Survey suggests law enforcement united against gun control
 
1:35 AM 04/10/2013
 

Spencer Amaral
 
 
A new online survey suggests that the vast majority of active and former police officers adamantly oppose President Barack Obama’s proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
 
The study, conducted by first-responder community website PoliceOne.com, included more than 15,000 self-identified active and retired law enforcement officers, with 99 percent of respondents saying that policies other than an assault-weapons ban are most important in preventing future mass shootings.
 
“The American people, and particularly the members of law enforcement, want politicians in Washington to stop pursuing a failed political agenda and get to work fixing our broken mental health system, improving school security, and getting criminals off the streets,” said the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris Cox.
 

Here are the rest of the survey’s results:
 •99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
 •Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
 •More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
 •More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
 •80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
 •Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
 •More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
 •More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
 •Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
 •More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.
 
The full survey can be found here. PoliceOne verifies that members are police officers by requiring them to submit a photograph or scanned copy of government-issued law enforcement identification. It is unclear whether only verified members could participate in the survey.
 
The online survey is not necessarily statistically indicative of the attitudes of law enforcement nationally.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/10/survey-shows-law-enforcement-united-against-gun-control/

Just wait until the national Obarkycare database can be datamined.

 

I miss Great Britain. I hope these savages enjoy what they have coming.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/09/gosnell-abortion-clinic-worker-one-of-the-babies-sounded-like-a-little-alien/

Gosnell abortion-clinic worker: One of the babies “sounded like a little alien”


posted at 4:01 pm on April 9, 2013 by Allahpundit






Unimaginable.
 

A Delaware woman who worked for Kermit Gosnell testified Tuesday that she was called back to a room at his abortion clinic in Philadelphia where the bodies of aborted babies were kept on a shelf to hear one screaming amid the bodies of aborted babies kept on a shelf…
 
“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West said, telling the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge and jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at the Women’s Medical Society clinic…
 
West, who said she called aborted babies “specimens” because “it was easier to deal with mentally,” said a co-worker had called her back to the room that night because she did not know what to do. West said the baby’s eyes and mouth were not yet completely formed and it was lying on a glass tray on a shelf and she told the co-worker to call Gosnell and fled the room…
 
She later made it clear that she called it “a baby” in her testimony “because that is what it is.”
 
That’s not the first time a clinic worker’s resorted to Orwellian euphemisms to make her “work” more bearable. Ed e-mails to remind me that you’ll also find “Product of Conception” in usage. More on Gosnell from NBC Philadelphia, one of the precious few media outlets covering this story:
 

An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions.
 
Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, “literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.” He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, “it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”
 
The Anchoress notes correctly that, simply for reasons of sensationalism, the media should be all over this story. Dead children, body parts, harrowing testimony on the stand — even the most soulless news editor, untroubled by the horror-movie accusations against Gosnell, should be pushing heavy coverage for selfish reasons, to boost readership. (Britain’s Daily Mail, whose tabloid instincts are unerring, has posted several stories about it.) Out of curiosity, I skimmed the last week’s results for “Kermit Gosnell” on Google News to see what turned up among major U.S. media. I found a few articles from local Philadelphia and Delaware outlets, a couple of AP items picked up by ABC, a Mona Charen op-ed carried in the Chicago Sun-Times, and … that’s basically it. There’s no explanation for the omission except one, just as there’s no explanation for ignoring Mark Mattioli in the Newtown coverage except one, just as there’s no explanation for disinterest in the Salmon family’s saga except one.
 
I’m left feeling about media bias the way I felt yesterday about dynastic politics: It seems like it’s getting worse, especially their willingness to completely black out “unhelpful” stories or parts of a story rather than simply spin them away, but there’s no way to know without hard numbers. Nate Silver’s right: The world needs fewer pundits and more data-crunchers. Here’s fertile ground for the latter. Exit question from Mark Steyn: “So how many dead American babies does it take to make the news?”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100622802

Why US Jobs Market Is Going to Get a Lot Worse

 
 Published: Monday, 8 Apr 2013 | 4:44 AM ET
By: Matt Clinch
News Assistant



 Weak U.S. jobs data on Friday confirmed the worst trading week this year for European and U.S. stocks, and now analysts are warning that investors should brace for further trouble ahead as fiscal tightening begins to take its toll.

Friday's jobs report came in well below expectations, raising concerns that the recovery in the world's largest economy is weakening. March's participation rate was at its lowest since 1979, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Just 88,000 jobs were added to the economy last month, although the unemployment rate fell to 7.6 percent from 7.7 percent in February.

"In the labor market, at least, we see a real risk of even worse news down the line," Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors said in a research note on Monday.

(Read More: US Job Creation Plunges, but Rate Drops to 7.6%)
 

Weakening labor demand, not rising layoffs, is the key problem with the U.S. economy, according to Shepherdson. The weakening demand is mostly coming from smaller firms that are below the radar of the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) survey, which reflects national factory activity.

The National Federation of Small Business job survey has done a decent job in foreshadowing movements in payrolls in recent years, according to Shepherdson, and it's this report—due to be released on Tuesday—that's warning of troubled waters ahead, he said.

"While actual job creation appears to be rising, plans to create jobs [in March] took a dive, falling 4 points to a net zero percent of small employers who plan to increase total employment. It seems that the stamina for growth is waning," William C. Dunkelberg, chief economist for the NFIB said in a press release last week.

Looking at the figures, Pantheon's Shepherdson said there could be a degree of respite in the official employment numbers for the next couple of months, before a distinct change.

(Read More: Unemployment Rate Dip Offers Little Reason to Celebrate)
 

"The outlook then turns bleaker again. The survey does not signal an outright decline in payrolls over the next few months, but we cannot be sure it has bottomed out yet," Shepherdson said.

He cited fiscal tightening as the major reason behind the reverse. At the start of the year, the payroll tax that funds Social Security was raised two percentage points to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent. This was the largest component of tax increases approved by Congress in the resolution of the "fiscal cliff" that many believe will cause a significant hit to U.S. growth.

"You can't take more than 1.5 of GDP (gross domestic product) out of the economy more or less overnight and expect nothing bad to happen," Shepherdson said. "Markets—especially the Treasury market—are having a rethink of the fiscal-tightening-doesn't matter-much hypothesis. Good. It never made any sense."

 U.S. equities responded negatively on Friday to the soft jobs data, government bond yields fell with the benchmark 10-year Treasury falling to its lowest yield so far this year. The dollar also depreciated against European currencies in response.

(Read More: Job-Seeking Teens Might Get a Break This Summer)
 

"The data support our view that the strong U.S. data flow in January and February is likely to give way to weaker data in (the second quarter), as fiscal headwinds are reflected in slower growth in demand, activity, and employment," Barclays said in a research note on Monday. "Although we have recently raised our forecast of (first quarter) GDP growth to 3.5 percent, which matches our latest tracking estimate for the quarter, we have kept our (second quarter) forecast at 1.5 percent."

