag and need to check.” I was incredulous, and asked, “Do you have a superior officer because I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.” The blue shirt replied by repeating that they were “managers,” but if I didn’t answer his questions he could call law enforcement and have me taken into custody. I asked, “Aren’t you law enforcement?” and he replied, “No we’re with the TSA.”

I turned back to the orange shirt and asked “What did the Bitcoin look like?” Bill chimed in and told the agent that what he was saying was impossible because Bitcoin is digital and doesn’t have have any physical manifestation. You can’t “see” Bitcoin. The orange shirt said they looked like medallions or tokens. I said I didn’t understand what he was talking about, and he simply repeated, in a child like way, that Bitcoins are like metal tokens. I told him that I didn’t have any tokens.

At this point I was beginning to panic and looking for a way out. Then the orange shirt said they needed to determine whether or not I was carrying more than $10,000, to which I asked how much cash he suspected I was carrying. I had about $300 in my wallet, 1.2 oz of silver in my pocket, and 4.20 Bitcoin accessible from, but not actually on my phone. I told them none of this. The orange shirt replied, “It depends how much Bitcoin you have.” I asked him what he thought a Bitcoin was worth, and he replied, “It fluctuates all the time.”

I was out of ideas. At that point I was certain I didn’t want to say another word. I thought they were ready to concoct some kind of money laundering charge. I began running scenarios in my head where I refused to unlock my phone for fear that they would construe my 4.20 Bitcoin as somehow worth more than $10,000. That’s when the blue shirt turned to Bill and his wife. He asked them if I was traveling internationally, to which Bill’s wife replied, “Not that I know of.” Then they turned and disappeared just as quickly as they had appeared.

I was shaking, and grateful that Bill and his wife were there, even just to bear witness. There were also other attendees from Liberty Forum in the terminal who came to observe, including one wearing a Bitcoin Not Bombs t-shirt. Once we reached our gate, and I calmed down, I began an audio recording as Bill and I recounted the events as best we could remember. During that time the orange shirt walked by appearing to be looking for me, Tinker, the agent who patted down Bill, was stationed away from the TSA screening area and was clearly keeping an eye on me, and two police officers with black flak jackets and sidearms were hovering around the gate until we boarded.

I didn’t fully relax until we were in the air, because I’ve seen cases of security pulling passengers right out of their seat.

There is so much to say about this encounter. It really was a kind of perfect storm. If I wasn’t wearing the hoodie it probably wouldn’t have happened. If I wasn’t carrying my Shiny Badges inventory it probably wouldn’t have happened. And if I wasn’t such a snarky sci-fi geek it probably wouldn’t have happened. But all these things came together to reveal something spooky about TSA policy.

Briefly, with regard to the pat downs, it’s interesting that Tinker would call an superior in response to Bill, when he knew full well that his procedure would not change, and could not change. I suspect he was seeking an authority figure to absolve him of responsibility, as the Milgram experiment suggests. It’s also interesting that Y would suggest that agents within the TSA are factionalized. A “security club” of people on the “security track” who are distinct from those eagerly seeking other work, because they are uncomfortable molesting people.

Things really began getting weird when the plump agent asked if I had any coins. It seemed innocuous at the time, because I’m accustomed to TSA agents asking me to empty coins out of my pockets, but this was different. The baggage x-ray machines aren’t intended to detect coins, and US coins aren’t terribly valuable anyway. If she was looking for valuables “coin” is a strange word to use. The word “coin” is very tricky in legal tender land. I learned from the Liberty Dollar case that the word “coin” holds some kind of special magic in the eyes of the State, and to avoid running afoul of legal tender laws silver rounds should be referred to as “tokens” or “medallions.” Interesting too that those are the exact words the agent in the orange shirt used. Also “coin” has become the emerging standards for all crypto-currency. To a diabolical mind, this could be quite an entrapping question. In the future I won’t be answering it.

I gave the worst possible answer, no coins, but still very valuable. My thinking at the time was that everything I own is too valuable to be molested by a bureaucrat. Why would I carry something that wasn’t valuable to me? Value is, after all, subjective. In hindsight I should have said nothing. My standard position of saying nothing to a bureaucrat I don’t have to had been compromised by my desire for theater in the screening process. This was foolish. This question of hers, “Do you have any coins” was, in my opinion, a carefully crafted gotcha question, and not the idle banter it seemed at the time. I had forgotten the central tenet that everything a bureaucrat does or says is against you. Every question you answer is a weapon against you. I should have said nothing.

If my answers to, and questions of the “managers” sounded needlessly evasive to you, understand simply that for me the theater was over, and that I had reverted to my standard position. I do not answer the questions of bureaucrats without an attorney present, and neither should you. The moment I realized the managers were part of the security apparatus, and they had taken an interest in me, I was going to give them nothing I was not threatened into giving, and neither should you. Because every question you answer is a weapon against you. Any statement which turns out to be false, even by mistake, can be construed as a serious crime. And any statement which turns out to be true, even if seemingly insignificant, can be construed as evidence against you. Making any statement of fact is an unnecessary risk. In hindsight I should not have said that I didn’t have any tokens. If this turned out to be false due to some lapse in memory I would have been in more serious trouble, just as if my statement that I didn’t have any coins would have. But I was ready for this to be over, and looking for a way out.

Telling them that I was not traveling internationally was the way out, although I didn’t know that at the time. At least for now this $10,000 limit only applies to international travel. Once they realized I was not traveling internationally they lost all legal basis to continue their investigation, but they clearly still regarded me as a criminal. Otherwise, why would they continue to monitor me? They were searching for another legal basis to harass me.

Here’s what I think happened from their perspective. Obviously, the TSA has been trained, although poorly, to look for Bitcoin. They are apparently now trying to catch money launderers in addition to terrorists, and large tubes of tooth paste. My hoodie is probably what caught their attention, and everything after that received extra attention. When they saw all the metal lapel pins in my bag they probably thought they hit the jackpot on a stockpile of Casascius coins. Whatever training they had it probably included that stock photo of brass tokens everyone uses. My evasiveness only quickened their blood lust, as they imagined a big bust, and possibly a promotion down the security track.

