Please post all of the completely insane COPWATCH stories here

[Jordan]

A woman faces up to 15 years in prison for recording her attempt to report a Chicago cop who she says sexually assaulted her

The felony charge against Tiawanda Moor has finally reached a courtroom.

Moore faces up to 15 years in prison for recording her attempt to report a Chicago cop who she says sexually assaulted her. Moore says she recorded the conversation because she felt Internal Affairs officers were pressuring her not to file a complaint. The Tribune article focuses on whether or not that claim is true. Which really misses the point.

State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez ought to be tossed on her tuckus for bringing this case in the first place. In a city with a long history of police abuse and corruption, where we only recently learned that for two decades people were tortured in police stations while Chicago police supervisors, prosecutors, and politicians looked the other way, it’s an absolute outrage that Alvarez would prosecute a woman for trying to protect herself while trying to file a complaint. And shame on the Illinois legislature for not having the courage to repeal this ugly, blatantly unconstitutional law.

My HuffPost article on Moore and other people charged on the law here. My longer Reason piece on the War on Cameras here.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/24/the-trial-of-tiawanda-moore/

[Jordan]

A former stripper, who secretly recorded two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators while filing a sexual harassment complaint against another officer was acquitted on eavesdropping charges Wednesday.

“I’m feeling a lot better now,” a smiling Tiawanda Moore said after a Cook County jury returned the verdict in a little over an hour.

The 20-year-old Indiana woman admitted she taped the officers on her Blackberry in August of last year. But she said she only did it because the investigators were coaxing her to not go forward with her complaint.

“I wanted him to be fired,” Moore testified of the cop she alleges fondled her and gave her his phone number during a domestic battery call at the South Side residence she sometimes shares with her boyfriend.

Moore said she didn’t know about the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which prohibits the recording of private or public conversations without the consent of all parties. Even so, Moore’s attorney, Robert Johnson, said his client was protected under an exemption to the statute that allows such recordings if someone believes a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

The Internal Affairs officers were “stalling, intimidating and bullying her,” Johnson said. The recording, which was played in court during the one-day trial, proved it, Johnson said.

Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Jo Murtaugh told jurors, “The content of the tape is not the issue. The issue is that the words were taped.”

But Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the verdict “reflects a repudiation of the eavesdropping law in Illinois. Clearly, the public believes that individuals should be able to record police engaged in their public duties, in a public space in an audible voice.”

The ACLU has challenged the eavesdropping law in federal court.

Johnson said the findings in Moore’s sexual harassment allegations were under protective order and have not been released.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/7259815-418/woman-who-recorded-cops-acquitted-of-felony-eavesdropping.html

[Jordan]

Clark County, Ohio Deputy Sheriff Suzanne Hopper had no reason to believe she was in danger.
It was New Year's Day this year when she arrived to investigate a disturbance at a local campground. A window had been shot out of a mobile home. Sheriff Gene Kelly said the incident, at the time, easily could have been attributed to a prank or the result of an over-heated celebration when some revelers are known to fire weapons into the air to mark the New Year.

Finding no immediate threat, Hopper, 40, began photographing footprints in the soft ground near the mobile home. Then the door of the neighboring trailer swung open.

    *
      STORY: 19 of 50 slain police killed in ambushes

The suspect, armed with a shotgun, leveled the weapon at Hopper's head just feet away and pulled the trigger.

"He shot her right in the mouth," Kelly said, adding that the wound severed the deputy's spine." She likely died before she hit the ground."

The attack, which wounded another officer in a ferocious firefight, marked the beginning of a unusual series of attacks against law enforcement officers this year that bear little in common beyond uncommon brutality.

Since Hopper's murder, at least 18 officers have died in similar ambushes or surprise assaults during routine service calls.

"I don't think we've seen the end of it," said Craig Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which closely tracks officer deaths.

Floyd said the poor economy is threatening to put officers at greater risk by forcing steep cuts in agency budgets, including training programs. "Something is wrong," Floyd said.

The issues contributing to this year's series of attacks appear to represent a collision of societal ills, ranging from mental illness and domestic disputes to access to firearms, police officials said.

In Arizona, Buckeye Police Chief Mark Mann said the May 1 murder of officer Rolando Tirado bordered on the inexplicable.

Tirado, 37, had stopped a sport-utility vehicle in a Phoenix-area parking lot that was being driven erratically. During a friendly exchange with the driver, Mann said a passenger slipped behind Tirado in the early-morning darkness, placed the nose of a .45-caliber handgun under the back of the officer's protective vest and fired. He fired a second round in the back of Tirado's head.

"He executed officer Tirado," Mann said of the 27-year-old shooter, an illegal immigrant, who died in a gunbattle in which a second Buckeye officer was wounded.

Mann said lack of training did not appear to be an issue in the shooting. Shortly before the May incident, the chief said that SWAT (special weapons and tactics) team officers from Phoenix conducted tactical training sessions for the department. The training may have helped the second officer, who despite being wounded in the neck, was able to find cover and return fire, the chief said.

"It's a very difficult loss," Mann said of Tirado, the first officer killed in the department's history.

Lakewood, N.J., officer Christopher Matlosz, 27, was the third Lakewood officer to die in the line of duty. But the Jan. 14 death marked the first time a Lakewood officer was murdered by gunfire (the two others were killed in auto accidents).

Chief Robert Lawson said Matlosz had stopped his patrol car to talk with a man walking on the side of the road when "the man started walking toward the car, pulled out a gun and fired three times."

"It was a total surprise attack," Lawson said, adding that Matlosz had no time to remove the service weapon from his holster. Later, it was determined that suspect Jahmell Crockham, 19, was a suspect in a fatal shooting the year before. "The officer didn't know who he was," Lawson said.

In Clark County, Ohio, Sheriff Kelly said Deputy Hopper had no way of knowing that Michael Ferryman would be laying in wait for her. Ferryman, 57, had been charged 10 years earlier with shooting at sheriff's deputies in another Ohio jurisdiction. In that case, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and eventually settled in the Enon Beach park.

Having been judged mentally ill, Ferryman was prohibited from owning a firearm. Kelly said he obtained the shotgun used in Hopper's murder through a relative.

"We didn't know he was even in our community," Kelly said of Ferryman who was later killed in a three-hour shootout.

Well before Hopper's murder, the sheriff said the department invested heavily in equipment for its 131 deputies, from assault rifles to vests.

"The vest didn't help; she was shot in the mouth," he said. "We have trained and trained and trained, but you can't go on every call with your gun out."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-08-25/Series-of-ills-put-police-at-greater-risk/50140186/1

[Jordan]

Federal Appeals Court says that state law banning recording of police officers in public is unconstitutional


A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

    The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

    Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

    Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

The court continued that while exercise of these rights do come with limits in certain circumstances, an arrest on the Boston Common, "the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum," is not one of them.


Complete ruling PDF

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi

[Freeski]

Winning!

[Jordan]

First Circuit Panel Says There’s a Clear Constitutional Right To Openly Record Cops.

    As he was walking past the Boston Common on the evening of October 1, 2007, Simon Glik caught sight of three police officers — the individual defendants here — arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say something to the effect of, “You are hurting him, stop.” Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force to effect the arrest, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began recording video footage of the arrest on his cell phone.

    After placing the suspect in handcuffs, one of the officers turned to Glik and said, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” Glik replied, “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.” An officer1 then approached Glik and asked if Glik’s cell phone recorded audio. When Glik affirmed that he was recording audio, the officer placed him in handcuffs, arresting him for, inter alia, unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts’s wiretap statute. Glik was taken to the South Boston police station. In the course of booking, the police confiscated Glik’s cell phone and a computer flash drive and held them as evidence.

The charges were dropped. But Glik sued for violations of his civil rights. The First Circuit ruled today that the officers are not protected by qualified immunity. From the ruling:

    The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”…

    The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

    The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press….

    In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (“[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”). Indeed, “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

A couple things, here. First, it’s a pleasant surprise to see a ruling this clear and forceful in a civil rights/qualified immunity ruling, as opposed to a challenge to a criminal conviction. The opinion not only states that there’s a First Amendment right to record cops, but that said right is firmly established, and that the cops should have known that it’s firmly established. That’s about as complete a repudiation of Glik’s arrest as he could have hoped for.

Second, while I’ve only had time to quickly read the opinion online, I do find some possible cause for concern. From what I can tell, the opinion doesn’t strike down the wiretapping law, or even its application in the context of recording cops, so much as find that Glik wasn’t in violation of the law.  The opinion’s discussion of Glik’s Fourth Amendment rights, for example, spends a lot of time pointing out that Glik was clearly recording the cops openly, while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn’t, I guess because it didn’t need to. The opinion says Glik clearly wasn’t violating the statute, which means his arrest was a clear violation of his rights. If he had been recording secretly, and were arrested for that, I’d imagine the cops probably would have been granted immunity. Though even then, unless Glik was challenging an actual conviction as well, the court still wouldn’t necessarily need to uphold or strike down the law itself.

The strong language in the portion of the ruling pertaining to the First Amendment claim suggests that the court might strike down the law if given the opportunity. But it’s at least a tiny bit worrisome that the opinion doesn’t go to the trouble of coming right out and saying as much in the next section. A more thorough repudiation of the law would have been preferable for a couple reasons. First and foremost because I think the First Amendment protects the right to surreptitiously record on-duty cops. If you’re recording a cop beating the hell out of someone, it isn’t difficult to see why there might be some problems with a law that requires you to make it obvious to the cop that you’re doing so. Second, if the Massachusetts law is upheld, it’s going to create disputes about what constitutes plain sight, what is surreptitious, and whether a jury should believe the cop’s or the citizen’s account of where the camera was held while it was recording.