—By CNBC.com's Matt Clinch

"War, what war? Don’t mention the (currency) war."

by:By Gregory McKenna

 April 09, 20139:16AM
 

Shh, don't mention the currency war!



YES, international finance collectives, G7 and G20 have been pulling their best Basil Fawlty impressions of late.

With straight faces they are claiming that the policies they are pursuing, which have weakened the US dollar, severely weakened the Yen and which will soon weaken the Euro and Pound, are not currency manipulation.
 
"No, not us! We wouldn’t do that!"

Just look at their recent communique from the G20 and what it said about currencies:

“We reaffirm our commitment to cooperate for achieving a lasting reduction in global imbalances, and pursue structural reforms affecting domestic savings and improving productivity. We reiterate our commitments to move more rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying fundamentals, and avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments and in this regard, work more closely with one another so we can grow together.”


“Reflect underlying fundamentals”, translates to “we’re weak but you BRICS and Aussies are strong so your currencies and Economies have to suffer”. It was G20, or more correctly G7 speak for "Don’t mention the War!"
 
Pulling the trigger
Certainly the folks at the Federal Reserve (Fed), Bank of England (BoE) or Bank of Japan (BoJ) would claim that they have not fired any shots in anger, but prisoners are being taken all over the world. The Fed’s unconventional policy has, until very recently, had the twin successes for the Fed of driving stocks up and the US dollar down, as the US economy has clearly improved relative to most of the rest of the world. Exports as a proportion of the US GDP are up 3-4% since the beginning of the GFC.

Plenty of shots have been fired in the battle to get those numbers moving and plenty of foreign business owners are smarting from the Fed’s phony war. Nope -- ask the Fed and what you might hear is, "Not me Sir! It’s those Chinese; they are the ones who manipulate their currency. Not us, certainly not!"

It’s almost like the Cat in the Hat is about to jump out or Basil Fawlty is going to be appointed Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Fed.

Collateral Damage
The Japanese are only slightly less overt about their intentions. Gone are the days of the stealthy approach. No, Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe favours a more direct approach of simply seeking to destroy the Bank of Japan’s credibility and in so doing drive the USDJPY rate from high 70s to above 96, as witnessed in the early weeks of March.

Since Brazil’s Finance Minister Guido Mantega accused the big nations of launching a currency war back in 2011 against the rest of the world, there has been denial after denial. Yet somehow, the Yen to USD has now fallen to an average of 92 in 2013 from an average of 80 in 2012 and 79.5 in 2011.  This is more than 15% devaluation against the USD and such similar movement can also be seen against the Chinese Renmimbi.

What is clear is that the big guys are saying "do as we say, not do as we do."  But who could argue that the Chinese economic miracle and the recovery from the 2009 economic weakness could have proceeded at the pace (or even proceeded at all) if the CNY was a truly floating currency against the US dollar and others? It takes around 6.2 Yuan to buy 1 US dollar at the moment, but where would it be otherwise? 3.5? 4.5? Or maybe just somewhere in the 5s? Any way you look at it though, the Yuan is undervalued.
 
And therein lies the rub
The big nations have set internal monetary policies and quantitative easing with the express purpose, although not stated publicly (except perhaps in Japan), of improving their competitiveness globally through currency weakness.

The Australian dollar is still above 1.02 even when Europe is weak; Japan stagnant, the UK about to have a triple dip recession and the US is only just now starting to climb out of the doldrums. As the Reserve Bank has said many times recently, the Aussie dollar has been stronger than might have been expected.

But like the Brazilians, there is little anyone can do to fight the combined might of the big 4 Central Banks of the Fed, ECB, BoJ and BoE. Countless times over the years, from the Plaza Accord to until the next G20 meeting, they have and will set currency levels when and where they want them.

It is the same again -- just don’t mention the war.
 
Gregory McKenna is Australia’s first Currency Strategist at Westpac and Vantage FX’s Key Expert Writer.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/australian-dollar/war-what-war-dont-mention-the-currency-war/story-fn6t6wad-1226611800434

BREAKING: KS Gov Sam Brownback signs HB 21 – Recognizes All States’ Concealed Carry Permits
 
Added Apr 5, 2013, Under: News & Articles
 

Way to go Kansas! Their reciprocity will be the best in the nation!
 
SB 21 authorizes official recognition of any valid concealed carry permit from another state for individuals traveling through or visiting Kansas.

America’s Death Zones: Where NOT To Be When It Hits the Fan
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/americas-death-zones-where-not-to-be-when-it-hits-the-fan/

http://nevadaguntrustattorney.com/2011/09/16/the-national-firearms-act-a-brief-history/

The National Firearms Act: A Brief History

Posted on September 16, 2011 by BBunker


The Original National Firearms Act
 Originally passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted in response to the surging crime gang of the era, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Congress addressed this issue by imposing a “tax” on certain firearms and devices mistakenly thought to contribute to this crime wave: machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles/shotguns.
 
The NFA required that the possessor of any NFA restricted firearm or device must register it with the Dept. of Treasury (now the Dept. of Justice) and pay the then enormous tax stamp fee of $200. This was intended to discourage possession of these firearms and devices. Unfortunately, the NFA ran into serious constitutional hurdles vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
 
The 1968 Amendment to the NFA (Title II)
 Following the setback by the U.S. Supreme Court in Haynes, Congress set about revising the NFA to cure its constitutional flaws. No longer could information from an NFA application be used against a person in a criminal proceeding. Also, Congress expanded the definition of “machine gun” and added destructive devices to the list.
 
The 1986 Amendment to the NFA: Firearm Owners Protection Act
 This ironically named amendment to the NFA adjusted the definition of “silencer” by adding parts for a silencer. The amendment also prohibited the transfer or possession of machineguns, with the exception of those manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 (The infamous “Hughes Amendment”).

The Peelian principles describe the philosophy that Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The principles traditionally ascribed to Peel state that:
■Every police officer should be issued an identification number, to assure accountability for his actions.
 ■Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.
 ■Above all else, an effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, Peel's most often quoted principle that "The police are the public and the public are the police."
 
However, it has been suggested that Peel's list of principles was more likely authored by twentieth century policing scholars than by Peel himself; although Peel discussed the spirit of some of these principles in his speeches and other communications, researchers Lentz and Chaires found no proof that he ever actually compiled a formal list.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2043907

A Due Process Right to Record the Police

Glenn Harlan Reynolds
University of Tennessee College of Law

John A. Steakley
John A. Steakley, P.C.