It was an open faced lie when they said they “saw” Bitcoins in my bag. Always remember bureaucrats can legally lie to you, but lying to them, even by mistake is a serious crime they’ll use as leverage to coerce further cooperation. They didn’t inquire about my phone, or my laptop, or my USB drive, which makes me think their Bitcoin training wasn’t very good, or that these particular bureaucrats didn’t pay very close attention. But, if the TSA is going to be looking for Bitcoin, they can use that pretense to search any person, at any time, to any degree. It’s entirely possible that a traveler could be carrying thousands of Casascius coins which are not loaded, and worth little more their value in brass. It’s also possible that a traveler could be carrying one Casascius coin that has been loaded with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Bitcoin. Technologically speaking the private key to a Bitcoin wallet could be embedded in virtually any object, including the brain of the traveler. It could be argued, in fact I would, that the Bitcoin is already on both sides of the check point, and carrying any kind of physical wallet is no different from carrying a debit card, or a pin number. It would even be possible for a traveler outside the TSA screening area to send any amount of bitcoin directly to a traveler already inside the terminal, and there’s nothing the TSA can do to prevent that.

In the end it’s important for Bitcoin users to be aware of these Stasi tactics being used by the TSA. Maybe some Bitcoin users want to confront it directly with some kind of civil disobedience or demonstration. Maybe others will want to take extra steps to ensure they don’t face this added scrutiny. But this is what FINCEN meant when they said that Bitcoin could be regulated under existing law. They meant that the policy toward Bitcoin will be decided in secret, outside the legislature, by law enforcement bureaucrats reinterpreting old laws in new ways, to be enforced arbitrarily and inconsistently to evoke to greatest degree of doubt, confusion, and alarm.

New York Resident Charged With Manslaughter For Shooting, Killing 1 of 5 Armed Home Invaders

by Dan Cannon

Only in New York. In many other states, Youssef Abdel-Gawad would likely be hailed as a hero for defending himself, his family and his home against a group of armed home invaders. However, in the Empire State, Youssef is being treated as a criminal.

The resident of Huntington Station is facing manslaughter charges after he used a rifle to repel an attack by as many as five armed home invaders.

According to a video at News 12 Long Island, an intruder can clearly be seen firing a gun inside the home after breaking into an exterior door. Youssef used a rifle to return fire and struck the would be home invader, killing him.

However, authorities say no bullet was ever recovered so the intruder may not have ever fired. In many other states an armed person forcing their way into your home would be more than enough justification to use deadly force (please be aware of your state’s individual self defense laws as these vary greatly from state to state).

According to News12, the case again Youssef is moving forward,

At court today in Riverhead, Abdel-Gawad’s tearful mother insisted her son is a good young man who hopes to become a police officer. She says he was just trying to protect his family.

Prosecutors asked that Abdel-Gawad be held on $50,000 bail, but the judge said he could be released without bail if he surrendered his passport and wore a tracking device.

The case will be back in court this week.

This is just another example of what happens to law abiding citizens in a society that tightly restricts gun ownership and self defense. Regardless of the outcome of these legal proceedings, we’re going to go ahead and list this one in our database of defensive gun uses.

Border agents manufacture reasons to shoot at cars

Agents play chicken with moving cars in order to justify deadly force.

A scathing report of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has revealed that agents have adopted a devious technique for justifying shooting at drivers. The findings show that agents have deliberately stepped in front of cars to manufacture an excuse to open fire, or have claimed that moving vehicles were an imminent threat when they weren’t.

The agency has attempted to whitewash the findings by omitting the most damaging portions when submitting the report to congressional oversight committees, the LA Times reported.

“It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force,” the report reads. In some cases, “passengers were struck by agents’ gunfire.”

The report stated that agents have purposely stood in the road in front of people trying to avoid arrest; drivers who posed no direct threat to agents or others.

The report points out that opening fire on a moving vehicle is dangerous to passengers, bystanders, and the agents themselves. It stated: “It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver … is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat.”

Additionally, the agency was ripped for keeping its offending agents anonymous and rarely disciplining them after a shooting. It was said that CBP exhibits a “lack of diligence” in investigating its own wrongdoing.

One of Border Patrol’s recent exploits was the shooting of a 32-year-old mother of five from California. The woman, Valeria Alvarado, was killed when a federal agent unloaded a magazine into her face and torso through her windshield while driving. Officials said that the unnamed agent was “hit” and “carried several hundred yards” on the hood of Alvarado’s car. But several witnesses say the exact opposite — that the woman was moving in reverse, away from a man wearing plain clothes and threatening her with a gun. They say the man opened fire on her as he advanced toward the car.

“From my apartment I could see a car stop in the middle of the street, and a guy coming and walk in front of the car and shooting about 12 times. It was a horrible thing to see,” a female witness named Prince Watson told CBS-8 News. “He just went up, shot her, in plain clothes with no identification, no badge, nothing.” Watson said that she believed the woman was scared of the aggressive behavior of the unidentified man. “Without her even able to say a word — I didn’t hear anything — he just came across and shot, many times,” she explained.

The multiple witness accounts were ignored and the “oncoming vehicle” defense was accepted as truth from the agent whose identity remains concealed.

The independent report recommended that CBP teach its agents to get out of the way instead of standing firm and opening fire on a moving vehicle, and that it should ban shooting at cars unless the occupant was actually trying to kill them through other means. Border Patrol rejected the recommendations to change policy, stating that drug smugglers would purposely try to run over agents if they knew that agents were not supposed to shoot at cars.

The report also delves into the issue of Border Patrol agents shooting up Mexican kids and claiming that they threw stones. One boy was found riddled with 8 bullet holes in the back. The killer CBP agent was given a pass, and remains anonymous and at large.

Teen: Teachers Made Me Stand Outside In Wet Bathing Suit, Barefoot

She Says She Got Frostbite After Standing Outside For 10 Minutes During A Fire Alarm

John Lauritsen

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) – A ninth-grader says she has frostbite after standing outside for 10 minutes in a wet bathing suit during a fire alarm.

It happened around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday at Como Park High School in St. Paul. Fourteen-year-old Kayona Hagen-Tietz says she was in the school’s pool when the fire alarm went off.

While other students had gotten out earlier and were able to put on dry clothes, Hagen-Tietz said she was rushed out with just her towel.

On Wednesday morning, the temperature was 5 below, and the wind chill was 25 below.

“So the alarm went off, and I thought it was like just a drill, like: Do I have to go outside?” Hagen-Tietz said. “And then he was like no, we usually don’t have fake ones in the winter.”

Hagen-Tietz says she and the another student were rushed out by the teacher. Her classmate had clothes by the pool, hers were in her locker. So she grabber her towel and went outside.

“As soon as they’d seen her outside in her swimsuit, soaking wet and barefoot, they should have done something,” said Eva Tietz, Hagen-Tietz’s mother.

A teacher eventually gave Hagen-Tietz a jacket, and one of her friends gave her a sweatshirt to wrap around her feet.