Not to be a complete downer on what is really a pretty great decision, but the other thing to keep in mind is that the current Supreme Court lineup is awfully fond of qualified immunity. It’s far from clear that they’d uphold this ruling. I do imagine that they will address the issue fairly soon. It will be interesting to see if that comes in the form of a challenge to an actual conviction, or in a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

[Freeski]

I did an investigation into whether we could record our own court sessions (in Canada) and my answer was yes, if technically to complement my own notes. But the judges, lawyers, clerks and cops all say the exact opposite. The deception is total!

[JT Coyoté]

It is quite clear that the first Amendment protection of freedom of speech insures and assures the use of this technological advancement in the expression of this freedom; as it surely did the pens, steno-pads, and the shorthand used by reporters and average folks a century ago...

JTCoyoté

Alexander Hamilton... in order that he might have the entire government
of his [Treasury] machine, determined so to complicate it as that neither
the President or Congress should be able to understand it, or to control
him. He succeeded in doing this not only beyond their reach, but so that
he at length could not unravel it himself." ~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter
to Albert Gallatin, 1801

[Jordan]

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Row, row, row your boat, just not down Main Street in Manayunk. That’s the message police are sending after arresting two men who used a raft as an alternate means of transportation down a flooded street Sunday morning.

CBS 3 reporter Dray Clark caught up with Pete and Pat, best friends and roommates from Manayunk, who paddled their way down the water covered street.

“I thought, Main Street floods a lot, go get a raft and float down,” said Pat, who admitted the idea was his.

“We thought it would be a good time and it turns out it is,” said Pete.

Minutes later, Philadelphia police stopped the men and hauled them away in handcuffs.

When Dray asked why the men were being arrested, he said the officers replied, “for lack of common sense.”

The arrest serves as a message to residents in flood affected areas – this is serious situation and safety should be top of everyone’s mind.

No charges were filed against the boaters.

Video:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/08/28/2-arrested-for-lack-of-common-sense-after-rafting-down-main-street-in-manayunk/

[Jordan]

Court Rules Republicans Who Confiscate Cameras At Town Halls Are Violating 1st Amendment

According to a recent Federal Appeals court ruling, Republican members of Congress who confiscate citizens’ cell phones or cameras and do not allow filming at town halls are violating their constituents First Amendment rights.

One of the ways that unpopular House Republicans have been trying to dodge the wrath of their angry constituents during the August recess is to not allow filming at their town halls. Last week, Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio directed on duty police officers to confiscate the cameras of citizens who tried to film his responses at a recent town hall. Chabot justified this behavior as necessary for the protection of his constituents, but a Federal Court ruling on Friday makes it clear that the Republicans who engaging in this behavior are violating the First Amendment rights of their constituents.

The case brought before the court involved a man in Boston who was arrested for filming the police with his cell phone while they were making a separate arrest of a young man in public. The man who did the filming with his cell phone filed suit alleging that his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The district court ruled in favor of the person who filmed the arrest, and the state appealed.

The judge ruled,

    It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.

    As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is . . .well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that “[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ‘from any source by means within the law.’” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).

    The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).

    Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)).

The court found that people have the First Amendment right to film government officials in public while they are carrying out their duties. In fact, this right is necessary in our democracy to counteract attempts by those who have power to suppress the rights of citizens. The act of not allowing the public to film the carrying out of congressional duties in public is an act of First Amendment suppression.

These same members of the House who prided themselves on their knowledge of the Constitution, and made a show of beginning the new Congress with a reading of the Constitution is so willing to violate the First Amendment rights of their constituents. The House Republicans will look you in the eye and moan about “big government” and “loss of liberty” while they simultaneously violate your First Amendment rights.

If you attempt to attend a town hall at a public place, and someone tells you that you cannot film the event, let them know that they are violating your First Amendment rights. Be sure to bring a copy of the court ruling with you, and it would also be nice of you to highlight the section on filming and the First Amendment. These are your rights. Don’t back down.

Most importantly, they are trying to prevent you from filming because they are afraid. These members of Congress who are trying to take away your rights are afraid of you. You should never be afraid of them.

If you have attended a town hall and had your rights violated, email us your story.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/1st-amendment-town-halls

[Jordan]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7d_1314560134

[Jordan]

SALT LAKE CITY — Tamsen Reid said she didn't even realize something wasn't right until she tried to clear up a drug possession charge she said wasn't hers.

That's when she found out she was not really wanted out of Arizona and realized that the officer who she claims pulled her over and made her take all of her clothes off — allegedly so he could verify her identity — had violated her rights.

Wednesday, Reid, who turned 18 two weeks ago, sat in front of reporters and TV cameras and described the night of Nov. 20, 2010, when she said she was strip-searched while sitting in the passenger seat of a car pulled off to the side of I-15 in Box Elder County.

Reid has filed a civil lawsuit against former Box Elder County sheriff's deputy Scott Womack, who allegedly conducted the illegal strip search. The suit also names Box Elder County Sheriff Lynn Yeates, the county and up to 15 John and Jane Does.

Sheriff's Chief Deputy Kevin Potter referred all calls to their attorney, Frank Mylar. He noted that Womack "left employment" from the sheriff's office in March and said the Weber County Sheriff's Office is currently conducting a criminal investigation into Reid's case.
Wednesday, Reid spoke publicly for the first time about the incident. The petite girl, who was 17 at the time, said she and four friends — two boys and two girls — were driving to Idaho about 11 p.m. during a snowstorm when they were pulled over for speeding.

Because at least one of them was smoking, Womack said he was either going to have to call their parents or do a quick check of their car to make sure there were no drugs, according to Reid.

The woman said she had no reason not to believe the officer.

"Cops are supposed to uphold the law. I figure they're always out to do the right thing," she said Wednesday.

Reid believed Womack was actually trying to help her and her friends avoid having to call their parents or be booked into jail, she said. "He was joking around. He was being a nice guy about everything."

After checking their IDs, the deputy allegedly told them that three of the occupants had warrants out for their arrests. He had the girls lift their shirts and bras up, allegedly to look for drugs, according to Reid and her lawsuit.

Womack then told Reid she was wanted in Arizona for heroin possession. Reid tried to tell the officer she had never done heroin and never been to Arizona. She believed her ID was stolen because Womack claimed he ran a check on a computer using her driver's license number.


In an effort to allegedly make positive identification, Womack told Reid to undress so he could look for tattoos and piercings, the lawsuit states. After she refused one of the deputy's alleged orders, she said the search was over and she was allowed to get dressed. She claims the incident lasted about five minutes while it was snowing and dark outside with few other cars on the road.

When the group of friends got back in the car after Womack had left, the only thought in their minds at the time was, "Cool, no one got tickets," Reid said.

A couple of weeks ago, however, Reid said she wanted to try and get the warrant off her record in case she got pulled over again. What she found out was that she had not arrest warrant. And when she contacted Box Elder County, she found out the warning she was issued by Womack was never filed.

Wednesday, Reid provided a copy of her citation to reporters.

"This is one of the more shocking cases I've had in my career," Robert Sykes, Reid's attorney, said Wednesday.

Sykes said there was "substantial" evidence against Womack, claiming that he was fired from the department for misconduct and was under investigation even before Reid's case surfaced.

A spokesman with the Utah Department of Public Safety said Wednesday that officials from Peace Officer Standards and Training are conducting an investigation on Womack, but as of Wednesday he still had police certification.

Womack is under investigation for at least two other incidents, one by Weber County authorities and one in Box Elder County, Sykes said. He did not know the nature of the alleged violations. Potter, however, said he was not aware of any additional investigations involving Womack.

Frank Mylar, the attorney representing the sheriff's office, believes Sykes has some of his facts about the case wrong.

He said a citizen approached the sheriff's office several months ago with a complaint, alleging the same issues as presented in Reid's lawsuit.

"As soon as the complaint was made it was investigated," Mylar said. "Quick and decisive action was taken. The sheriff and the sheriff's office did not do anything inappropriate."

Mylar also confirmed that Womack was no longer employed by the sheriff's office but would not say if he was fired, resigned or retired.

He said the policies and procedures in the Box Elder County Sheriff's Office are strong, "But that's not going to guarantee against someone totally disregarding it."

"I don't see any wrong doing on behalf of the sheriff or the department," Mylar said.

For at least a month prior to Reid being pulled over, Womack was leaving his dash-cam in his patrol car off, according to Sykes, who said the deputy was also issuing citations and not filing his copies in the office.

While not admitting that that actually happened, Mylar said turning a dash-cam off during a patrol stop would be a violation of policy.

But the attorney expects that other women may now step forward. "This was so wrong," he said. "It needs to be public and there needs to be consequences."

He said the sheriff and and Box Elder County were named in the suit for failing to properly train, supervise and discipline Womack.

Reid said she didn't tell her mother about the incident until recently and she didn't tell her father until Tuesday night.

Despite putting on a brave face for reporters, Reid said she still has anxiety over the incident, goes through mood swings and nightmares that ended with her waking up screaming. Although she still believes in law enforcement, Reid said she probably couldn't get herself to ever consent to a search again.

Sykes said he would be talking to Reid's friends, who had not filed a civil suit as of Wednesday. He said he is also anxious to talk to Womack.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17050551

[Georgiacopguy]

She shouldn't ever consent to a search...No one should. It's your right. Even as a cop I never understood why anybody would so simply give up their right, and allow themselves to be detained further. Social engineering was the only answer I ever came up with.

"I don't have anything to hide."
"They are only doing their job."
"It's not like I'm trafficking drugs."
"This isn't a police state like Russia."

Uh huh.

[ekimdrachir]

Theres more and more of this going on... its terrible.

[Freeski]

She shouldn't ever consent to a search...No one should. It's your right. Even as a cop I never understood why anybody would so simply give up their right, and allow themselves to be detained further. Social engineering was the only answer I ever came up with.