April 22, 2012

Washington University Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 30, 2012, Forthcoming
University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 190


Abstract:     
There has been considerable discussion of citizens' First Amendment right to record the police. This essay, however, argues that independent of any First Amendment right, there is also a due process right to record the actions of law enforcement, and that this right applies even when the interaction takes place in private, and not in public places. This question of a due process right to record the police has not yet produced the degree of attention and litigation that public recording has, but the growth of inexpensive recording equipment and its inclusion in smart phones ensures that such attention and litigation are sure to be forthcoming.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9

Keywords: first amendment, due process, recording, video, photography, police, law enforcement, citizen

Accepted Paper Series

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/hey-dan-memo-to-piers-morgan-heres-another-example-of-an-ar-15-used-for-self-defense/

Memo to Piers Morgan: Here’s ANOTHER Example of an AR-15 Used for Self-Defense

Anything that holds 100 rounds can generally be counted on to malfunction constantly. Very few people can accurately employ a rifle with a 100 round drum that isn't jamming with any kind of accuracy when attempting to hit anything beyond contact distance. The problem is that Newt and most others in the national spotlight haven't much, if any experience and training in firearms usage.

Yes.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219400


The Chart That Will Crash The Market
   

The screeching coming from CNBS and elsewhere this morning is amusing.

There's only one chart that matters, and it will, when recognized, blow up the stock market -- sending it down 50% or more.

It's this one:





That's it.  And the ADP report this morning is showing the pathway to recognition, as construction has stalled and the destruction of job creation in small and mid-sized businesses exposed to Obamacare will finish it off.

I continue to maintain that we're in a time very similar to 2007, when the facts were on the table.  Banks paying dividends with money they didn't have.  Hedge funds that blow.  Bubbles in crazy places, then housing, this time in subprime car lending, student loans and even Bitcon.

The transports are telling you that all is not well.  CAT is confirming it.  Copper is warning that we're in deep trouble internationally, and irrespective of the claim that "America benefits from everyone else's pain" that's only partially true -- in the end earnings are what drive stock prices, and the red flags are waving at warp speed on earnings.

To go along with this are rail car loadings.  The trouble here is that baseline is in a serious downtrend -- and after halting its decline from 2008 to 2009 over the last year it has slid severely once more.  There will be those who argue that this is "no big deal"; I disagree.

At the end of the day the premise behind the Fed's intervention in the market is that "cheap money" promotes hiring through an indirect process.  But inherent in that process is a belief that the economic model from 1980 to 2007 can be restarted -- a model predicated on ever-larger amounts of leverage in the economy.  That model had positive feedback that came from the bond market rally from 1980 to 2008 as well with yield compression helping to fuel the fire.

More than five years into this experiment the results are clear: It doesn't work.

I believe that by the time we get to the end of the year we will be looking back at these signs and asking "what the hell was I thinking?"

Credit expansion is not going to restart because it can't -- we have reached the terminus of that economic model, like it or not.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.html


Epic stupid!

Illegal alien is the actual term used in federal law. I prefer "criminal invader" myself.

Sounds like good advice to me.

Child pot poisonings increase in Colo.


 The Associated Press


DENVER – Colorado doctors say looser pot laws are leading to more child poisonings for youngsters who are often attracted by drug-laced edibles such as gummy worms or brownies.


From early 2005 to late 2009, Children’s Hospital Colorado had no emergency-room visits by kids who had ingested marijuana. In the next two years, after medical marijuana became legal in Colorado, it had 14 cases. So far, no deaths have been reported.


Doctors are campaigning for mandatory safety packaging as Colorado lawmakers debate even broader legal sales of pot with recreational-marijuana stores.


“We’ve seen a dramatic increase in pediatric exposure,” said Dr. George Wang, a Children’s ER doctor who also works with Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.


Dr. Michael Kosnett said careful parenting is also part of the equation.


Children ingesting pot is also dangerous because emergency-room doctors aren’t usually looking for it as a cause of any symptoms they see, Wang said. That can lead to invasive and expensive diagnostic efforts, such as a spinal tap or CT scan, if parents are embarrassed or scared to mention the true cause.


“When children get admitted to the ICU, that’s serious,” Kosnett said. Symptoms may appear similar to meningitis, for example.


At Children’s Hospital Colorado, doctors reported serious symptoms, including decreased levels of consciousness and breathing trouble. Children can also vomit from ingesting too much of it.


Some industry members favor tamper-proof seals, but they would rather not break each individual joint or candy into a lockable bag that cost $7 or more.


Robin Hackett, co-owner of Botana Care, a medical-marijuana store in Northglenn, said that would drive up the cost.


The Denver Post reported calls about potential marijuana exposure for all ages have doubled since 2009 at one poison center.


Prescribed dosages of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana products used to control nausea from chemotherapy, is between 4 and 12 milligrams for most children ages 2 to 4, while some edibles have up to 300 milligrams of the active ingredient in marijuana.


There is no statewide reporting. Some doctors have gone through files to try to determine the impact, while others do not track those cases.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-the-fourth-amendment/

Will "Drones" Outflank the Fourth Amendment?





In a word, no. The Fourth Amendment, which provides the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” has been a cornerstone of privacy from government intrusion since 1791. It has served us well across more than two centuries of technology advances, and there is no reason to expect that it will suddenly lose its protective power when domestic use of unmanned aircraft becomes common.

In February 2012, President Obama signed an FAA bill into law that provides for the integration of “drones,” or more properly, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), into the nation’s airspace. This has generated legitimate concerns that UAVs could be used by the government in ways that infringe privacy rights, particularly in light of three 1980s-era Supreme Court decisions that found no Fourth Amendment violation in warrantless observations from manned government aircraft.

In 1986, the Court ruled in California v. Ciraolo that police officers who identified marijuana plants in a suspect’s backyard from a plane at an altitude of 1000 feet did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Three years later in Florida v. Riley, a majority of justices reached the same conclusion regarding observations of marijuana plants in a greenhouse from a helicopter at 400 feet. And in Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, a 1986 decision addressing government use of a commercial mapping camera to take aerial photographs of an industrial facility (as opposed to the “curtilage” of home considered in Ciraolo and Riley), the Court ruled in favor of the government.

These decisions do indeed indicate that government investigators will sometimes be able to use UAVs without a warrant. However, that does not mean that all government UAV observations, no matter how invasive, will be constitutional. In fact, a careful review of the opinions in these and other relevant Supreme Court cases suggests that the Fourth Amendment may provide significantly more protection than is often assumed.

In Ciraolo, for example, the Court held that the “Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude [1000 feet] to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.” A UAV equipped with an imaging system capturing much more detail than could the human eye would fall outside the scope of this holding. So, too, would one operating outside of public navigable airspace, though defining exactly where that lies for UAVs can be complex.

In Riley, which also involved naked eye observations, Justice White and the three other justices who joined his opinion found no Fourth Amendment violation in part because “no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed.” Justice O’Connor’s Riley concurrence emphasized that reasonable expectations of privacy, and not “compliance with FAA regulations alone,” should determine the constitutionality of aerial observations.