But due to school policy, she wasn’t allowed to sit in a faculty-member’s car.

“We kind of huddled up and made a circle around me, and the other kids who were cold,” Hagen-Tietz said.

Eventually, a teacher did get permission to allow Hagen-Tietz and her classmate to sit inside her car.

But by that time Hagen-Tietz had already stood barefoot and wet for 10 minutes in some of the coldest conditions of the year.

Hagen-Tietz mom then picked her up and took her to the doctor, who determined she has frostbite on her feet.

“If I had a fire and brought my children out in that condition, you know, I’m sure I would be charged in some way or another if I didn’t instantly bring them into a neighbor’s house or someplace else,” Tietz said. “The ultimate goal is to keep them safe and protect your children, and, in this instance, they did a really poor job.”

In a statement, St. Paul Public School officials said they continue to work with the St. Paul Fire Marshal to regularly review these procedures, including cold weather modifications, and they will make any changes based on their recommendations.

Hagen-Tietz said the first half of her pool class is water aerobics, and the last half is free time. She said some of the kids cut out of free time early to get dressed. Hagen-Tietz stayed in the pool to use the diving board, because it only takes her about 10 minutes to get dressed.

Cop Brings Gun to a Snowball Fight Could Cost NYC $10 Million

by Jay Syrmopoulos



In February of 2010 off duty NYPD officer, Sgt. Adonis Ramirez, 34, after being hit by a snowball in the leg, drew his concealed weapon on a group of young men and ordered them to kneel against a fence. He now stands accused of false arrest and battery.

Inconsistencies in his story have been revealed during his recent testimony in a $10 million dollar civil suit brought against the NYPD.

In his initial report to officers Ramirez claimed that while walking, “he felt himself get struck on the back by multiple snowballs.” While testifying in court last Tuesday he admitted that it was only “one” snowball and that it struck him in the leg.

He then went on to claim that he didn’t recall telling police that the young men had chased him, although he had stated in police reports that he feared for his “immediate safety”. Previously, Ramirez had claimed the group chased him down the street and threatened him while pelting him with multiple snowballs.

Ramirez also changed his statement about how long it took him to draw his weapon after being hit a snowball, from an earlier estimate of over a minute, he revised that to 15 to 30 seconds in court testimony.

It appears that Ramirez was forced to amend his statements after surveillance footage surfaced that contradicted the officer’s version of events about multiple snowballs being thrown and the men chasing him.

Manuel Rondon, 22, Christian Perez, 23, Johnathan Rodriguez, 26, Anthony Aquino, 19, and Ariel Lopez, 21, were all arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon, attempted assault, menacing, and harassment and were forced to spend the a day and a half in jail.

The alleged weapon in question… a snowball.

None of the young men had ever been in any trouble before. 18 year old Ariel Lopez said, “We’re innocent, we didn’t do anything wrong and he overreacted.” Manuel Rondon went on to state, “I felt that at that moment one of us was going to get killed or shot.”

The attorney for the five young men claims that Ramirez, “made up facts. He never got hit with a snowball. This guy brings a loaded gun to a snowball fight. It’s an incredible abuse of power by a bully with a badge,” said attorney Neil Wollerstein.

Eventually all charges against the young men were dropped by the Bronx district attorney.

According to Ramirez, while he may not have had all his facts straight, he felt a possible threat existed and that his actions were fully justified, claiming, “I was outnumbered, and I wasn’t taking any chances.”

In the “officer needs assistance” call made to 911 to get assistance from New Yorks finest, to protect this officer from the brutal snowball “assault”, Ramirez can be heard telling the young men, while held at gunpoint, “Do not move, Do not move. You brought this upon yourself. You want to be a d–k?” His words come off as strikingly retaliatory rather than based on a fear for his own personal safety.

The abuse of authority and lack of training exhibited in this case are stunning. Mr. Ramirez must have missed the memo that badges don’t grant extra rights. The militarization of the police across the US has seemingly created a pandemic of officers acting as though they are above the law they are sworn to uphold. Hopefully, Officer Ramirez, the NYPD, and the city of New York get the memo on this one.

Connecticut Patriot Forewarned Lawmakers about Gun Registration: "I Will Not Comply"

Case file describes the moments before police officer fatally shot newlywed firefighter in downtown KC

By DONNA McGUIRE

As he lay bleeding on a downtown Kansas City street, newlywed Anthony Bruno mouthed “Don’t let me die” to a bystander who had rolled him on his back to check two gunshot wounds.



On the pavement nearby, Police Officer Donald Hubbard felt himself drifting in and out of consciousness. Blood dripped from his broken and battered face. He tried to get up but fell back.

The bystander, who happened to be a critical care nurse in a hospital trauma unit, could not find Bruno’s pulse. She asked Hubbard to apply pressure to Bruno’s wounds while she began chest compressions. Hubbard crawled to her as sirens sounded in the distance, according to documents released Tuesday by police.

Soon an arriving police officer asked what direction the gunman had fled.

Hubbard looked up.

“I shot him,” he said.

Multiple witnesses described elements of that scene to investigators trying to piece together what led to an off-duty Kansas City police officer fatally shooting an off-duty Kansas City firefighter who had been celebrating his November wedding in the early hours of Dec. 1.

Detectives interviewed witnesses, studied two cellphone videos shot by bystanders and obtained surveillance videos from area businesses. They also took photos of a taxicab driver allegedly assaulted by Bruno moments before Hubbard’s attempted arrest of Bruno devolved into a fatal struggle.

As they do in all fatal shootings involving police, Jackson County prosecutors presented the investigators’ report to a Jackson County grand jury. The jurors voted “no true bill” on Feb. 14, ending the case without charges.

That also closed the case and allowed media to request copies of the case file, which included the videos.

The Star is posting one of those videos online, showing the final confrontation between Bruno and Hubbard, because it was key evidence considered by the grand jury. Some profanities from onlookers were edited out, as were scenes after the shooting showing Bruno. Viewer discretion is advised, as the video contains graphic scenes, including intense fighting and sounds of gunshots.

Over and over in the inch-thick case file, witnesses stories largely match one another.

Anthony Bruno, 26, and Stephanie Bruno, 29, were dressed in wedding attire as they celebrated their Nov. 16 nuptials. About 2 a.m. on Dec. 1, they had taken a cab from a restaurant to the Kansas City Marriott Downtown with Anthony’s cousin, who had been drinking heavily at the restaurant and had fallen asleep there.

The Brunos had imbibed as well, but neither was drunk, Stephanie later told police.