"I don't have anything to hide."
"They are only doing their job."
"It's not like I'm trafficking drugs."
"This isn't a police state like Russia."

Uh huh.

My sentiments exactly! We need popcorn!

[Jordan]

The attorney for a family suing Chicago Public Schools over the alleged handcuffing of a first-grader in 2010 said Tuesday that the boy was among several 6- and 7-year-olds who were detained and handcuffed for hours for talking in class.

In an email to the Tribune, attorney Michael Carin said school officials at Carver Primary School on the Far South Side authorized the on-campus security guard in March 2010 to discipline some first-graders who were being disruptive.

Giving details not disclosed in the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court, Carin said the school's security officer removed the students from class and held them in another office on campus where there were no other adults present. Carin said the students were handcuffed for hours and told that "they were going to prison and would never see their parents again."

"There appears to be no reason for an officer to isolate 6- and 7-year-old children, place them in handcuffs and threaten them for hours during a school day, or any other day," Carin wrote.

Carin said the Chicago Board of Education had ignored attempts to resolve this case outside the courtroom.

"Unfortunately, we had to file a lawsuit because the Chicago Board of Education ignored my client on the day of the imprisonment and every day thereafter," Carin wrote. "We hope the Chicago Board of Education acknowledges its responsibility and resolves the matter quickly."

In the complaint, the boy's mother, LaShanda Smith, describes the guard's action as "reckless" and said her son suffered injuries both "permanent" and "personal" during the incident. Smith, who is seeking more than $100,000 in damages, accuses the officer of acting "in conscious disregard" of her son's safety.

CPS, along with the Board of Education, are defendants in the case. Neither the security officer nor school administrators are named as defendants.

CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll said again Tuesday that school officials have not yet seen the complaint and need to review it before commenting. Calls to Carver Primary School were not returned.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-first-grader-handcuffed-0831-20110831,0,3999803.story

[Jordan]

 SALT LAKE CITY (CN) - A sheriff's deputy made a 17-year-old girl strip for him in his squad car so he could "check for a vaginal piercing" after falsely telling her she was wanted on an out-of-state warrant on a heroin charge, the teen says in Federal Court.

     T.R., now 18, says that after she reported what Box Elder County sheriff's Deputy Scott R. Womack had done, a Box Elder County "victim's advocate" told her: "'Don't bother reporting this, because these things happen all the time, and nothing ever becomes of them.'"

     T.R. says Womack pulled over the car in which she was a passenger on Nov. 20, 2010, allegedly for speeding. After forcing all three girls in the car to "stand barefoot on the snowy roadside and lift up their shirts and pull their bras away from their bodies," he took their ID to his cruiser, allegedly to check for warrants, the complaint states.

     T.R. says Womack returned and told her she was wanted on "an outstanding warrant for a heroin violation in Arizona." T.R., knowing she had never been to Arizona and never touched heroin, protested.
     Womack told her "he was not able to show [her] the warrant because he had 'logged off.' He told [her] that if he tried to access the warrant again, it would alert officials in Arizona, requiring him to arrest her," the complaint states.

     "Womack told [T.R.] that she had two options: either to be arrested and go to jail for booking and processing, or to get in his car and be searched for certain tattoos and piercings. Not wanting to be arrested and taken to jail, and believing Womack's statements regarding the necessity of a search because he was a uniformed officer of the law, [T.R.] reluctantly chose the latter option.
     "Womack placed [her] in the passenger seat of his patrol car and instructed her to remove her clothing. In obedience to the uniformed officer's commands, [T.R.] did indeed remove her slippers, shorts, underwear, and shirt.

     "Womack then informed [T.R.] he needed to check for a vaginal piercing. [T.R.] refused to spread her legs for him. Womack then told her to get dressed and return to the car."

     Womack gave the car's male driver a "warning citation" for speeding and let the group go, but never filed an official copy of the citation with the sheriff's office, the complaint states.

     T.R. says she visited a police station in June "to check on the alleged 'Arizona warrant' Womack had mentioned," and found there was no such warrant, for her or for anyone else with her name.

     She says she then contacted county authorities to report Womack's actions, and "had a discussion with a victim's advocate from the county, who told [her], in substance, 'Don't bother reporting this, because these things happen all the time, and nothing ever becomes of them.'"
     She says she submitted a complaint to the sheriff anyway.

     T.R. says she suffered shock, humiliation, and severe emotional distress, and that Womack's actions "instilled in her a significant and continuing fear of law enforcement officers."
     She sued Womack, Box Elder County and its Sheriff J. Lynn Yeates.

     She seeks punitive damages for civil rights and constitutional violations, including illegal search, seizure and detention, and failure to train or supervise.

     She is represented by Robert Sykes.
     Box Elder County, a remote area north and west of the Great Salt Lake, has its seat in Brigham City.


http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/01/39455.htm

[Constitutionary]

Okay if you coulc just remove your panties...  Giggity         

[Jordan]

http://youtu.be/x7Kw9-vTJYs

[MonkeyPuppet]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=216330.0

[Jordan]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=216330.0

Ahh didn't see that - I'm a category freak - just trying to keep it organized.

[Jordan]

Anonymous leaks a few gigabytes of emails from Texas police forces. Racism, homophobia, bigotry in abundance.

Anonymous, after a relatively large period of doing nothing, are back with a vengeance. Even without their (arrested) de facto leader Topiary, they've punched Texan law enforcement squarely in their gut: a giant email leak, internal documents, addresses. Anon's back.

Anon explains the motives for the attack thusly:

    We are doing this in solidarity with the "Anonymous 16" PayPal LOIC defendants, accused LulzSec member Jake Davis "Topiary", protesters arrested during #OpBart actions, Bradley Manning, Stephen Watt, and other hackers and leakers worldwide.

But really, it's Topiary's arrest more than anything. That cut of the hydra counted for more than one head, and they've been hurting (and quiet) ever since. Or at least that's how it's seemed. Now, Anon says they've been spending the time dormant in Texan police servers, preparing for this moment—a huge data dump and a site defacement.

Unsurprisingly, there's some damaging stuff in there—beyond the fact that this was all supposed to be private law enforcement dialogue.

Exhibit A, an email from Robert Wieners Chief of Police, Friendswood, Texas Police Department. Subject line? "Stupid Bitch":

    That stupid bitch who started that stolen car chase at Yale and 610 got what she deserved (I'll bet she was fat and black too). Same with that pervert that got shot by the county. f**k that guy, see ya. That all sounds like good police work to me. Those folks got the criminal cure. It's guaranteed, they will never commit a crime again.

Literally, the first email in the leak is racist.

Exhibit B, this bigoted chain message regarding "Muslim inbreeding." Yeah.

    Subject: 1,400 years of inbreeding among Muslims
    Attachments:
    View As Web Page
    GUYS,
    I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS GUY IS ONTO SOMETHING!!

    JESS

    Subj: 1,400 years of inbreeding among Muslims

    Read the article and make up your own mind. JHB
    Hi everyone, this very interesting one came in tonight maybe it explains some of why the radical Muslims act so unreasonably brutal. Are the fact true? Don't know but if it is true that they have as a common practice of marrying first cousins, all kinds of problems can erupt. OK, I looked at all my "hoax sites" but couldn't find anything. But, just typing "1,400 years of inbreeding among Muslims" on Google results in a large number of articles discussing this topic. Is Bryan Fischer for real? Yep, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer and other sites about him.
    Doc <°)))><

    Anyway, here's the article that came in:

    I admit that I have not studied the Koran or Quroan or whatever it is, nor do I intend to !! I was subjected to enough of of their total nonsense as only a casual observer in their part of the world .... I only forward this for your reading pleasure and to add to our understanding of the Muslim world. Sharing my opinion that they need to stay in their own sandbox instead of trying to inflict their insane beliefs and religion upon civilized people. (Shucks, now they will call me an infidel)
    ..... JD

Other questionable content includes the use of homophobic language, and this request for the Texan chiefs to investigate an officer's affair with a married woman. Tax dollars at work:

    From: Doug Lauersdorf Sent: Thu 9/16/2010 10:06 AM
    To: Bob Wieners; Luke Loeser
    Cc:
    Subject: Complainant
    Attachments:
    View As Web Page

    Chiefs:

    I conducted a preliminary inquiry into information received from Detective Price who received a call from Mr. Clements wanting us to know that one of our officers on midnight shift was having an affair with his wife. He also complained that the officer had run his criminal history. I asked KC to contact DPS to research their database to ascertain any person(s) that had ran his information to obtain information from any of the following: CCH, TDL, NCIC, TCIC, SETCIC, etc. The search revealed that the only person with the Friendswood Police Department that had run him was Elaine who had ran the information at KC’s direction at my request. This matter is mute until the time comes when he initiates the complaint process and provides us with the officer’s name.

    Sergeant Douglas E. Lauersdorf

The dump is enormous, and contains multitudes. And it makes me feel like it's Summer again—Anonymous looks as zesty and unafraid as they were before the cops neutered their leadership. Now it's #chingalamigra and #antisec once more.

http://gizmodo.com/5836741/anonymous-roars-back-with-3gb-leak-of-texas-police-chief-emails

[Charlie Prime]

Americans love their brave hero cops.

This will generate even more support for removing anonymity and freedom from the Internet.

Get in line for your Internet License slave.  Have your I.D. in hand.

[Jordan]

The May arrest of activist Emily Good has triggered new training for the Rochester police, Police Chief James Sheppard announced today.

Also, he acknowledged, ticketing of Good supporters at a meeting was "targeted" parking enforcement. One command officer has been replaced, he said, though he would not discuss whether others were disciplined.

Good was videotaping police who had pulled over young men in a traffic stop. She was charged with second-degree obstruction of governmental administration, but prosecutors opted to drop the charge.