The Dow Chemical Court concluded that “the open areas of an industrial plant complex are not analogous to the ‘curtilage’ of a dwelling for purposes of aerial surveillance.” Yet, even under that much lower privacy standard, the Court implied the existence of some constitutional bounds, noting that “the photographs here are not so revealing of intimate details as to raise constitutional concerns.”

Several more recent Supreme Court decisions in non-aviation cases are also relevant to UAV privacy. In 2001, the Court ruled against the government in a case involving use of a ground-based thermal imager to detect an indoor marijuana growing operation by measuring the temperature of the roof and outside wall of a house. Writing for the Court in Kyllo v. United States, Justice Scalia expressed concern that allowing the government to freely collect any information “emanating from a house” would put people “at the mercy of advancing technology – including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home.” The rule adopted by the Kyllo Court provides that when “the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.”

As has often been noted (including in Justice Stevens’ dissent in Kyllo), the “not in general public use” restriction can weaken with time as a formerly rare technology becomes common. However, Kyllo stops well short of endorsing the constitutionality of using a commonly available technology to observe a home. As Justice Scalia wrote in response to the dissent on this specific point, the thermal imaging in Kyllo was not “routine.” The Kyllo Court did not need to address the question of observations using routine technology, and specifically declined to do so.

Under a balanced reading of Kyllo, government use of a UAV to reveal “details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion” would be unconstitutional today. Ten years from now, when UAVs will be common, that still may be the case – but that conclusion will need to come from a ruling other than Kyllo.

Most recently, the Supreme Court found against the government in United States v. Jones [PDF], a January 2012 decision that addressed the constitutionality of affixing a GPS tracking device to a vehicle without a valid warrant. While the basis for the decision was narrow – the Court found a Fourth Amendment violation in the physical trespass that occurred during the placement of the GPS device on the vehicle – the aspects of the Jones opinions addressing extended surveillance are directly relevant to long-endurance UAVs.

The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, stated that extended electronic surveillance “without an accompanying trespass” may be unconstitutional, but noted that the “present case does not require us to answer that question.” In a concurrence, Justice Alito wrote that “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” And in a separate concurrence, Justice Sotomayor noted the “existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements.” Thus, the justices are on record recognizing the constitutionality question raised by new technologies enabling extended surveillance, though they deferred its resolution to another day.

In the aggregate, these rulings provide cause for optimism that, with respect to government UAV observations, the Fourth Amendment will be reasonably protective. Whether it will be sufficiently protective is a different question, and one well worth attention. But when engaging in that discussion, it is important not to lose sight of the substantial constitutional foundation we already have.

Drones are aircraft. If you'll scroll back, you'll see several cases involving aircraft surveillance.

At best, homosexual "marriage" is part of the "everyone gets a trophy" plague in this country. At worst, a way to target any who might dare to dissent with the demise of traditional American values.

By human brains or hard drives? Or did you have another storage media in mind?

There is established caselaw that cover most things, as the last several posts from me demonstrated.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/02/of-course-former-weather-underground-radical-convicted-of-felony-murder-now-an-adjunct-professor-at-columbia/

Of course: Former Weather Underground radical convicted of felony murder now an adjunct professor at Columbia


posted at 6:01 pm on April 2, 2013 by Allahpundit






I have little sympathy for Ward Churchill but it does feel strange that his sins are grounds for banishment from academia when Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and now Kathy Boudin graduated from the Weathermen — and, in Boudin’s case, prison — to jobs in the ivory tower. Is Churchill’s real problem that he wasn’t militant enough? He talked a good game about how the U.S. had 9/11 coming but he never tried to blow anyone up to make the point. The same could be said of virtually any two-bit campus radical. Why hire him when you could hire someone made famous by their links to a group known for its willingness to kill for the cause?
 
Remember all of this the next time Chris Matthews or whoever airs a special tut-tutting Republicans for welcoming tea-party “radicals” into the fold.


Former Weather Underground radical Kathy Boudin — who spent 22 years in prison for an armored-car robbery that killed two cops and a Brinks guard — now holds a prestigious adjunct professorship at Columbia University’s School of Social Work, The Post has learned…
 
Boudin’s status of perp-turned-prof outraged the widow of one of her victims, Brinks guard and dad of three Peter Paige, who was gunned down by her accomplices from the Black Liberation Army on Oct. 20, 1981, in Rockland County.
 
Boudin acted as a getaway driver in the heist.
 
“She doesn’t deserve a job at all,” said Josephine Paige, 74, when told of Boudin’s posts. “She doesn’t deserve anything, nothing at all. I think she should be back in an institution.”…
 
Of the hundreds of students Boudin has taught, Yoshioka said, just three have expressed qualms about her criminal background, and only one “switched out” of a class because of those concerns.

I was just reading the part of Ayers’s Wikipedia bio that describes how he became a radical. Quote: “To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral.” That’s a nice counterpoint to Columbia students shrugging off Boudin’s history. Incidentally, there’s another reason why the Weathermen honor roll may have gotten a little more leeway from liberal intellectuals than, say, Ward Churchill has: To varying degrees, they’re all children of privilege. Ayers’s father went on to become the head of one of Illinois’s biggest utilities; his friendship with the head of a major Chicago law firm later helped Dohrn land a job during her post-Weathermen phase. Boudin grew up in Manhattan, went to Bryn Mawr, and then wrangled a lighter sentence for herself then her accomplices in the Brinks job got thanks to help from one of her father’s law partners. These connections were their conduit back into polite liberal society (polite enough for Ayers to make the acquaintance of a future president) and made them “respectable” enough to employ at places like Columbia. Class warriors that they are, I wonder how much they enjoy the irony.

Vermont couple who lost discrimination suit films anti-gay marriage ad in Maine

Staff Reports



 

A Vermont couple who agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of a lesbian couple from New York who claimed that their Inn refused to host their wedding reception because they were a same-sex couple, appear in a new ad advocating against same-sex marriage in neighboring Maine.

Jim and Mary O’Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vt., were charged with violating the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation. The law applies to inns, restaurants, schools, stores, and any other business that serves the general public.

The couple, who say they are devout Catholics, could not “offer our services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

They are now using the lawsuit and settlement as a warning to Maine voters to discourage them from support a marriage equality initiative on the November ballot:

Watch:





The couple said in the video that because of the lawsuit, they “can no longer host any weddings” at their Inn, when in fact, the Vermont statute only prohibits them from discriminating against gay couples. It was their decision to discontinue wedding services to avoid hosting gay and lesbian couples.

http://ilovehistory.utah.gov/time/stories/polygamy.html

1852-1890: Opposition to LDS Church's Practice of Polygamy

In short:


Men imprisoned for polygamy at the state penitentiary in 1888.