They wanted the cabdriver to take Anthony Bruno’s cousin home, but an argument began on how much that would cost — the meter kept running as they discussed it — and whether the cabdriver could leave the cousin on the street instead of taking him home.

Stephanie Bruno told police the cabdriver kept increasing the fare, used a derogatory word toward her and threw money back in her face.

“That’s when my husband got out of the taxi and began hitting the taxicab driver,” Stephanie Bruno told police.

She yelled at her husband to stop, she said. He quit and walked away. She stayed with Anthony’s cousin, as three men were approaching the taxi to protect the driver. The three men nearly started another fight, she said.

“The Marriott security and I both tried to keep that from turning into an altercation. The security guard after that basically told me KCPD had been called and to just stay there. So I stayed there.”

Hubbard, who was working security for the Marriott while wearing his Police Department uniform, saw the group arguing and saw Anthony Bruno leaving the area. He headed east after him.

They met up on Baltimore Avenue, between 12th and 13th streets. Hubbard said he tried to arrest Bruno, who resisted and tried to run.

“Throughout my entire contact with the suspect, I gave him numerous verbal commands to give me his hands and to stop resisting,” Hubbard told detectives later. “In my attempts to place handcuffs on the suspect, he continued to resist and we eventually went to the ground.”

At one point, Hubbard put Bruno in a neck restraint and thought Bruno had given up. But then Bruno began resisting again, trying to stand while holding onto Hubbard.

“That’s when I noticed two people filming nearby,” Hubbard recounted. “I told these individuals that I was by myself and pleaded for them to call for help.”

Bruno told Hubbard he shouldn’t have hit him, Hubbard said.

“He then somehow flipped me over onto my back and the subject began punching me on the left side of my face and head,” Hubbard told detectives. “He was on top of me and I was in an extremely vulnerable position and I was exhausted from the struggle with the suspect.

“I don’t know how many times he struck me, but I started to black out and saw lines across my eyes. He continued to strike me and I started to lose consciousness and I believed the suspect was not going to stop hitting me until he killed me.

“I feared for my life and I drew my weapon, fired two shots center mass.”

A couple walking nearby included the nurse. They didn’t see the start of the confrontation.

“But at the very end, the cop was underneath the civilian and had his head smashed very hard against the cement by the civilian,” the nurse later told detectives. “I did not see any other circumstance than to shoot him. I mean he had to do something because he was gonna get a head bleed from the traumatic brain injury.”

On the cellphone video released by police, the witnesses can be heard yelling at Bruno to stop hitting the officer.

Two gunshots stopped the action. Bullets hit Bruno in the chest, according to the autopsy. One hit the heart, diaphragm and liver.

The nurse, Hubbard and other officers helped with CPR until a Fire Department medic crew arrived. Bruno was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Hubbard was taken to a hospital as well. His injuries included a broken eye socket, a fractured cheekbone, a cut above his left eye that required two stitches and loss of feeling in the left side of his face.

He has returned to work, police said Tuesday.

Oregon Police Push State Law-Violating ID Scanners On Nightclub And Bar Owners

Oregon seems to be turning into a bastion of privacy, much to the chagrin of various law enforcement agencies. As we recently covered, a district court ruled that the DEA's warrantless access of its drug prescription database (achieved through "administrative subpoenas" that require no judicial approval or probable cause) was unconstitutional. In Oregon, at least, it appears our nation's foremost drug warriors will need to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Now, there's a pushback against another warrantless collection of data by local police departments. Techdirt reader zip sends in this Williamette Week story detailing the ID scanners police are actively pushing on bar and club owners, supposedly in an effort to cut down on underage drinking.

Multnomah County and Portland police this week suspended a new program that supplied data-gathering ID scanners to Old Town bars after WW raised questions about whether it was legal.

The state-funded program allowed Portland police to equip downtown bars and clubs in recent weeks with high-tech ID scanners that captured patrons’ names, ages and photos for upload to a central database, which police could then access.

The data collected is stored for 90 days and is compiled from the many scanners being utilized across the city. The scanners themselves are manufactured by Servall Data Systems out of Alberta, Canada. (Servall Data Systems also has access to the data.) Law enforcement agencies are given access to the collected data at any time requested (no subpoena or warrant needed) according to Servall's spokesperson.

A grant given to a local charity by the state of Oregon helped fund the purchase of these scanners, which were then pushed on local business owners by police departments. Unsurprisingly, some club owners balked at tracking their customers.

A few club owners turned down the free scanners. One owner says he added surveillance cameras when police asked. “I happily installed those. But this was going too far,” the club owner says. “It felt invasive.”

Not that every club owner feels the same. Some have purchased the scanners with their own funds, in part because it's another step they can take to protect their liquor licenses.

The company cites drops in crime in other cities in defense of the scanners. That the scanners have a deterrent quality and that they make crime investigation easier are hardly disputable. But the problem is the warrantless access to collected data, and more specifically in this case, the fact that this sort of data harvesting by businesses violates Oregon state law.

“It really is an illuminating example of where our privacy laws are, and our disconnect in a modern digital world,” says Becky Straus, lobbyist for ACLU Oregon.

Straus is referring to a 2009 Oregon law that limits companies’ legal ability to collect, store or share information from ID scanners. Straus says she was unaware Portland bars were collecting such data, or that police could grab it.

“We had wondered, when we wandered around Old Town, whether bars were complying with the swiping law,” she says.

That bar owners may have been unaware that their data collection violated state law isn't all that surprising. It's not really as much of a day-to-day part of their business as staying within the confines of their liquor licenses and complying with food safety laws. But, as Willamette Week discovered when it began investigating these scanners, many of those who should have been aware of this law had no idea they were actively encouraging business owners to break it.

Neither Portland police nor the city attorney was aware of the 2009 law until WW raised the question. “We‘re glad when someone brings this up. We want to do what’s best to protect public safety and protect people’s rights,” Multnomah County spokesman David Austin tells WW.

Austin said the county is meeting with state and local law enforcement in the coming week to determine how to move forward .

The spokesman for the Portland police department claims it's not the department's problem if these laws are violated.

He says the police don’t own the scanners, and so aren’t responsible for how they were used.

“It’s an issue between the bars and the company,” he says. “We recommend a lot of things to people, but it’s up to the individual to make sure it’s compliant.”

I'm not sure what part of that statement is more callously irresponsible, the fact that the PD will "recommend" actions and technology without ensuring it complies with applicable laws, or the fact that the PD recommends a data harvesting device but ultimately doesn't care how it gets used. The police have carte blanche access to the collected data, so its involvement bears the same weight as the supplier and the businesses utilizing the scanners. Considering it has this access, it would seem its responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws would be greater, especially since it's in the law enforcement business.