Sheppard said at a news conference with Mayor Thomas Richards today that officers are now being trained on the specifics of the obstruction law. He said the officer who arrested Good acted professionally.

Good's arrest generated nationwide news coverage.

http://m.rocnow.com/news/article?a=2011110902019&f=1024

[Jordan]

The parents of a Southern California man who accuse police of killing their son with a Taser after he honked at a patrol car have sued the sheriff's department and county.

The suit accuses the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the county of San Bernardino and three deputies of assault and battery as well as negligence in the death of Allen Kephart, 43.

Kephart was driving in Rimforest, 60 miles northeast of Los Angeles, in May when he honked at a patrol vehicle that turned in front of him, according to the lawsuit filed on Tuesday in San Bernardino Superior Court.

The sheriff's deputy then circled his patrol car back behind Kephart's vehicle and pulled him over at a nearby gas station, the lawsuit said.

The deputy ordered Kephart out of his car at gunpoint, forced him to the ground, and was joined by a sergeant and another deputy, the lawsuit said.

The three officers used their electroshock Taser weapons on Kephart "without provocation or justification" for about 10 minutes, expending five cartridges, the lawsuit states.

Kephart, who the suit said was "overheard screaming for help," stopped breathing at the gas station.

The suit also accused the officers, named as Deputy Ismael Diaz, Deputy Michael Gardea and Sergeant Bryan Lane, of failing to immediately perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or call for emergency assistance.

A representative from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department declined to comment on the lawsuit.

But the department said in a statement earlier this year that Kephart "became combative and uncooperative" with a deputy after exiting his car.

The department also said the sheriff's deputies did at one point perform CPR on Kephart, and that he was later pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Kephart's family is seeking general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial for lost earning potential and loss of love and affection.

"Allen Kephart was a well known person in the community and was known by all, including the officers involved in this incident, to be ... kind hearted and nonviolent," the lawsuit said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44365830/ns/us_news/#.TmC3f6hypS9

[Jordan]

 RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) - A man who was eating a taco at a Raleigh bus stop says a cop swept-kicked him to the ground, broke his leg and arrested him, then hauled him before a judge who sentenced him to 30 days in jail for contempt, because he could not stand on his broken leg.

     Lynwood Earl Artis sued Raleigh police Officer James Rollins, Wake County and its sheriff, and others, in Federal Court.
     Artis said that after buying his dinner at the Armadillo Grill, he "quietly began to eat his taco, waiting for the bus," when Rollins "approached Artis on foot ... and asked if a beer was his."

     "Artis leaned forward and saw what appeared to be a discarded can of beer that had been concealed from his view" by a newspaper rack. He says he told Rollins, "'Why, Officer, if that beer were mine, I would be enjoying it with my meal.'" And he resumed eating his taco.

     He says Rollins asked him for ID, then "Without either warning or being told he was under arrest, Rollins grabbed Artis by his still taco-laden arm, and spun Artis around with great force, which pivoted Artis on his left leg and sent the hapless taco flying.

     "Rollins twisted Artis' arm behind his back and then swept-kicked Artis' legs from the side and threw him to the ground.
     "All of Artis' weight was still on his left leg from being spun by Rollins, and Artis felt and heard his lower left leg sicken[ing]ly crack when Rollins swept-kicked him."

     Artis adds that he "was not in possession of a deadly weapon; he was, however, in legal and actual possession of a taco, which Artis did not wield in any threatening manner."

     Artis was taken to the Wake County Detention Center, where, unable to get out of the car on his own, and at his own insistence, he was put into a wheelchair. He was charged with "misdemeanor open container malt beverage and disorderly conduct," then wheeled before a magistrate at 10:10 p.m. It was Sept. 11, 2010.

     He says sheriff's deputies "continued to heckle" him as he was wheeled into court - they told him there was nothing wrong with him. Artis told the judge that "he could not stand because his leg was broken." He was "in serious and intense pain because of his shattered leg, was confused as to why he had been arrested, was extremely frustrated by the heckling, that no one believed he was seriously hurt, and that he was not getting urgently needed medical attention."

     It took Magistrate Bostrom 4 minutes to find Artis in contempt of court and sentence him to 30 days in jail, with no bond, Artis said. Eleven minutes later, Bostrom agreed to set bond at $1,000, according to the complaint.

     Artis spent the night in jail without medical attention and, says that "several times during Artis' stay in the holding cell he had to urinate on the floor where he lay" because jailers would not bring him a wheelchair.

     Nearly 12 hours after he was arrested, a nurse finally inspected his leg and "observed ... that Artis' left leg could not bear weight; that his left knee and lower leg area was swollen and deformed; and that parasthesia was noted." The nurse ordered him to be sent immediately to a hospital emergency room.

     Artis had pins inserted in his leg and "awoke from surgery to find his belongings next to his hospital bed and a nurse informed him that he was no longer in custody."

     He says that Officer Rollins refused to testify at the trial and all charg
es were dropped, "with a note in the file stating that 'Rollins said he will not testify b/c he does not recall incident.'"
     Artis seeks punitive damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, battery, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is represented by Eric Doggett and Gregory Kash of Raleigh and Billy Strickland II of Goldsboro.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/39495.htm

[Jordan]

TAMERA MEDLEY begged the police officer to stop slamming her head - over and over - into the hood of a police cruiser.

Thinking they were helping, passers-by Shakir Riley and Melissa Hurling both turned their cellphone video cameras toward the melee that had erupted on Jefferson Street in Wynnefield, they said.

But then the cops turned on them.

Riley had started to walk away when at least five baton-wielding cops followed him, he said, and they beat him, poured a soda on his face and stomped on his phone, destroying the video he had just taken.

Meanwhile, two officers approached Hurling, urged her to leave and, after exchanging a few words, slammed her against a police cruiser, Hurling said. They pulled her by her hair before tossing her into the back of a cop car, she said.

Although it's legal to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public, all three were charged with disorderly conduct and related offenses, and officers destroyed Hurling and Riley's cellphones, erasing any record of Medley's violent arrest, the pair said.

Charges against Hurling and Riley were dismissed, but Medley was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, harassment and related offenses. She was fined $500 but has filed an appeal.

Echoes of the incident, which was corroborated by a half-dozen witnesses, have been reverberating nationwide in recent years as the combination of cellphone video and police officers has simmered into what is an increasingly explosive formula. A growing number of bystanders have been misled, arrested or worse for using their cellphones to record what they perceive as excessive force by cops making arrests, watchdogs say.

"I grew up in the neighborhood and I saw stuff go down but it never happened to me," Riley said recently, adding that he did nothing wrong. "They stomped my phone and said it was a federal offense."


'Relevant for integrity'

The issue is gaining national attention. The American Civil Liberties Union has civil lawsuits pending in Washington, D.C., Florida, Illinois and Maryland. Last week, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that police had violated the First Amendment rights of a lawyer who was arrested after filming cops arrest a teenager.

Suits have been settled in Pennsylvania, and this year, the ACLU plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of several Philadelphians.

"It is clear in our experience that police react badly to being caught on tape, on video," said Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Office. "This is an opportunity for everybody to document what the police are doing." Roper wouldn't say who will be included in the Philly lawsuit.

Evan Hughes, a lawyer representing Medley, Hurling and Riley who plans to file a civil suit after Medley's case is resolved, said that the video could have aided in the investigation.

"When an officer uses excessive force, they will accuse the suspect of assaulting them," Hughes said. "It takes a video to prove it was in fact the police officer."

Some police officials argue that people who attempt to record often impede an investigation.

"It's a recipe for disaster. We have people getting in the way of an investigation," said John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. "They have their right to tape, [but people have] to be mindful that officers are out there conducting an investigation. The safety of the officer is pertinent."

And police officials caution that any video shows only part of the story, usually leaving out what led up to a contentious arrest, as was the case when a news helicopter filmed the violent arrest of three suspects in Feltonville in 2008.

"With the video footage law enforcement receive at times, they don't get the full, complete incident," said police spokesman Lt. Ray Evers. "Things happen before and after. With video, it is what it is and the chips fall where they may."

For instance, in the Wynnefield incident, which occurred last summer, Medley was leaving a corner store when she stumbled upon a crowd watching police arrest a neighbor.

Medley, 27, said that an officer yelled at her to cross the street to get away from the scene, then charged toward her. The officer said in court last month that he restrained Medley because she was "loud and boisterous," wouldn't obey his orders and was resisting arrest. (Police said that Hurling and Riley were arrested because they didn't obey orders to leave the area.)

Even if Riley and Hurling's videos hadn't been destroyed, though, their videos wouldn't have shown whose version of the story was true.

In other states, and in one case in Pittsburgh, authorities have used laws banning wiretapping as justification for filing charges against those who film police, but experts say those laws weren't intended to apply to a public servant performing job duties in a public place.

"Visual recording is a permanent part of our way of life. It's an accountability measure, so we know who does what," said Samuel Walker, author of several books on policing, criminal-justice policy and civil liberties. "When talking about public officials in a public space, that's relevant for integrity of the justice system."

Philadelphians who find themselves corralled into this issue have mostly been charged with disorderly conduct, but even that goes too far if the only offense is filming police.


"We always try to make officers aware of the fact that they're being filmed by someone or something," said Deputy Police Commissioner Richard Ross. "You should always assume in today's climate, even as a private citizen, that your actions are being captured. Provided you don't put yourself in harm's way, we don't have the right to stop you."

 
'It was surreal'

Despite the department's training, Philly cops have clashed with several people trying to record them and are sometimes unaware of what the rules are.

In the Wynnefield incident, residents told the Daily News that cops went after people who were recording and confiscated or broke their cellphones. A neighbor found Hurling's phone bent, with its memory card missing.