When the Mormons began to openly practice polygamy in 1852, they lived in the rural West, far from the reaches of the federal government. 

However, as the government’s influence and control began to expand farther and father west, the issue of polygamy and the Mormons became a hot political topic. It became so hot that the Republicans called slavery and polygamy the "twin relics of barbarism”—and accused Democrats of supporting both.

More of the story:

The strong arm of the law.

So private citizens and the government crusaded to end polygamy—mostly through laws. Congress passed a series of laws:
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 prohibited polygamy in the territories. It also limited the value of the land that the LDS church could own, among other things. 
The Poland Act of 1874 took away the LDS church’s power over the territory’s judicial system.
The Edmunds Act of 1882 made polygamy a felony, prohibited “unlawful cohabitation,” and took away polygamists’ right to vote and hold political office.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 disincorporated the LDS church, allowed the government to seize church assets, punished offenders with large fines and prison, required wives to testify against husbands, and more.

Federal marshals arrested many men, who spent time in prison. Other polygamists went into hiding, including LDS church president John Taylor.


The wives of J. W. Summerhays: Sarah Berrett, Melissa Parker, and Hilda Johnson.

The church was backed into a corner.

Perhaps more serious than the imprisonment of individuals, the acts threatened to bankrupt the LDS church and polygamy was preventing Utah from becoming a state.

In 1890 the Supreme Court ruled in 1890 that the government could indeed seize church property—including temples. With no options left, church president Wilford Woodruff issued a “Manifesto” advising Mormons not to take part in any illegal marriages.

This Manifesto put the rest of the country at ease. Utah could then move toward statehood, which it achieved in 1896.

 Saying it more emphatically.

The Manifesto was not very clear, especially for those already in plural marriages. And despite the church’s “advice” not to do it, many people continued to enter into polygamy.

When Americans realized polygamy was continuing, the controversy heated up again. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Reed Smoot, a Mormon apostle who had been elected senator. The long debate over Smoot was big news all  over the country.

In 1904 church president Joseph F. Smith issued a more specific and binding decree about polygamy. Among other things, the decree stated that anyone caught entering or performing a plural marriage after 1904 would be subject to excommunication.

Today the practice of polygamy in the United States is continued by groups that are not associated with the LDS church. They are known as FLDS groups, meaning Fundamental Latter-day Saints.

Sounds pretty darn oppressive to me. Strict scrutiny, anyone?

Oh, no, you don't get off that easy. People are bombarded with the marriage is man and wife and we know this because of the Garden of Eden, or other scriptual reasons.

Yes, they are called cultural values. Every culture has them. We are losing ours and the result isn't pretty.

Again, I ask... why are you three all libertarian when it suits your other views, but all over state repression when you disagree with an action?

I'm against homosexual activists and their leftist associates shoving their conduct down the public's throats. I'm against activist judges overturning the will of the people so the force of law can be used to intimdate and lash out at those who don't buy into their conduct.

As far as what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, I could care less. That correctly should be outside government regulation, meeting those articulated standards. This isn't about freedom to cohabitate, it's about creating a legal status to bludgeon others with.

Possibly, depending on what caselaw develops. I'd say that a drone using audio input that replicates normal human hearing wouldn't fall under that while a drone equipped with microphones that can penetrate far beyond normal human range would, using a standard set in KYLLO v. UNITED STATES.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/pm-set-to-sign-china-currency-deal-in-boost-to-exporters/story-fn59nm2j-1226609244139

PM set to sign China currency deal in boost to exporters

by:Rowan Callick, Asia-Pacific Editor
From:The Australian
March 30, 201312:00AM


A CURRENCY deal enabling the Australian dollar to be converted directly into Chinese yuan, slashing costs for thousands of businesses, is set to be the centrepiece of Julia Gillard's mission to China next weekend.

Australia would become the third country, after the US and Japan, to secure such an arrangement from China, which is Australia's top trading partner, with exports and imports totalling $120 billion last financial year.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/02/eurozone-unemployment-hits-a-record-12-percent/

Eurozone unemployment hits a record 12 percent


posted at 12:01 pm on April 2, 2013 by Erika Johnsen






Yikes. The end of 2012 marked a collective economic contraction in the eurozone for the fifth straight quarter, and the 17-member currency bloc is well on track to logging their sixth:
 

Official figures for first-quarter economic activity won’t be released until May 15, but the monthly Eurocoin measure of euro-zone output released Friday signaled a contraction for March, having earlier signaled declines in activity in January and February.
 
The measure, which is compiled by London-based Center for Economic Policy Research and the Bank of Italy, also showed a drop in gross domestic product in each of the three months of the fourth quarter, an indication borne out later when official data showed the euro-zone economy shrank by 0.6%.
 
That dreary outlook is further corroborated by the revised January and today’s February jobs reports, which reported eurozone unemployment coming in at a whopping 12 percent — the highest figure since the currency was first launched in 1999.
 

The number of people unemployed in the 17 member states rose by 33,000 during [February], to hit 19.07 million, the statistics agency Eurostat said. …
 
The jobless figures from Eurostat also showed that Spain’s unemployment rate hit 26.3% in February, while the rate in Portugal remained stable at 17.5%.
 
The lowest rates were recorded in Austria (4.8%) and Germany (5.4%), both unchanged from January. The overall unemployment rate for the eurozone in January was revised up from 11.9% to 12%. …
 
The fresh high in the unemployment rate “is further confirmation of the underlying weakness of the economy”, said Jennifer McKeown at Capital Economics.
 
“The rise in unemployment was the 22nd in a row, making this labour market downturn the most prolonged since the early 1990s.”
 
And this is all from February, before the Cyprus situation even got started — it’s relative impact might not be huge, but I’d doubt that that chaos and the accompanying market-jitters are going to do anything helpful for business confidence or the labor market, nor for the EU’s long-term stability.
 
These are just more reminders of what happens after repeated failures to substantively deal with brewing debt crises and practice fiscal responsibility — but hey, it’s cool, because “we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt” and “for the next 10 years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place,” or something.

  In determining whether the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies, the threshold issue is whether a particular governmental activity is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The applicability of the Fourth Amendment depends on "whether the person invoking its protection can claim a `justifiable,' a `reasonable,' or a `legitimate expectation of privacy' that has been invaded by governmental action." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979).

        When a police officer overhears a conversation without the aid of any listening device, from a vantage point at which he is legally present, the officer's use of his sense of hearing does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that can be heard without the assistance of an artificial device.  People v. Hart, 787 P.2d 186, 188 (Colo. App. 1989) (conversation overheard through adjoining door between motel rooms);  United States v. Hessling, 845 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1988). See United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S.Ct. 107, 66 L.Ed.2d 40 (1980).