This also downplays the department's active promotion of the scanners, which led some business owners to feel the devices were mandatory, or at the very least, "strongly encouraged" by an entity holding the power to strip them of their liquor licenses. Here are some quotes from the story that show the department's involvement in pushing the devices its spokesman claims it's not responsible for.

“We tried to say ‘no’ at the very beginning, and police strongly encouraged that we should do it,” says Mike Reed, general manager of the Boiler Room and Jones Bar…

“If we don’t use it, they know,” a downtown bouncer tells WW…

Some Portland bar employees say the scanners keep police and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission happy...

As it stands right now, the county is going to "look into" the legality of the scanners. The police department seems to have washed its hands of the whole thing, claiming it's barely involved. The scanner company, which also has access to the data, seems to think there's nothing wrong with tracking people's nighttime activities and turning this data over to law enforcement any time they ask. And finally, we have business owners tracking their customers because it's been heavily implied that failing to do so may become a source of friction between the bar/nightclub and the police department.

Anyone could make the argument that what you do in public has no expectation of privacy. But this isn't in any way comparable to what police would have to do to achieve the same sort of surveillance level if the scanners weren't in use -- i.e. trailing hundreds of people around all night and noting which businesses they enter.

When technology turns the laborious into the routine, there needs to be checks in place to prevent abuse or, at the very least, provided some sort of friction between what the police can collect and what they can actually access. There also needs to be care taken to prevent collection of data simply because its possible, rather than being actually instrumental to crime prevention and investigation. But most importantly, those deploying these devices (by which I mean the police and the state that provided the grant to purchase the scanners) need to be aware of the laws governing their use, something no one quoted here seemed to know. (And, in the case of the police department, the person quoted not only didn't know, but didn't care, either.)

The state of Oregon has taken care to ensure data isn't collected or misused, but those looking for more data haven't bothered to perform due diligence before deploying devices that turn business owners into lawbreakers, and all in the name of the one of the most arbitrary of crimes, underage drinking.

10 Prison Security Techniques Being Implemented on the American People

Has our country become one giant correctional institution?

by Marlon Brock

Americans are not typically aware of how their federal and state prison systems work. What we think we know, we learned from watching television. When I took my first walk through at FCI (Federal Correctional Institution) El Reno Oklahoma as a new employee, I was surprised at how non-Hollywood real prison life is. Frankly, all I knew about prison life was what I saw on television or at the movies. Not even close.

As I got closer to retiring from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), it began to dawn on me that the security practices we used in the prison system were being implemented outside those walls. “Free worlders” is prison slang for the non-incarcerated who reside in the “free world.” In this article I am going to compare a number of practices used in federal prisons to those being used today in the “free world.”

You might find that our country may be one giant correctional institution.

Cameras & Movement Tracking

In federal prisons, cameras are everywhere. The reason, of course, is to help maintain security and keep track of prisoners. Inmates know that if they break any rules or policies, they can be readily identified if the event occurred in view of a camera. The cameras remind the inmates that they do not have any freedom or privacy, and that they live under total control.

Unfortunately, the “free world” is now subject to the widespread use of video surveillance and movement tracking. This goes beyond cameras, which have become virtually ubiquitous now. The federal government has been handing out grants to create sophisticated surveillance grids in cities across the country.

These surveillance grids frequently include license plate readers — some with the ability to log 1,200 license plates per hour, logging timestamps and location data — giving the government a way to track people and analyze their movement patterns. Some cities post license plate readers to log every single vehicle that enters or leaves its boundaries. Many cities have turned their police cars into roving data collectors by outfitting them with mobile license plate scanners. A man from California discovered that he had been photographed 112 times over the course of a couple years — from just one police cruiser mounted with a license plate scanner! The local databases of movement data are integrated with the federal government through its fusion centers located all over the country.

The government also has the ability to use facial-recognition software in conjunction with its surveillance grid to instantly identify individuals by comparing their photograph to biometric databases created using BMV photographs. Facial recognition cameras can be set up to accurately identify a person against a database of millions of images in less than one second. The government can then potentially log their locations and using the data for any purpose it wants.

As the usage of these technologies grows, the “authorities” will practically know where you are at any time. The British have the greatest level of electronic surveillance in the world. Their movements are said to be recorded 3,000 times a week. The United States is not that far behind. In some ways, with the numerous NSA spying programs, the USA leads the world in destroying personal privacy. Today’s youngest generation will grow up never knowing what privacy is.

Drug Testing

The federal prison inmate drug abuse monitoring program has been going on for decades since the capability was invented. At any time, a prisoner can be tested for intoxicants using urine, sweat, saliva, and hair samples taken by force. After years of perfecting the process on inmates, it was introduced to the American public.

On September 15, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564, establishing the goal of a Drug-Free Federal Workplace. Additionally, in 2010, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) finalized a new rule that allows federal agencies to use sweat, saliva and hair in federal drug testing programs that only tested urine. Since then, many private businesses and corporations had to begin testing their employees in order to keep or obtain federal contracts. Under federal guidelines for employee testing, if a person takes medicine that was not prescribed to him, he has committed a federal drug abuse offense and may be fired. Children in public schools are also subjected to involuntary random drug testing.

The inmates were the guinea pigs for a program now being regularly employed on Americans. This process conditions Americans to be accustomed to regularly submitting bodily fluid samples to the government, lessening their resistance to data collection and intrusion in other areas.

Metal Detection & Weapon Confiscation

In prison, detection and confiscation of weapons is a necessity. Prisoners cannot be allowed the freedom to possess objects that could potentially be used to cause harm to others. The security of the facility relies on the prisoners remaining disarmed.

With that said, not even prisons can be guaranteed to be weapon free. Inmates are clever, and can fashion any piece of metal into a makeshift weapon. They are also prolific smugglers. To mitigate this risk, prisoners and visitors are put through metal detector checkpoints to keep them disarmed. Any metallic contraband is confiscated.

Treating prisoners this way is one thing. In a prison setting, security trumps liberty. The liberties of the inmates have been curtailed through due process on an individual basis. But these prison tactics have crept out into the “free world.” Now, virtually all government buildings use metal detectors to screen incoming visitors and even their own personnel. This establishes a climate of fear of weapons and a false sense of security among those within such “weapon free zones.” If a prison can’t proclaim to be weapon free, how can any place outside of prison make such arrogant and naive claims?