"They're supposed to be public servants, not abusers of the people they serve," said Berusche Jackson, who witnessed the melee and said he saw a cop stomp Riley's phone. "It was surreal."

In another case last month, police allegedly began beating Darrell Holloway, who is legally blind, with flashlights and batons during a narcotics investigation on a West Philly street. There wasn't much his cousin Jamal Holloway could do but record the incident on his phone.

Jamal, 33, said that when officers spotted him filming, he was detained and taken to a police station at 55th and Pine streets. Before he was brought inside, an officer told him to delete the video.

"One female cop told me to delete the stuff and then I can walk," Jamal recalled, adding that the cop said she would confiscate his phone. "I was there close up. I can't believe it happened like - they beating my cousin like that and he's in the situation he's in."

Jamal said he opted to erase the footage.

"As part of the investigation, we're not aware of anyone brought to the station besides those that were charged," said Lt. John Walker of Southwest Detectives.

Then in July, Zanberle Sheppard, 24, said neighbors told her that police were beating her handcuffed boyfriend, Tayvon Eure, in an alley behind their home on 65th Street near Chester.

Sheppard said she peered out her back window and began to film the arrest. After officers saw her, she said, they banged on her neighbor's door. Sheppard ran outside and around to the alley with her cellphone, she said, and that's when a cop told other officers to grab her phone.

She claims that when she pulled away from the cops, one officer grabbed her by her hair and she dropped her phone. Neighbor Robin Artis, 17, said she saw a cop punch Sheppard in the face and stomp her. Sheppard had a black eye and a bruised lip.

The next time she saw her phone was when the cop who allegedly beat her boyfriend came into the police station where Sheppard was and threw it at her, she said. The back of her phone was broken, the battery was missing and the video was gone.

Evers said Sheppard was told to "back away from the patrol car that contained her boyfriend, who was arrested for narcotics. The defendant pulled away from the officer and actively resisted." Evers said Sheppard was arrested after a brief struggle.

Sheppard, a mother of three who has no criminal record, was charged with disorderly conduct.

"I never get in trouble with the law," Sheppard said. "I didn't do nothing. I was just recording."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110903_CAMERA-SHY_COPS.html?cmpid=124488749

[Jordan]

MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS, OH (WOIO) -

19 Action News has learned that a Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's investigation has ruled the death of Howard Hammon III a homicide.

Hammon's family confirms the finding.

"That was my brother, I love him and I miss him and I can't sleep. I have nightmares. This is ridiculous," said Neva Hammon.

Hammon was tasered fives times by Middleburg Heights Police after a traffic accident in June.

The medical examiner's investigation found Hammond was high at the time of his struggle with police. Tests revealed he had several drugs in his system.

A ruling of homicide doesn't mean a crime was committed by police or even that they were at fault. In Ohio, there are five causes of death that can be ruled - natural causes, accidental, suicide, undetermined or homicide. 

A police dashcam video of Hammon's arrest shows him struggling with police for several minutes after refusing to be handcuffed.  Hammon's family has called for the officers to be criminally charged.   Middleburg Heights Police Chief John Maddox says his officers acted properly and cited Hammon's long arrest record.

VIDEO:
http://www.woio.com/story/15375316/medical-examiner-rules-man?hpt=ju_bn5

[Jordan]

Here is my story about my arrest Friday night and the reasons for it. I met Chris Nielsen, owner of Electric Cab of Austin, during my recent campaign.

He told me about his 3 year long battle with the City of Austin in which he had an idea to start a green energy business giving people rides on a “tips only” basis. He did not charge for his services, and really the business is a mobile marketing company that generates revenue from advertising on the side of his low speed electric vehicles.

He explained how the Austin City Council has had this issue in front of them multiple times yet never seems to vote on the issue and always continue to “study” it, thus delaying it and kicking it down the road a few more months.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent studying his VERY small business. The Urban Transportation commission has recommended multiple times that the city issue him a permit to operate. Yet, our Austin City Council refuses to act, and ignores the business repeatedly and pretends like nothing is wrong. I have been told by multiple City Council Members that nothing is “preventing” this business from operating.

There is no law actually prohibiting him from operating this business, it is true but, the enforcement side of the city (the police) have taken this lack of a law regulating the business as operating in violation of a law. He is violating a law that does not exist…. His drivers have received around 200 tickets and arrests now.

I met with multiple council members and made several phone calls, wrote emails, etc…. I realized that he was right, he is being ignored, and the City of Austin does not wish this business to exist. Why? The Taxi lobby is concerned about competition, and they donated $36,700 between all of the sitting Council Members including the Mayor.

This gives the impression that we have private businesses buying harassment of their competition. I’m not making any direct accusations against anyone here, but I will say it does not look pretty at all.

So, I drove a cart for him. I gave 2 rides on Friday night. The first ride was to a couple of women who when dropped off handed me a few dollars and thanked me. I did not charge them. They voluntarily handed me the money. At this point, 3 APD officers stopped me and wrote me a ticket for “Operating without a permit” and “no chauffeurs license.” I tried to explain the permit and license do not exist, they did not care. I asked if they had read the ordinances I was supposedly violating, I asked multiple times and the officers refused to quote the law I was breaking. They told me if they saw me operating again, they would arrest me.

I decided that the Austin Police Department does not have the right, nor the authority to shut down a business on a whim. I picked up another person, and gave him a ride. I dropped him off where he asked to go. The police officers saw him hand me $4 (again, I did not charge him) and immediately came to me and put me in handcuffs. I was arrested without discussion or hesitation and taken directly to jail. It was late Friday evening, and I got to spend the night with a lot of the drunks, one of them throwing up all over the floor right next to me. It was quite the experience. I stayed in jail until the morning when I was released. Every single officer I interacted with in jail made comments about what a waste of time my arrest was. NONE of them supported my charges nor the fact that I was there. I could hear them talking about it the entire night, the officer taking my mugshot and fingerprints showed my file to every other officer working in the jail talking about how incredibly stupid my arrest was and made multiple comments about the priorities of our police chief. Granted they work for a different department (they were county officers instead of city police) so they had no problem trashing the City Police.

My arrest was for a law that did not exist, I have done nothing wrong, and our City Council refuses to even discuss that there could be a problem. In the meantime, a small business is being quietly bankrupted by the city with impound fees and arrests of it’s employees. Another driver was arrested just last week, a 19 year old girl, for the same exact charge as mine. She broke no law.

I am appealing to anyone who cares about green energy, anyone who cares about small businesses, anyone who cares about police accountability, anyone who cares about wasted resources, anyone who thinks things like these should not happen. Please, please write to the Austin City Council members and tell them what an injustice they are committing. It does not matter where you live, the government shutting down businesses applies to all across this country. Please show your support for us. We are helping keep drunk drivers off the streets, don’t charge for our services, and desperately desire to give back to this community that we love so much.

Thank you,

Kris Bailey

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm

http://ramblingdiscourses.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/97/

[Freeski]

Never forget that this death probably wouldn't have happened without government involvement. Cops killed this guy with taxpayer money. We are all to blame for allowing it to happen. Why would we "give" our hard-earned wealth to the government to impose a command-and-control dictatorship? Have we lost our minds?

[ekimdrachir]

Bump

[Kilika]

If this company is trying to operate as a taxi company, I can see where they are holding up it's application. The taxi lobby has been strong locally in most cities for years. Try opening a new cab company in NYC or Chicago! Good luck.

I don't think this has anything to do with green energy resistance, but the local taxi lobby is putting pressure on local politicians to stifle competition.

If you are picking up people and taking them to a different location, regardless of whether or not they pay for it, I don't see how that's not operating a taxi service. If you gave a ride to a person on a rare occasion, then I don't think it's a taxi service, but if you do it repeatedly, how is that not a taxi service? So that means if your operating, your violating the law, whether or not the city has been responsible in considering the company's application to operate.

So the complaint is obviously in the city dragging their feet on the application, but that doesn't mean the company can operate in the mean time, so how are the cops out of line? Looks to me like the company is violating the law, and would be subject to tickets.

I decided that the Austin Police Department does not have the right, nor the authority to shut down a business on a whim.

On a whim? I agree, but this situation isn't on a whim. You've admitted to doing business without the proper licenses and permits.

Am I missing something?

[kerrymti]

I guess you could file a lawsuit for the 'unlawful' arrest...if you could find an attorney willing to take them on!  I am convinced that this new behavior of the law enforcement across the country is a scarry trend.  We are seeing repeated incidents where the police threaten, harrass, demean and arrest people when they have broken no law.  They just expect that the people will put up with it and start behaving the way they want you to...no need for a law.  Sad part is that it is working.

[Jordan]

TAMERA MEDLEY begged the police officer to stop slamming her head - over and over - into the hood of a police cruiser.

Thinking they were helping, passers-by Shakir Riley and Melissa Hurling both turned their cellphone video cameras toward the melee that had erupted on Jefferson Street in Wynnefield, they said.

But then the cops turned on them.

Riley had started to walk away when at least five baton-wielding cops followed him, he said, and they beat him, poured a soda on his face and stomped on his phone, destroying the video he had just taken.

Meanwhile, two officers approached Hurling, urged her to leave and, after exchanging a few words, slammed her against a police cruiser, Hurling said. They pulled her by her hair before tossing her into the back of a cop car, she said.

Although it's legal to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public, all three were charged with disorderly conduct and related offenses, and officers destroyed Hurling and Riley's cellphones, erasing any record of Medley's violent arrest, the pair said.

Charges against Hurling and Riley were dismissed, but Medley was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, harassment and related offenses. She was fined $500 but has filed an appeal.