        Eavesdropping statutes require use of subjective and objective tests (privacy expectation and the reasonableness thereof) to determine whether a person's conversation qualifies as protected oral communications. People v. Hart, 787 P.2d 186 (Colo. App. 1989). 

http://www.volokh.com/2010/02/09/the-misunderstood-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-test/

The Misunderstood “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” Test
 
Orin Kerr • February 9, 2010 8:54 pm


Discussions about the Fourth Amendment sometimes include arguments that look like this:
 

The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy. I expect privacy in _________, and I’m pretty reasonable, so I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in ________ and the Fourth Amendment should therefore protect it.
 
This reasoning is really common, but it’s also based on a misunderstanding. It is based on the erroneous belief that the test for whether government conduct violates a “legitimate” or “reasonable” expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment is whether a reasonable person would expect privacy in what the government learned. I can certainly understand why a lot of people think that way. After all, the test is “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which sure sounds like it should be based on whether a reasonable person would expect privacy. But it turns out that this isn’t how the Fourth Amendment works, and I wanted to explain why.
 
The key idea is that the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a constitutional term of art, much like other constitutional terms of art like “due process,” “free speech,” “strict scrutiny,” or “fundamental rights.” You normally can’t answer if something violates “due process” just by asking if there was a “process” that seemed “due,” much like you can’t answer if a regulation satisfies “strict scrutiny” by scrutinizing the regulation while being “strict.” In all of these cases, the phrase captures a complicated body of caselaw; You can’t just repeat the name for the test and think that the name accurately captures the doctrine. Rather, you need to recognize the test as a term of art that reflects a large body of caselaw, and you need to get the answer from the caselaw.

In the case of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to provide a single test for what makes an expectation of privacy “reasonable.” Instead, it has used different approaches in different settings. In some settings, an expectation of privacy becomes reasonable when it is a good thing as a policy matter for the Fourth Amendment to protect it. In other settings, an expectation of privacy becomes reasonable when it is backed by positive law outside the Fourth Amendment. In other settings, an expectation of privacy becomes reasonable when it shields the government from particularly private facts. Finally, in some settings, an expectation of privacy is reasonable when common social norms make exposure jarring or unlikely. I have called these four approaches the Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection; they are four different ways of interpreting what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable, and they each apply in various degrees in different factual settings.

It sounds complicated, I realize, and it is. But I think there are good practical reasons why the Supreme Court has refused to provide a single test for what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable; no one test consistently and accurately distinguishes government investigative steps that need Fourth Amendment regulation from those that don’t. (See the Four Models paper linked to above starting at page 25 for the detailed answer of why.) Whatever the reason, the key point is that a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not just an empirical question into whether a reasonable person would expect privacy. You can’t just mull over the words “reasonable expectation of privacy” and derive an answer from those words any more than you can mull over words like “due process” and derive an answer from for what the due process clause forbids.

https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

Public places. It may sound obvious, but you have little to no privacy when you are in public. When you are in a public place — whether walking down the sidewalk, shopping in a store, sitting in a restaurant or in the park — your actions, movements, and conversations are knowingly exposed to the public. That means the police can follow you around in public and observe your activities, see what you are carrying or to whom you are talking, sit next to you or behind you and listen to your conversations — all without a warrant. You cannot necessarily expect Fourth Amendment protection when you’re in a public place, even if you think you are alone.

Hester v. US, 265 U.S. 57 (1924)-the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields.

I don't think that is relevant. Anything that exits the home into public space isn't considered a search for 4th Amd. purposes.

OK, let's try this again, even though we've this already:

1, states already allow incest. Do you know how many states allow first cousins to marry? Do you want to overturn those laws, GM, even though they are between a man and a woman?

No state allows brothers/sisters to marry. Is that a violation of their equal protection rights? What if first cousins are legally married in one state and then move to a state where it's illegal?

2, states allow girls to marry men, when those females are not yet legal of legal voting, drinking, etc. age. Do you want to overturn those laws, GM, even though at least one of the marriage partners is still a minor?

I probably would.

3, how much of using a dictionary to define marriage is circular logic? Could it be that the dictionary definition has changed to define marriage as a man/woman because the state defines as such?

Because words are supposed to mean things, though as our society continues to degrade, the left uses words to destroy ideas. See Orwell's "love is hate", "peace is war" now we have "Homosexuality is marriage".

4, there are plenty of biblical marriages which are not a man and a woman. Or marriage laws/rules that we now hold be anachronistic.

Rather than looking at 1000s of years ago on another side of the planet, let's look at American culture in the last few centuries. Let's look at cultural/legal constructs that actually function. Even under Jim Crow laws, intact black families resulted in low crime rates and success against a stacked deck. Look at what the destruction of the black family has brought about. We are seeing the same thing happen with whites now and with the same results.

5, since you are into logic: since Mormons believe in pologamy, and since Mormons are Christian, polygamy is Christian.

Actually the mainstream LDS vehemently reject that doctrine and rapidly excommunicate anyone engaging in such conduct. The state of Utah is also pretty aggressive in prosecuting such things.

Others believe openly that the US strategy is geared not towards the destabilization of North Korea, but that of China. Li Jie, an expert with a Chinese navy research institution, has told Reuters that “the ultimate strategic aim is to contain and blockade China, to distract China's attention and slow its development. What the US is most worried about is the further development of China's economy and military strength."

They are greatly overestimating our current leadership.

Can the yelling be heard by someone with a normal range of hearing located in a public place?

If someone is yelling inside a home or apartment, is it possible that they can be heard yet not see persons outside?

That would be a yes.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/01/mexican-cartels-getting-strong-foothold-in-the-united-states-n1554480


Assassinating Public Officials: Mexican Cartels Getting Strong and Violent Foothold in the United States


 Katie Pavlich
 News Editor, Townhall





Apr 01, 2013 10:26 AM EST
 
 
The Associated Press is out with an extensive piece today showing just how far Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated American society. The cartel problem is no longer a border problem, it's a problem for the entire country. Violent cartel members are carrying out crimes in our backyards with the potential to develop into something much worse.
 

Mexican drug cartels whose operatives once rarely ventured beyond the U.S. border are dispatching some of their most trusted agents to live and work deep inside the United States — an emboldened presence that experts believe is meant to tighten their grip on the world's most lucrative narcotics market and maximize profits.

 If left unchecked, authorities say, the cartels' move into the American interior could render the syndicates harder than ever to dislodge and pave the way for them to expand into other criminal enterprises such as prostitution, kidnapping-and-extortion rackets and money laundering.

 But a wide-ranging Associated Press review of federal court cases and government drug-enforcement data, plus interviews with many top law enforcement officials, indicate the groups have begun deploying agents from their inner circles to the U.S. Cartel operatives are suspected of running drug-distribution networks in at least nine non-border states, often in middle-class suburbs in the Midwest, South and Northeast.

 "It's probably the most serious threat the United States has faced from organized crime," said Jack Riley, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chicago office.
 