Crowd Control

Helmets, face shields, batons, knee guards, tear gas, wedge formations, line formations, half steps, full steps, pinning tactics — all of these phrases are associated with prison crowd control. As I look at today’s police and how they attempt crowd control it reminds me of my days in federal prison as the Hostage Negotiation Team (HNT) leader. The HNT worked closely with the Special Operations and Response Team (SORT) on both monthly local training and annual training at Fort Gruber in Muskogee Oklahoma. SORT membership is selective and highly practiced. The teams must be familiar with hand signals and verbal commands, as well as certain maneuvers that are often referred to as “stomp and drag.” These tactics are designed to help quell disturbances — the FBOP word for “riot” — by forcing inmates in the direction that SORT wants them to move. This training takes place monthly for SORT members and annually for the rest of the FBOP staff.

The next time you see police engaged in crowd control on television you are watching what was perfected by prisons official through years of practice and real life action. I participated in five disturbances. After observing law enforcement agencies dress up in intimidating riot suits and mimic the behavior of SORT, it is clear that police are using prison tactics to intimidate and control civilian protesters.

Checkpoints & Random Pat Searches

In federal prison, all inmates are subject to an immediate pat search by any staff member, anywhere, at any time. If the inmate refuses, he or she is “arrested,” which entails being cuffed and escorted to administrative segregation — otherwise known as the jail within the jail. The pat search is used to detect contraband. All inmates returning from industrial work programs in medium and low security institutions are pat searched and metal detected before being allowed to return to their dorm. Additionally, inmates in medium and low security institutions are pat searched when they leave food service or the “chow hall.” In high and maximum security institutions, inmates are pat searched every time they move. Movement in these institutions is highly controlled.

Compare this to police roadblocks and checkpoints used to perform warrantless searches for contraband. When a person is stopped by city, county, or state police, they are visually inspected, asked questions concerning their activities, and may be asked to submit to a vehicle or personal search. At federal roadblocks, a subject can be directed to a secondary search area at the discretion of the observing officer. There, the person can be searched for contraband regardless of any objections, just like in a federal prison. There are dozens of federal roadblocks on roads in the southwestern United States, many of them permanent and located up to 100 miles away from the border.

It isn’t just drivers being put through such intrusion. There is also the matter of “stop and frisk” searches which are taking place in several areas of the country. These intrusive stops involve the stopping of a pedestrian for any reason, followed by being subjected to a police officer’s questioning and a warrantless search of their pockets, purses, bags, and property — just like a prisoner.

Mail Surveillance

Every piece of mail sent to an inmate in federal prison is opened, searched, and may be read depending on the dictates from the institutions intelligence office. In medium and high security institutions, all mail is delivered to the unit officer unsealed so that it can be read before being delivered to the mail room. Inmate mail is controlled and may be copied if it is determined that there is possible criminal activity being discussed either blatantly or in code. If something is detected it may be rejected and returned to the inmate if it violates policy. Two examples of “rejected correspondence” are an inmate’s attempt to conduct unapproved business, or writing another inmate without permission.

Recent revelations have made it clear that Americans’ mail is being surveilled as well. The New York Times reported on how the United States Postal Service uses a “Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program” to create a permanent record of who is corresponding with each other via snail mail. The program — secretly established in 2001 and not revealed for over a decade — assists the government in implementing blanket surveillance of every single resident of the United States. Each piece of physical mail is photographed and stored in a database. Law enforcement has unfettered access to this data without even the requirement of obtaining a warrant. About 160 billion pieces of mail end up being recorded per year.

Telephone Monitoring

For decades the FBOP has possessed the capability to monitor outgoing telephone calls. However, their system required staff to sit and listen to the calls which took staff away from direct supervision of inmates. In the early 2000s, a new system was put in place that allowed any and every phone in an institution to be immediately monitored and the call recorded.

Just like in a federal prison, the NSA has the capability to track and monitor anyone’s phone conversations without recourse. The agency can monitor text messages. They can collect locations, times, and a log of every phone number that has been dialed by any phone in the United States. The government can set up fake base stations to intercept phone calls. They can hack the applications on a person’s smart phone and spy on their usage. The NSA can even crack cellphone encryption.

Unlike the inmates who have no choice in the matter of telephone monitoring, the American people have been told about the spying but have decided not to do anything about it.

Lockdowns

When a correctional institution has its daily operations disturbed, often times it results in a lockdown. Lockdowns usually occur after a disturbance, weather concerns, inmate escapes, rumors of a disturbance about to occur, rumored escape attempts, and institution wide searches are some reasons to lockdown.

The most notable “free world” lockdown in recent memory occurred in Boston, Massachusetts. This lockdown mirrors a federal prison lockdown that is called when the entire institution is to be searched. That is exactly what occurred in Boston. In April 2013 the Boston suburb of Watertown was locked down to the point where no one could enter or leave the town, while 9,000 law enforcement personnel and military took part in searching just about every backpack, vehicle, and home that they could get away with.

Some of the searches were voluntary, but many were not. As SWAT teams performed systematic house-to-house searches, videos were captured of families being ripped from their home without a warrant so the police could help themselves to the inside of their homes. What resulted had the look of prisoners being removed from their cells by a SORT unit. Watch for yourself:

Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA
Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Mass.

The Watertown lockdown was practice for future declarations of martial law. Those tactics had been used and perfected in our prison systems for years. Now the “free world” is getting the prison treatment with little objection from the public. The lockdown was not necessary and served mostly to measure the public’s reaction and to establish a sense of fear and intimidation. I think it worked.

Snitching

The last thing I want to mention is what I call the “Moscow Law.” While growing up during the cold war, I was taught that in the USSR, people were expected to watch their neighbors, strangers, and even family and friends, and report any suspicious activity to the local police. We in America have that law. Read it below. Did you know it exists?

 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4:  Misprision of felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

In prison, there are “snitches” everywhere. Believe me, they are not just the inmates, they are also staff. Programs like Infragard are attempting to do the same thing in the “free world” as it is in the imprisoned world. Once these programs get started, they are almost impossible to stop. What are we paying our law enforcement to do? Protect us or detect us? You decide.

Policy and program statements from the Bureau of Prisons are available at: http://www.bop.gov/

Support the Right to Repair in South Dakota (and Everywhere Else)

South Dakota has put forth new legislation to support to a simple principle: if you own something, you ought to be allowed to fix it. The new bill, SB 136, would require manufacturers of electronics and appliances that contain embedded software to make available to consumers and independent repair shops the information and parts they need to repair those devices, and fully disclose any contract provision standing in the way of full repair and reuse.