Echoes of the incident, which was corroborated by a half-dozen witnesses, have been reverberating nationwide in recent years as the combination of cellphone video and police officers has simmered into what is an increasingly explosive formula. A growing number of bystanders have been misled, arrested or worse for using their cellphones to record what they perceive as excessive force by cops making arrests, watchdogs say.

"I grew up in the neighborhood and I saw stuff go down but it never happened to me," Riley said recently, adding that he did nothing wrong. "They stomped my phone and said it was a federal offense."

 
'Relevant for integrity'

The issue is gaining national attention. The American Civil Liberties Union has civil lawsuits pending in Washington, D.C., Florida, Illinois and Maryland. Last week, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that police had violated the First Amendment rights of a lawyer who was arrested after filming cops arrest a teenager.

Suits have been settled in Pennsylvania, and this year, the ACLU plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of several Philadelphians.

"It is clear in our experience that police react badly to being caught on tape, on video," said Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Office. "This is an opportunity for everybody to document what the police are doing." Roper wouldn't say who will be included in the Philly lawsuit.

Evan Hughes, a lawyer representing Medley, Hurling and Riley who plans to file a civil suit after Medley's case is resolved, said that the video could have aided in the investigation.

"When an officer uses excessive force, they will accuse the suspect of assaulting them," Hughes said. "It takes a video to prove it was in fact the police officer."

Some police officials argue that people who attempt to record often impede an investigation.

"It's a recipe for disaster. We have people getting in the way of an investigation," said John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. "They have their right to tape, [but people have] to be mindful that officers are out there conducting an investigation. The safety of the officer is pertinent."

And police officials caution that any video shows only part of the story, usually leaving out what led up to a contentious arrest, as was the case when a news helicopter filmed the violent arrest of three suspects in Feltonville in 2008.

"With the video footage law enforcement receive at times, they don't get the full, complete incident," said police spokesman Lt. Ray Evers. "Things happen before and after. With video, it is what it is and the chips fall where they may."

For instance, in the Wynnefield incident, which occurred last summer, Medley was leaving a corner store when she stumbled upon a crowd watching police arrest a neighbor.

Medley, 27, said that an officer yelled at her to cross the street to get away from the scene, then charged toward her. The officer said in court last month that he restrained Medley because she was "loud and boisterous," wouldn't obey his orders and was resisting arrest. (Police said that Hurling and Riley were arrested because they didn't obey orders to leave the area.)

Even if Riley and Hurling's videos hadn't been destroyed, though, their videos wouldn't have shown whose version of the story was true.

In other states, and in one case in Pittsburgh, authorities have used laws banning wiretapping as justification for filing charges against those who film police, but experts say those laws weren't intended to apply to a public servant performing job duties in a public place.

"Visual recording is a permanent part of our way of life. It's an accountability measure, so we know who does what," said Samuel Walker, author of several books on policing, criminal-justice policy and civil liberties. "When talking about public officials in a public space, that's relevant for integrity of the justice system."


Philadelphians who find themselves corralled into this issue have mostly been charged with disorderly conduct, but even that goes too far if the only offense is filming police.

"We always try to make officers aware of the fact that they're being filmed by someone or something," said Deputy Police Commissioner Richard Ross. "You should always assume in today's climate, even as a private citizen, that your actions are being captured. Provided you don't put yourself in harm's way, we don't have the right to stop you."

 
'It was surreal'

Despite the department's training, Philly cops have clashed with several people trying to record them and are sometimes unaware of what the rules are.

In the Wynnefield incident, residents told the Daily News that cops went after people who were recording and confiscated or broke their cellphones. A neighbor found Hurling's phone bent, with its memory card missing.

"They're supposed to be public servants, not abusers of the people they serve," said Berusche Jackson, who witnessed the melee and said he saw a cop stomp Riley's phone. "It was surreal."

In another case last month, police allegedly began beating Darrell Holloway, who is legally blind, with flashlights and batons during a narcotics investigation on a West Philly street. There wasn't much his cousin Jamal Holloway could do but record the incident on his phone.

Jamal, 33, said that when officers spotted him filming, he was detained and taken to a police station at 55th and Pine streets. Before he was brought inside, an officer told him to delete the video.

"One female cop told me to delete the stuff and then I can walk," Jamal recalled, adding that the cop said she would confiscate his phone. "I was there close up. I can't believe it happened like - they beating my cousin like that and he's in the situation he's in."

Jamal said he opted to erase the footage.

"As part of the investigation, we're not aware of anyone brought to the station besides those that were charged," said Lt. John Walker of Southwest Detectives.

Then in July, Zanberle Sheppard, 24, said neighbors told her that police were beating her handcuffed boyfriend, Tayvon Eure, in an alley behind their home on 65th Street near Chester.

Sheppard said she peered out her back window and began to film the arrest. After officers saw her, she said, they banged on her neighbor's door. Sheppard ran outside and around to the alley with her cellphone, she said, and that's when a cop told other officers to grab her phone.


She claims that when she pulled away from the cops, one officer grabbed her by her hair and she dropped her phone. Neighbor Robin Artis, 17, said she saw a cop punch Sheppard in the face and stomp her. Sheppard had a black eye and a bruised lip.

The next time she saw her phone was when the cop who allegedly beat her boyfriend came into the police station where Sheppard was and threw it at her, she said. The back of her phone was broken, the battery was missing and the video was gone.

Evers said Sheppard was told to "back away from the patrol car that contained her boyfriend, who was arrested for narcotics. The defendant pulled away from the officer and actively resisted." Evers said Sheppard was arrested after a brief struggle.

Sheppard, a mother of three who has no criminal record, was charged with disorderly conduct.

"I never get in trouble with the law," Sheppard said. "I didn't do nothing. I was just recording."

http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-03/news/30109223_1_cops-arrest-police-cruiser-cop-car

[Jordan]

Teen Girl Forced to Give Cop Oral Sex -- What the Sick Abuse of Authority Says About Our Rape Culture

A girl files suit after sexual abuse from a cop reveals a departmental pattern; what is with authority figures using sex to dominate others?

In our authority-oriented society, we're expected to put our trust in certain powerful figures: the police officers charged with protecting us, the clergy charged with guiding us.
So why is a culture of sexual abuse so rampant in many outposts of these kinds of institutions?

The answer lies in the question: wherever there is unquestioned power and authority, we'll see sexual abuse, because in our "rape culture" rape is above all about power, domination, and violence. And when the attacker feels that he or she can get away with it--as those who are revered or set aside by society do--the problem worsens.

Over Labor Day weekend, a chilling story came to light in Kansas City, Missouri. The court case arose out of a culture of police negligence around questionable sexual behavior, a culture that eventually led to a horrific assault on a young girl, a teen who was hanging out late in a park with her friends.

From Courthouse news service:

    A teen-age girl says a Jackson County police officer forced her to give him oral sex in his squad car after he found her and some friends in a park after curfew. And she says that assault is just the tip of the iceberg of a pattern of sexual deviancy by Jackson County police officers...

    Burgess told C.B.'s friends to leave, then he handcuffed C.B., fondled her breasts, vaginal area and buttocks, forced her to give him oral sex and ejaculated. 

C.B and her counsel have pointed to a number of other instances both with this particular officer but also with his department, which indicates that for years, officers were getting a pass for essentially predatory and disturbing behavior.

    Some of the allegations include: a sergeant receiving just a 3-day suspension for sending 95 sexually explicit jokes and cartoons from department computers; another sergeant receiving just a 5-day suspension for sending and receiving sexually explicit emails on department computers; and reassigning an officer, accused of making an inappropriate joke to a female officer, to work as a school resource officer at a local high school. That officer has since had several complaints from parents of girls at that high school about his conduct.

It's important that this brave girl is taking her claims to court--because her problem isn't an isolated one.

While her assault took place several years ago, there have been a number of high-profile cases in which officers of the law were accused of sexual assault this summer. One, the infamous "rape-cop" story in New York, led to a not-guilty verdict and this stricken statement from the anonymous victim, to whose aid the cops had been called:

    Hearing that verdict brought me to my knees; it brought me back to my bedroom on that awful night when my world was turned upside down by the actions of two police officers who were sent there to protect, but instead took advantage of their authority and broke the law.

If you need any more proof that sexual assault is about power, not sexual desire, then look at these cases in which the alleged victim was completely at the mercy of the person accused of assaulting her, someone who was, by nature of his authority, given good standing in the community.

And while the NYC officers were immediately fired, it seems that the officer in Missouri and his colleagues had been acting with impunity for a long time.

If there's anything that comes to mind when thinking about this story out of Missouri--particularly the bit about the cop who acted lewdly being sent to work with minors at a high school--it's that there's a marked similarity to the culture of cover-up and shunting abusers from place to placea that underscored the widespread sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church.

This is not to mention the general culture of authority and entitlement that allowed the abusers in both situations to get away with it.

The church sex abuse story has been in the news, too, this weekend, in the form of the ongoing (and rather riveting) feud between the Irish government, which appears to very much have the populace behind it, and the Vatican--which is hitting back hard.

For the first time, basically, since pre-Christian Ireland, the special relationship between Rome and the Irish people is being strained to a heretofore unimaginable extent, thanks to the very same kind of systematic cover-up of rape and sexual abuse that we saw among law enforcement in the above instances.

Investigations revealed that the Vatican sent a letter discouraging the reporting of child abuse to local authorities. The letter made the Vatican look so bad that Irish Prime Minister Enda Kelly has gone on the record slamming the Church.

From the Guardian:

    The findings encouraged Irish politicians, led by Kenny, to claim the Vatican's letter had effectively crippled the Irish church's efforts to tackle the abuse within its ranks.

    Breaking with years of traditional subservience to the Vatican by Irish politicians, Kenny said: "The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold, instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'."