The fact is, Phoenix is now the number two city in the world behind Mexico City for kidnapping and sex trafficking from Mexico is already a common occurance.


 An aspect of the cartel business that is often overlooked is sexual exploitation. Sexual exploitation of both women and children is occurring at an alarming level.

 Thomas said sexual predators in the U.S. will order children from Mexico through cartels; cartels then send those children along with a drug run through the desert after payment and deliver that child to their new owner for sexual use.
 
In addition, Breitbart News is reporting a possible connection between the Aryan Brotherhood and Mexican Cartels working together to kill public officials in the United States. They report on the link between Mexican cartels and the murders of Texas Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia over the weekend. McLelland's murder came after the targeting killing of two other prosecutors in Texas and Colorado.
 

A national security expert who has spent several years in intelligence gathering operations around the Mexican drug cartels' criminal insurgency into the continental United States told Breitbart News, "This assassination of DA McClellend and his wife is meant to send a message: no one is safe, no one is beyond our reach. We will kill you and your loved ones. We are in control here."

 "This is a significant point of escalation in the crisis," he continued. "This type of high-profile targeting of public officials is a classic insurgent tactic. Its escalating use inside the US shows a complete lack of fear of consequences and demonstrates the fundamental shift in the strategic landscape that has already occurred.

 "The criminal insurgencies and their gang foot soldiers have exported the type of warfare that brought Mexico to its knees deep into our sovereign territory. They are waging a war: targeting, assassinating, using terror tactics—and our law enforcement is outgunned and overwhelmed.”

Breitbart News interviewed McLelland several weeks ago as part of an investigation into Mexican drug cartel criminal insurgency operations in the United States, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and the city of Chicago. Breitbart News's Brandon Darby conducted the interview with D.A. McLelland in his office in Kaufman, TX.

 McLelland spoke about the recent assassination of his Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse, who was himself gunned down in broad daylight on the Kaufman County Courthouse steps by a masked gunman who has yet to be apprehended.

Also, on March 19, Colorado’s prisons director, Tom Clements, was shot and killed while answering his front doorbell at his home outside Colorado Springs. The suspect in that case was Evan Spencer Ebel, a member of a white supremacist prison gang, later shot while trying to escape authorities on March 21st.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (II) (podcast transcript)


Miller:    Hey, this is Tim Miller and Jennifer Solari.  We’re back again talking about  Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.  Jenna I’ve got stuff in my house that can be seen through the picture window.  You’ve told me that I’ve probably got a reasonable expectation of privacy inside of my house.  Correct?

Solari:    Yes.

Miller:      Well, I’ve got stuff in my house that can be seen through the picture window.  If a government agent is sitting out on the sidewalk, they can look inside that picture window and see things that are inside my house.  I think I know the answer to this; but, does the Fourth Amendment forbid government agents from looking at it without a warrant?

Solari:    No, absolutely not. Essentially, that would mean that agents who have every right to be where they are, would be obligated to cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and hold their noses when they come across evidence that just happens to float by or be within public view.  Mr. Keith Hunsucker coined the term, “right to be, right to see.”   And the situation you gave me, that government agent is just standing out on a public sidewalk, where he has every right to be, should he happen to turn his head and see something illegal, say a marijuana plant or something in your picture window, then he’d have every right to be looking at that. And as we talked about earlier, you do have REP inside your house, but if you put something in an area where it’s exposed to the whole world, then you no longer really have any REP in that item, the agent would be able to see that, and there’s no problem with that.

Miller:    So it sounds to me like a government agent could look inside the house, gather  information from a vantage point, or where he has a right to be, and use that to support a warrant.

Solari:    That’s right.  And, without any other information, that’s really what the agent would be limited to doing.  Just because the agent can see something from a public place, doesn’t necessarily mean that the agent can then physically enter your house to grab that contraband.  Without more facts, all the agent could really do is just gather that information with his senses and then use it to try to establish probable cause to get a warrant.

Miller:    So it’s right to be, right to see.  Anything else?

Solari:    Sure, well it’s right to be, right to see, hear, smell as long as the agent has a right to stand or sit wherever he or she finds himself.  So, from a public sidewalk like you said the agent could see through a window into a house - there’s no problem with that.  Of vehicles, say the agent’s walking through a parking lot on his way to the store and he happens to look into a person’s vehicle, and sees some contraband just laying there on the back seat.  Again, the agent has a right to be in that parking lot just like anyone else, so there’s no problem looking right into that car.  

Miller:    Let me stop you just for a second.  A lot of these vehicles now a days have the tinted windows.

Solari:    Right.

Miller:    Can that agent get pretty nosey and just stick his face right up against that window and look inside?

Solari:    Sure can.  Because it’s in a public area and that’s where you’d expect to find just about anyone.  So as long as that agent has a right to be where he is, sure he could put his face right up to your car window and then use whatever information he’s able to gain with his senses just by looking inside.  

I think we talked about a situation on a previous Podcast, where I’m in my hotel room, having a conversation about an illegal transaction of some sort, and there’s an agent standing out in the hotel room hallway listening to my conversation on the other side of the door.  Now, that hallway is where you would expect just about anybody to be, housekeeping or room service.  So, a government agent certainly has ever right to be there.  And, if I happen to be talking loudly enough, so that agent can hear me - either by standing outside or even putting his ear right up against that door - he can do that. If he can hear me, then he can use that information to establish probable cause.

http://www.luckygunner.com/12ga-3-uranium-drone-load-tacnition-5-rounds



Details

 Big Brother is watching, and with modern technology, if Big Brother can see it, he can turn it into a giant smoking crater with just the press of a button. Even your secret remote wilderness bunker is no match for today’s military drones. In partnership with Tacnition Ammo, Lucky Gunner is happy to introduce a new way for you to fight back against the All Seeing Eye with our new anti-drone shotgun loads.

Years of research and development have gone into these highly effective 12 gauge shells that can turn even Joe Biden’s double barrel shotgun into an instant anti-aircraft platform. Specially formulated propellant is capable of launching 9 pellets of depleted uranium rounds up to 1 km straight up into the air. With accurate shot placement, this armor piercing buckshot will disable vital systems on modern military drones. At minimum, the force of impact will disable navigation systems, but in over 60% of our field tests, the drones were incapable of remaining airborne after contact with our Anti-Drone Loads.

NOTE: Drone Loads are intended for entertainment use only and not intended to be used in any manner not in accordance with federal and local laws. Lucky Gunner assumes no responsibility for any illegal activity involving Tacnition Drone Ammo.

Would a person with normal hearing standing in that public place be able to hear that? Perhaps a passing patrol car with windows down or an officer walking a beat, or a citizen who might call it in?

http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm

What's Your Use-of-Deadly-Force Standard?

by Michael A. Brave, Esq., M.S., C.P.S., C.S.T.
and John G. Peters, M.S., M.S.
(© Copyright 1992, by Michael A. Brave. All rights reserved.)