That seems like a pretty uncontroversial goal, but lots of major manufacturers that purport to "sell" you all kinds of products are doing their level best to make sure that if your product breaks, only they (or someone they authorize) can repair it. They do this in all kinds of ways—by tying your purchase (or update) to an expensive repair contract; burying sneaky clauses into license agreements (remember, you might buy a device, but if it contains software to make it more functional you probably only "rent" that software); treating repair information (like diagnostic codes) as proprietary; or refusing to sell repair parts to "unauthorized" independent shops (and then calling in the feds to prosecute shops that sell those parts anyway).

That's bad for consumers and for the environment—how often have many of us tossed a device into the trash, or recycled it, because repairing it was too expensive? If that device contains electronics, that casual decision added to the e-waste that is slowly poisoning the planet.

South Dakota isn't the first state to step in to defend its residents' right to repair. In Massachusetts, legislators and voters passed legislation requiring automakers to provide affordable access to all tools, software and information used to repair late model cars and heavy duty vehicles. That legislation will go into effect in 2015.

SB 136 in South Dakota isn't perfect—we'd love to see an additional requirement that the information be freely accessible and online, for example—but it's an important step in the right direction.

The bill will be debated in the Commerce committee today, and will move on to a larger vote later this week. If you live in South Dakota, contact your state senator today and tell him or her to support SB 136.

Defend Your Right to Repair!

The Over-Policing of America

Police Overkill Has Entered the DNA of Social Policy

If all you’ve got is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. And if police and prosecutors are your only tool, sooner or later everything and everyone will be treated as criminal. This is increasingly the American way of life, a path that involves “solving” social problems (and even some non-problems) by throwing cops at them, with generally disastrous results. Wall-to-wall criminal law encroaches ever more on everyday life as police power is applied in ways that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

By now, the militarization of the police has advanced to the point where "the War on Crime” and “the War on Drugs” are no longer metaphors but bland understatements. There is the proliferation of heavily armed SWAT teams, even in small towns; the use of shock-and-awe tactics to bust small-time bookies; the no-knock raids to recover trace amounts of drugs that often result in the killing of family dogs, if not family members; and in communities where drug treatment programs once were key, the waging of a drug version of counterinsurgency war. (All of this is ably reported on journalist Radley Balko’s blog and in his book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop.) But American over-policing involves far more than the widely reported up-armoring of your local precinct. It’s also the way police power has entered the DNA of social policy, turning just about every sphere of American life into a police matter.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

It starts in our schools, where discipline is increasingly outsourced to police personnel. What not long ago would have been seen as normal childhood misbehavior -- doodling on a desk, farting in class, a kindergartener’s tantrum -- can leave a kid in handcuffs, removed from school, or even booked at the local precinct. Such “criminals” can be as young as seven-year-old Wilson Reyes, a New Yorker who was handcuffed and interrogated under suspicion of stealing five dollars from a classmate. (Turned out he didn’t do it.)

Though it's a national phenomenon, Mississippi currently leads the way in turning school behavior into a police issue. The Hospitality State has imposed felony charges on schoolchildren for “crimes” like throwing peanuts on a bus. Wearing the wrong color belt to school got one child handcuffed to a railing for several hours. All of this goes under the rubric of “zero-tolerance” discipline, which turns out to be just another form of violence legally imported into schools.

Despite a long-term drop in youth crime, the carceral style of education remains in style. Metal detectors -- a horrible way for any child to start the day -- are installed in ever more schools, even those with sterling disciplinary records, despite the demonstrable fact that such scanners provide no guarantee against shootings and stabbings.

Every school shooting, whether in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, or Littleton, Colorado, only leads to more police in schools and more arms as well. It’s the one thing the National Rifle Association and Democratic senators can agree on. There are plenty of successful ways to run an orderly school without criminalizing the classroom, but politicians and much of the media don’t seem to want to know about them. The “school-to-prison pipeline,” a jargon term coined by activists, is entering the vernacular.

Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go

Even as simple a matter as getting yourself from point A to point B can quickly become a law enforcement matter as travel and public space are ever more aggressively policed. Waiting for a bus? Such loitering just got three Rochester youths arrested. Driving without a seat belt can easily escalate into an arrest, even if the driver is a state judge. (Notably, all four of these men were black.) If the police think you might be carrying drugs, warrantless body cavity searches at the nearest hospital may be in the offing -- you will be sent the bill later.

Air travel entails increasingly intimate pat-downs and arbitrary rules that many experts see as nothing more than “security theater.” As for staying at home, it carries its own risks as Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found out when a Cambridge police officer mistook him for a burglar and hauled him away -- a case that is hardly unique.

Overcriminalization at Work

Office and retail work might seem like an unpromising growth area for police and prosecutors, but criminal law has found its way into the white-collar workplace, too. Just ask Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin state employee targeted by a federal prosecutor for the “crime” of incorrectly processing a travel agency’s bid for state business. She spent four months in a federal prison before being sprung by a federal court. Or Judy Wilkinson, hauled away in handcuffs by an undercover cop for serving mimosas without a license to the customers in her bridal shop. Or George Norris, sentenced to 17 months in prison for selling orchids without the proper paperwork to an undercover federal agent.

Increasingly, basic economic transactions are being policed under the purview of criminal law. In Arkansas, for instance, Human Rights Watch reports that a new law funnels delinquent (or allegedly delinquent) rental tenants directly to the criminal courts, where failure to pay up can result in quick arrest and incarceration, even though debtor’s prison as an institution was supposed to have ended in the nineteenth century.

And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead of pushing a debate about how to restructure our predatory financial system, liberals in their focus on individual prosecution are aping the punitive zeal of the authoritarians. A few high-profile prosecutions for insider trading (which had nothing to do with the last crash) have, of course, not changed Wall Street one bit.

Criminalizing Immigration

The past decade has also seen immigration policy ingested by criminal law. According to another Human Rights Watch report -- their U.S. division is increasingly busy -- federal criminal prosecutions of immigrants for illegal entry have surged from 3,000 in 2002 to 48,000 last year. This novel application of police and prosecutors has broken up families and fueled the expansion of for-profit detention centers, even as it has failed to show any stronger deterrent effect on immigration than the civil law system that preceded it. Thanks to Arizona’s SB 1070 bill, police in that state are now licensed to stop and check the papers of anyone suspected of being undocumented -- that is, who looks Latino.

Meanwhile, significant parts of the US-Mexico border are now militarized (as increasingly is the Canadian border), including what seem to resemble free-fire zones. And if anyone were to leave bottled water for migrants illegally crossing the desert and in danger of death from dehydration, that good Samaritan should expect to face criminal charges, too. Intensified policing with aggressive targets for arrests and deportations are guaranteed to be a part of any future bipartisan deal on immigration reform.