While there's now quite a bit of evidence pointing to the fact that the centralized church authorities were complicit, the culture of trust and reverence that underpins religious institutions is the same kind of trust we're supposed to have in law enforcement.

From the horror stories we hear about powerful politicians, to cops and priests and other religious leaders, to the leaders of religious cults like Warren Jeffs, the fact remains that rape and power are intertwined. While some violent rape may be about the powerless trying to assert dominance, these kinds of instances of abuse are all about taking advantage of the powerless, the voiceless, and in many cases the young.

While there's no question that there are many good individuals who hold these kinds of powerful positions, these stories remind us that wherever there's a systematic "above the law" mentality, the basest of human impulses can be given free rein.

http://www.alternet.org/story/152310/teen_girl_forced_to_give_cop_oral_sex_--_what_the_sick_abuse_of_authority_says_about_our_rape_culture

[Jordan]

Our Creeping Police State: How Going to the Mall of America Can Land You in an FBI Counterterrorism Report

Audio: Part one of this story on NPR's All Things Considered.
Audio: Part two of this story on NPR's Morning Edition.


Bloomington, Minn. – On May 1, 2008, at 4:59 p.m., Brad Kleinerman entered the spooky world of homeland security.

As he shopped for a children’s watch inside the sprawling Mall of America, two security guards approached and began questioning him. Although he was not accused of wrongdoing, the guards filed a confidential report about Kleinerman that was forwarded to local police.

The reason: Guards thought he might pose a threat because they believed he had been looking at them in a suspicious way.

Najam Qureshi, owner of a kiosk that sold items from his native Pakistan, also had his own experience with authorities after his father left a cell phone on a table in the food court.

The consequence: An FBI agent showed up at the family’s home, asking if they knew anyone who might want to hurt the United States.

Mall of America officials say their security unit stops and questions on average up to 1,200 people each year. The interviews at the mall are part of a counterterrorism initiative that acts as the private eyes and ears of law enforcement authorities but has often ensnared innocent people, according to an investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting and NPR.

In many cases, the written reports were filed without the knowledge of those interviewed by security. Several people named in the reports learned from journalists that their birth dates, race, names of employers and other personal information were compiled along with surveillance images.

One Iranian man, now 62, began passing out during questioning. An Army veteran sobbed in his car after he was questioned for nearly two hours about video he had taken inside the mall.

Much of the questioning at the mall has been done in public while shoppers mill around, records show. Two people, a shopper and a mall employee, also described being taken to a basement area for questioning. Officials at the mall would not address individual cases.

“The government is not going to protect us free of charge, so we have to do that ourselves,” said Maureen Bausch, executive vice president of business development at the mall. “We’re lucky enough to be in the city of Bloomington where they actually have a police substation here [in the mall]. … They’re great. But we are responsible for this building.”

Reporters at the Center for Investigative Reporting and NPR obtained 125 suspicious activity reports totaling over 1,000 pages dating back to Christmas Eve, 2005. The documents, provided by law enforcement officials in Minnesota, give a glimpse inside the national campaign by authorities to collect and share intelligence about possible threats.  

The initiative exemplifies one of the cultural legacies of the terrorist attacks 10 years ago: Organizations and individuals are now encouraged by U.S. leaders to watch one another and report any signs of threats to homeland security authorities.

There is no way for the public to know exactly how many suspicious activity reports from the Mall of America have ended up with local, state and federal authorities. CIR and NPR asked 29 law enforcement agencies under open government laws for reports on suspicious activities. Only the Bloomington Police Department and Minnesota’s state fusion center have turned over at least a portion of the paperwork.

In 2008, the mall’s security director, Douglas Reynolds, told Congress [PDF] that the mall was the “number-one source of actionable intelligence” provided to the state’s fusion center, an intelligence hub created after 9/11 to pull together reports from an array of law enforcement sources.

Information from the suspicious activity reports generated at the mall has been shared with Bloomington police, the FBI and, in at least four cases, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Missed signals prompt heightened awareness

The push to encourage Americans to report suspicious activity began in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, when government officials and citizens found out there had been hints about the attackers that intelligence analysts had missed.

Some of the terrorists had taken flight training in Florida – but didn't focus on how to land. They bought one-way tickets. Officials at the FBI and other agencies failed to act on – or share – tips they had received.

In the decade since, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security have launched programs urging citizens to report suspicious activity. The private sector, including the utility industry and other businesses concerned with protecting “critical infrastructure,” have their own surveillance and reporting systems. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made such reporting a priority.

Last year the Department of Homeland Security launched its promotional campaign, “If you see something, say something,” encouraging Americans to report anything perceived as threatening.

Among those formally enlisted were parking attendants, Jewish groups, stadium operators, landlords, security guards, fans of professional golf and auto racing and retailers such as the Mall of America.

http://youtu.be/stsRfx5-3EQ

Visitors “may be subject to a security interview,” the mall’s website says.

The suspicious activity reports from the mall are rich with detail. They contain personal information, sometimes including Social Security numbers and the names of family members and friends. Some of the reports include shoppers’ travel plans. (About 40 percent of mall visitors are tourists.)

Commander Jim Ryan of the Bloomington Police Department said shoppers are not under arrest when stopped for questioning by private security. He said even he would walk away if the questioning seemed excessive.

“I don’t think that I would subject myself to that, personally,” he said. Ryan, however, defends security procedures at the mall.

Mall Counterterrorism files ID mostly Minorties.

In some cases, the questioning appears to have the hallmarks of profiling – something that officials at the mall deny. In nearly two-thirds of the cases reviewed, subjects are described as African American, people of Asian and Arabic descent, and other minorities, according to an analysis of the documents.

Mall spokesman Dan Jasper said the private security guards would not conduct interviews based on racial or ethnic characteristics because “we may miss someone who truly does have harmful intent.”

“It’s important to note that we conduct security interviews based solely on suspicious behavior,” Jasper said in a statement. “Research indicates that profiling based on ethnic or racial characteristics is ineffective and a waste of valuable time and resources.”

Ryan said such reports are crucial to the nation’s safety in the post-9/11 era. He said the suspicious activity reports could be held by his agency for two decades or longer. He acknowledged that the mall’s methods, and reports the security guards file, may “infringe on some freedoms, unfortunately.”

“We’re charged with trying to keep people safe. We’re trying to do it the best way we can,” he said. “You may be questioned at the Mall of America about suspicious activity. It’s something that may happen. It’s part of today’s society.”  

Some national security and constitutional law specialists question the propriety and effectiveness of such reports.

Dale Watson, a former top counterterrorism official with the FBI, said the mall's reports suggest that anyone could be targeted for intrusive questioning and surveillance.

“If that had been one of my brothers that was stopped in a mall, I’d be furious about it – if I thought the police department had a file on him, an information file about his activities in the mall without any reasonable suspicion to investigate,” said Watson, who played key roles in the investigations of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and a 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Shoppers, who for the most part had no idea that a visit to the mall led to their personal information being shared with law enforcement, reacted with anger and dismay when shown their reports.

“For all the 30 years that I have lived in the United States, I’ve never been a suspect,” said Emil Khalil. The California man was confronted at the mall in June 2009 for taking pictures, and he said an FBI agent later questioned him at the airport. “And I’ve never done anything wrong.”

Stories abound of people being stopped elsewhere in the United States for activity considered suspicious.  

The New York Civil Liberties Union last year sued over one photographer’s arrest, leading to a formal acknowledgement by the government that there are no rules or laws explicitly barring photos of federal buildings. An ACLU chapter this spring threatened transit officials in Maryland with litigation after police ordered individuals to stop snapping and filming images.

Frequent clashes between photographers and security guards nonetheless continue. New Jersey commuters can “text against terror” if they see behavior believed to be strange, and a smart phone app allows residents of the Bluegrass State to be the “eyes and ears on Kentucky.”  

Privately owned mall follows own rules

The Mall of America has become a monument to suburban shopping and entertainment. With 4.2 million square feet under one roof, the two-decade-old mall is one of the largest complexes of its kind in the world.

It features national retail stores such as Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Banana Republic, Brookstone and scores of other shops that populate malls across the country. It includes mom-and-pop kiosks selling T-shirts, cell phone covers, jewelry and more. To visit all the shops, more than 500 at last count, would take days.

But its entertainment complex sets the Mall of America apart. It has roller coasters, a Ferris wheel, a giant SpongeBob SquarePants statue, a water ride, remote-controlled trucks and boat games, all of it indoors. Nearly 100,000 people from around the world pass through the mall on a given day, more than 40 million each year.

The mall is controlled by the Canada-based Triple Five Group, a conglomerate that owns an even larger mall in Edmonton.

In 2005, the Mall of America hired Mike Rozin to lead a new special security unit.

Rozin served as a sergeant in the Israel Defense Forces before working in a protective division at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. He trained mall security in the art of interpreting behavioral cues for signs of a threat. Although his unit’s approach has some of the hallmarks of profiling, Rozin dismissed any such notion, saying members of his unit merely watch what people do.

According to documents, they look for unexplained nervousness, people photographing such things as air-conditioning ducts or signs that a shopper might have something to hide. It’s the kind of approach for which Israeli airport security is renowned.

“Today, when you fly through Ben Gurion airport, you don’t have to take your shoes off, you don’t have (liquid) restrictions of any sort, we don’t have body scanners,” Rozin said. “Yet we’re known to be the most secure airport in the world.”  

Rozin said that earlier this year, his guards detected a suspicious man who tried to run when they approached. Bloomington police joined in pursuit. After he was stopped, according to Rozin’s account, they found a loaded handgun. He said the man had a history of violence. The mall’s spokesman declined to provide documents to corroborate Rozin’s account.

“Potentially that day, my … officer prevented a disaster, a case of indiscriminate shooting in the Mall of America,” Rozin said.  

There are larger issues in the Twin Cities. At least 20 young Minnesotans have reportedly gone to Somalia to fight in the civil war. One man, who joined the militant Islamist group al-Shabab, attempted to blow himself up in May at a security checkpoint in Mogadishu.  

Rozin acknowledged that the vast majority of people who come into contact with his unit “have done nothing wrong, have no malicious intent.”

“They just act in a suspicious manner that obligated me to investigate further,” Rozin said. “We talked to them for an average of five minutes, and they’re able to continue their shopping.”

Veteran’s encounter leaves him shaken

Francis Van Asten’s experience with mall security lasted much longer.

On Nov. 9, 2008, the Bloomington resident videotaped a short road trip from his home to the Mall of America. Van Asten, now 66, planned to send it to his fiancée’s family in Vietnam so they could see life in the United States.

As he headed down an escalator, camera in hand, mall guards caught sight of him.

“Right away, I noticed he had a video camera and was recording the rotunda area,” a security guard wrote in a suspicious activity report. “When he got to second floor [sic] he turned to the overlook of the park while still videotaping.”

Van Asten, a onetime missile system repairman for the Army, was questioned for approximately two hours, according to his suspicious activity report. He was asked about traveling to Vietnam and how he came to know people there. Van Asten was even asked through which mall door he entered.

The report later filed about him said he was “open and very willing to share information.”

Guards asked to see the contents of his camera. “The footage of all the vehicles and structures of the east ramp really worried me,” the security guard wrote.

Authorities were concerned about footage of an airplane landing at Minnesota’s international airport. They also worried Van Asten was conducting surveillance of mall property.

Van Asten said it was not clear to him at the time why he was stopped. After all, he was told nothing prohibited him from taking photographs or footage of the mall. But the mall’s guards still called Bloomington police, and they alerted the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. Van Asten was given a pat-down search, and the FBI demanded that his memory card be confiscated “for further analysis.”

Exhausted and rattled, Van Asten had trouble finding his car after the ordeal was over.

“I sat down in my car and I cried, and I was shaking like a leaf,” Van Asten said in an interview at his home. “That kind of sensation doesn’t leave you real quickly when you’ve had an experience like that.”

Man questioned for writing in notebook

Bobbie Allen, now 47, headed to the Mall of America on June 25, 2007, for lunch with a woman. As he waited for her, Allen sat alone writing in a notebook, which caught the attention of security. Counterterrorism experts sometimes instruct police and security personnel to look for suspicious note-taking, as it may indicate attack planning.  

A security guard wrote in Allen’s suspicious activity report: “Before the male would write in his notebook, it appeared as though he would look at his watch. Periodically, the male would briefly look up from his notebook, look around, and then continue writing.”

Guards asked for his name and for whom he was waiting. Allen, a musician who lives in downtown Minneapolis, became frustrated, saying the questioning was intrusive. Allen, who is black, felt singled out for his race, according to the report. The guard responded that he was “randomly selected” for an interview and the questions continued. They asked what kind of coffee he liked best and where he planned to go for lunch.

The guards called Bloomington police after deciding Allen was uncooperative and his note-taking “suspicious.” Allen was eventually cleared, but a suspicious activity report was compiled complete with surveillance photo, age, height, address and more. Much of that information ended up in a Bloomington police report.  

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, said such actions trample on traditional civil liberties protections and shift unaccountable power into private hands.

Rosen said the risk of abuses is high, particularly if there turns out to be a lack of proven results.

“If all they’re getting for amassing suspicious activity reports on innocent people in government databases is the arrest of a few low-level turnstile jumpers and shoplifters, that doesn’t seem very sensible,” Rosen said.

In Allen’s case, he responded in a way few others have – he complained to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and filed a lawsuit. Department investigators concluded that there was probable cause to support Allen’s claim of racial discrimination.

Allen declined an interview, citing a settlement agreement reached with the mall. He would not provide details of that agreement.

The human rights department reviewed documents showing that in another case, a “suspicious” white patron was stopped while typing on a laptop computer. He, too, was “uncooperative,” but mall security “chose not to escalate the situation by calling the police,” according to a summary of the department’s investigation.

It reads: “The investigation found that the (mall’s) special security unit generates reports and field notes on suspicious persons, regardless whether the individual cooperated during the security interview or if police intervention occurred.”

Not everyone had a negative reaction to being written up. After a report naming him was forwarded to the FBI, Sameer Khalil of Orange County, Calif., said he believed that police and private security have an important job they must do.  

“I think [the mall’s program] makes America safer,” he said.

Forgotten cell phone leads to FBI visit

The FBI arrived on the doorstep of businessman Najam Qureshi shortly after a run-in with mall security. His family moved from Pakistan to the United States when Qureshi was 8. Police once pulled over their car for a minor traffic violation, and Qureshi remembers his father saying, “You don’t have to fear the police here. They are here to help.”

Qureshi opened a small kiosk at the mall so his aging father, a former aeronautical engineer named Saleem, could keep busy. One day in early 2007, Saleem Qureshi left his cell phone in a mall food court. When he returned for it, security personnel had established a “perimeter” around the phone, along with other unattended items nearby that did not belong to Saleem – a stroller and two coolers.

The “suspicious” objects eventually were cleared by security, documents show. But mall guards pursued Saleem Qureshi with questions, continuing even after he returned to his kiosk.

“Qureshi moved around a lot when answering questions,” security guard Ashly Foster wrote in a suspicious activity report. “At one point, he moved to his kiosk and proceeded to take items off of two shelves just to switch them around. … He seemed to get agitated at points when I would ask more detailed questions.”

Four years after his father ended up in a suspicious activity report, his son was shown the report for the first time.

“The fact that this is in their database and they wasted time looking into these kinds of things is just silly,” said Najam Qureshi.

“Everybody that lives in this country,” he added, “is a person of interest as far as these reports are concerned."




http://americaswarwithin.org/articles/2011/09/07/mall-america-visitors-unknowingly-end-counterterrorism-reports

[Jordan]

A man who was allegedly arrested after he stripped down in airport security to reveal the Fourth Amendment written on his chest cannot sue the government for violating his constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled.

     Before boarding a flight departing from the United States, airline passengers must pass through a metal detector and may be subject to random "enhanced secondary screening" by the Transportation Security Administration. This entails either a full-body pat-down search or an Advanced Imaging Technology scan, which produces a highly detailed picture of the passenger's unclothed body.

     On Dec. 30, 2010, Aaron Tobey entered the security checkpoint area at Richmond International Airport before boarding a flight to Wisconsin for his grandfather's funeral. A transportation security officer directed Tobey to take a body scan.

     Before entering the scanning unit, however, Tobey allegedly stripped down to his running shorts to reveal the text of the Fourth Amendment written in black marker on his chest.

     The officer, referred to in court documents through the pseudonym, Rebecca Smith, had explained that clothing removal was unnecessary. She radioed for help when Tobey got undressed. In a federal lawsuit, Tobey said he was handcuffed and questioned at the on-site police station for 1 1/2 hours.
     The officers also allegedly discarded Tobey's belongings and gave him a summons for disorderly conduct, but did not prosecute the charge. Tobey said one officer advised him "that the police would make sure" he had "a permanent criminal record as a result of his actions."

     Tobey boarded his flight after going back through the security checkpoint.

     U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson agreed to dismiss the claims against the Capital Region Airport Commission and several Richmond airport police officers, including chief Quentin Trice. "While plaintiff's allegations may establish that Trice was a policymaker, they fall markedly short of suggesting that Trice directed any action which caused the constitutional violations alleged in this case," the 35-page decision states. "There is no indication that Trice directed or even knew about the actions until after the fact."
     Hudson also dismissed several allegations against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole.

     "Plaintiff does not allege that they were directly involved in any way in the events, nor does he allege any facts suggestive of deliberate indifference," Hudson wrote, referring to Napolitano and Pistole.
     The judge did not credit Tobey's argument that constitutional violations during the screening process are necessarily the fault of screening guidelines that apparently authorize such constitutional violation. "This is not a reasonable inference," Hudson wrote.

     The court let the TSA officers who radioed for assistance off the hook as well. "Given the heightened security interest at airport security checkpoints, it was eminently reasonable for Smith and Jones to seek assistance from the police," Hudson wrote, referring to an airport officer referred to in the complaint by the pseudonym Terri Jones.

     Tobey will, however, be allowed to proceed against certain DHS defendants in their personal capacities.

     "The question is whether the TSOs in fact radioed for assistance because of the message plaintiff sought to convey," Hudson wrote. "Because plaintiff's unrebutted claim facially states a cause of action, the question of qualified immunity must await further discovery."

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/12/39708.htm

[Georgiacopguy]

I hope he sues the officers, and wins. But his case would be much stronger if he had not willingly, and without instruction took his clothes off. They can argue he was simply attempting to be political and disruptive. If he had written it, and they attempted a strip search, then they would reallllly look bad. But I still wish him well and hope he sticks it to those gestapo bastards.

[Jordan]

A former New Orleans police officer who pleaded guilty in May to seven counts of rape was sentenced Monday to 210 years in prison, according to the Orleans Parish district attorney's office.

Christopher Buckley's sentence was imposed by Criminal District Judge Karen Herman. Buckley, 39, faced five to 40 years on each of the seven rape counts.

He pleaded guilty in May as his trial entered its second day. His ex-girlfriend's 15-year-old daughter was preparing to take the stand and describe how he raped her multiple times in 2008.

Six of the rape counts to which he pleaded guilty involved that girl. He also admitted raping an adult woman in 2003.

Buckley, who had been on the New Orleans police force for 10 years, resigned shortly after his arrest in October 2008.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/09/former_new_orleans_cop_who_adm.html

[Seroquel XR]

What a sick f**k. Hope he gets raped daily for the rest of his life.