Digital Over-Policing

As for the Internet, for a time it was terra nova and so relatively free of a steroidal law enforcement presence. Not anymore. The late Aaron Swartz, a young Internet genius and activist affiliated with Harvard University, was caught downloading masses of scholarly articles (all publicly subsidized) from an open network on the MIT campus. Swartz was federally prosecuted under the capacious Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating a “terms and services agreement” -- a transgression that anyone who has ever disabled a cookie on his or her laptop has also, technically, committed. Swartz committed suicide earlier this year while facing a possible 50-year sentence and up to a million dollars in fines.

Since the summer, thanks to whistleblowing contractor Edward Snowden, we have learned a great deal about the way the NSA stops and frisks our (and apparently everyone else’s) digital communications, both email and telephonic. The security benefits of such indiscriminate policing are far from clear, despite the government’s emphatic but inconsistent assurances otherwise. What comes into sharper focus with every volley of new revelations is the emerging digital infrastructure of what can only be called a police state.

Sex Police

Sex is another zone of police overkill in our post-Puritan land. Getting put on a sex offender registry is alarmingly easy -- as has been done to children as young as 11 for “playing doctor” with a relative, again according to Human Rights Watch. But getting taken off the registry later is extraordinarily difficult. Across the nation, sex offender registries have expanded massively, especially in California, where one in every 380 adults is now a registered sex offender, creating a new pariah class with severe obstacles to employment, housing, or any kind of community life. The proper penalty for, say, an 18-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old can be debated, but should that 18-year-old's life really be ruined forever?

Equality Before the Cops?

It will surprise no one that Americans are not all treated equally by the police. Law enforcement picks on kids more than adults, the queer more than straight, Muslims more than Methodists -- Muslims a lot more than Methodists -- antiwar activists more than the apolitical. Above all, our punitive state targets the poor more than the wealthy and Blacks and Latinos more than white people.

A case in point: after the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, a police presence, including surveillance cameras and metal detectors, was ratcheted up at schools around the country, particularly in urban areas with largely working-class black and Latino student bodies. It was all to “protect” the kids, of course. At Columbine itself, however, no metal detector was installed and no heavy police presence intruded. The reason was simple. At that school in the Colorado suburb of Littleton, the mostly well-heeled white families did not want their kids treated like potential felons, and they had the status and political power to get their way. But communities without such clout are less able to push back against the encroachments of police power.

Even Our Prisons Are Over-Policed

The over-criminalization of American life empties out into our vast, overcrowded prison system, which is itself over-policed. The ultimate form of punitive control (and torture) is long-term solitary confinement, in which 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners are encased at any given moment. Is this really necessary? Solitary is no longer reserved for the worst or the worst or most dangerous prisoners but can be inflicted on ones who wear Rastafari dreadlocks, have a copy of Sun Tzu’s Art of War in their cell, or are in any way suspected, no matter how tenuous the grounds, of gang affiliations.

Not every developed nation does things this way. Some 30 years ago, Great Britain shifted from isolating prisoners to, whenever possible, giving them greater responsibility and autonomy -- with less violent results. But don’t even bring the subject up here. It will fall on deaf ears.

Extreme policing is exacerbated by extreme sentencing. For instance, more than 3,000 Americans have been sentenced to life terms without chance of parole for nonviolent offenses. These are mostly but not exclusively drug offenses, including life for a pound of cocaine that a boyfriend stashed in the attic; selling LSD at a Grateful Dead concert; and shoplifting three belts from a department store.

Our incarceration rate is the highest in the world, triple that of the now-defunct East Germany. The incarceration rate for African American men is about five times higher than that of the Soviet Union at the peak of the gulag.

The Destruction of Families

Prison may seem the logical finale for this litany of over-criminalization, but the story doesn’t actually end with those inmates. As prisons warehouse ever more Americans, often hundreds of miles from their local communities, family bonds weaken and disintegrate. In addition, once a parent goes into the criminal justice system, his or her family tends to end up on the radar screens of state agencies. “Being under surveillance by law enforcement makes a family much more vulnerable to Child Protective Services,” says Professor Dorothy Roberts of the University of Pennsylvania Law school. An incarcerated parent, especially an incarcerated mother, means a much stronger likelihood that children will be sent into foster care, where, according to one recent study, they will be twice as likely as war veterans to suffer from PTSD.

In New York State, the Administration for Child Services and the juvenile justice system recently merged, effectively putting thousands of children in a heavily policed, penalty-based environment until they age out. “Being in foster care makes you much more vulnerable to being picked up by the juvenile justice system,” says Roberts. “If you’re in a group home and you get in a fight, that could easily become a police matter.” In every respect, the creeping over-criminalization of everyday life exerts a corrosive effect on American families.

Do We Live in a Police State?

The term “police state” was once brushed off by mainstream intellectuals as the hyperbole of paranoids. Not so much anymore. Even in the tweediest precincts of the legal system, the over-criminalization of American life is remarked upon with greater frequency and intensity. “You’re probably a (federal) criminal” is the accusatory title of a widely read essay co-authored by Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. A Republican appointee, Kozinski surveys the morass of criminal laws that make virtually every American an easy target for law enforcement. Veteran defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate has written an entire book about how an average American professional could easily commit three felonies in a single day without knowing it.

The daily overkill of police power in the U.S. goes a long way toward explaining why more Americans aren’t outraged by the “excesses” of the war on terror, which, as one law professor has argued, are just our everyday domestic penal habits exported to more exotic venues. It is no less true that the growth of domestic police power is, in this positive feedback loop, the partial result of our distant foreign wars seeping back into the homeland (the “imperial boomerang” that Hannah Arendt warned against).

Many who have long railed against our country’s everyday police overkill have reacted to the revelations of NSA surveillance with detectable exasperation: of course we are over-policed! Some have even responded with peevish resentment: Why so much sympathy for this Snowden kid when the daily grind of our justice system destroys so many lives without comment or scandal? After all, in New York, the police department’s “stop and frisk” tactic, which targets African American and Latino working-class youth for routinized street searches, was until recently uncontroversial among the political and opinion-making class. If “the gloves came off” after September 11, 2001, many Americans were surprised to learn they had ever been on to begin with.

A hammer is necessary to any toolkit. But you don’t use a hammer to turn a screw, chop a tomato, or brush your teeth. And yet the hammer remains our instrument of choice, both in the conduct of our foreign policy and in our domestic order. The result is not peace, justice, or prosperity but rather a state that harasses and imprisons its own people while shouting ever less intelligibly about freedom.