"Dispatch - all units, armed robbery in progress - Ajax Liquor, Fourth and Main."
"Dispatch - all units, suicidal adult female with - handgun - 1435 Sycamore."
"456 - dispatch, shots fired, officer down, need immediate assistance!"

These incident examples are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. And, the responding officers when faced with deadly force may only have seconds to choose a deadly-force option that could impact the rest of their lives. If the officers make a poor decision they could face administrative discipline/termination, criminal prosecu- tion, civil litigation, community hatred, and media chastisement. Conversely, if the officers hesitate in their use of reasonable-deadly-force because their agency has failed to provide them with adequate guidance and training, or because of their fear of litigation, discipline, etc. the officers could lose their lives or could be the catalyst that results in others losing their lives.

Every time officers are forced to make deadly-force decisions they are putting their futures (life/death, financial, career, family, societal) on the line. The time of the incident is not the time when your officers should be forced to decide whether they can or cannot use deadly force. Long before the incident occurs the law enforcement agency executives must decide under what circumstances they will allow their officers to use deadly force. Executives need to identify potential problems and need to reasonably limit officer discretion through policy development and that is why every agency needs to develop a competent use-of-force policy.

An agency's first step in providing competent guidance, direction, and training to its officers in the use of deadly force is to provide a sound, unambiguous written deadly-force policy (of course an agency must also provide a non-deadly force policy as well). The policy must set out in clear and unambiguous terms when officers can use deadly force. The balance of this article is not going to examine all of the factors that should be considered in drafting a use-of-force policy. Rather, this article is specifically limited to discussing the major use-of-deadly-force standards which have been adopted by various agencies and jurisdictions.

Before examining the use-of-deadly-force standards, we must first look at a few definitions. While definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction we can find some common ground. One of the most misunderstood use-of-force terms is "deadly force." There are many different definitions and interpretations of "deadly force." However, a good working definition of "deadly force" for decision making might be: "[D]eadly force is force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which he knows to create, a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm."(1) "Serious bodily harm" is "[A] bodily injury that: (1) creates a substantial risk of death; (2) causes serious, (3) permanent disfigurement; or (4) results in long-term loss or impairment of the functioning of any bodily member or organ."(2) It is also worth noting that most deadly-force definitions find that the term "serious bodily harm" is synonymous with "great bodily harm."(3) Obviously, "deadly force" does not equate to "lethal" or "fatal" force. "Lethal" or "fatal" force is force which is likely to cause death and not merely serious bodily harm.

Objective Reasonableness Test:

Before we look at the different use-of-deadly-force standards we must look to the overriding standard of Graham v. Conner(4). In Graham, the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper measure to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive, is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Graham analysis applies to all alleged law enforcement excessive force claims - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen. Therefore, regardless of which use-of-deadly-force standard an agency adopts, the use of force must meet the Graham Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" requirement of seizures.

Now let's look at six major use-of-deadly-force standards. The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

Some jurisdictions which do allow the use of deadly force under the Garner standard do not include all three Garner requirements in their use-of-deadly-force statute. Remember, since a law enforcement officer's use of force is subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution, and because of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state, or lower government subdivision, cannot create a use-of-force standard that is less restrictive than the standard defined by U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law as it pertains to individual jurisdictions. A law enforcement agency which adopts the "fleeing felon" standard (assuming the agency is in a jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard") must be sure to include Garner's three requirements - even if these requirements are not enumerated in the state statutes. Therefore, if an agency is in a jurisdiction which allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard", the lowest standard that could be adopted must meet the Garner and Graham requirements. It is important to note that some jurisdictions (such as Alaska) do not allow the use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" as defined by Garner.

An interesting question that arises is whether today, or in the foreseeable future, the United States Supreme Court would uphold the "fleeing felon" standard as an "objectively reasonable" seizure under Graham? If Graham is the test for ALL law enforcement use of force (deadly or non- deadly), then today would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon) under Garner "objectively reasonable" under Graham?

If the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), many law enforcement agencies, and many law enforcement experts are stating that deadly force can only be "reasonably" used in deadly force confrontations, in defense of life or under the deadly-force-defense standard, then the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon)) under Garner may be held to be unreasonable by future appellate courts. Additionally, with some law enforcement agencies and certain individual experts promulgating the "preservation of life" standard as the only reasonable standard, then the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon under Garner is definitely not a "reasonable" use of force.

A slightly higher standard (than the Garner "fleeing felon standard") is the Model Penal Code Standard(6). The Model Penal Code Standard provides, in relevant part, that a law enforcement officer may use deadly force against an individual, in the course of an arrest, if the officer believes that: (1) the arrest is for a felony; (2) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized as a peace officer; (3) the officer believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; AND (4) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force, or there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

The next, gradually becoming more restrictive, standard is the "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard." Under the "Deadly-Force-Defense Standard" a law enforcement officer may intentionally use deadly force against an individual only if the officer objectively reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the individual from inflicting imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others. The "deadly-force-defense standard" is the standard that most closely approximates most self-defense statutes.

Moving up the restrictiveness ladder, the next standard is the "defense of life standard." Often called the "CALEA(7) defense of life standard," the standard requires that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."( CALEA expressly prohibits the use of deadly force under the Garner "fleeing felon standard" and the Model Penal Code Standard.(9)

The CALEA "defense of life standard" contains a glaring ambiguity. The standard states that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life," and then the standard goes on to say that an officer can also use deadly force "in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury." The ambiguity arises in that the standard could be construed to mean that an officer can only use deadly force if the officer's life is in jeopardy and not if the officer is in immediate danger of serious physical harm. However, the officer can use deadly force in defense of "any person" in immediate danger of serious physical harm. So the question becomes, is the officer included in the term "any person" under the language of the standard? If the officer is included under "any person" then why is the officer delineated earlier in the standard, where the standard says "including the officer's own life?" If the officer is included in the term "any person" then this standard is identical to the "deadly force defense standard."

The most restrictive (intentionally used) deadly-force standard is the "preservation of life standard" as adopted by the Dallas (Texas) Police Department (among others). The "preservation of life standard" states that, "[r]egardless of the nature of the crime or the justification for firing at a suspect, officers must remember that their basic responsibility is to protect life. Officers shall not fire under conditions that would unnecessarily subject bystanders or hostages to death or possible injury, except to preserve life or to prevent serious bodily injury. Deadly force is an act of last resort and will be used only when other reasonable alternatives are impracticable or fail.(10)" [Emphasis added.] Further, the "preservation of life standard" requires that, "

• fficers will plan ahead and consider alternatives which will reduce the possibility of needing to use deadly force(11)." [Emphasis added.]

While the "preservation of life standard" is the most restrictive policy that is (usually) intentionally promulgated, there are many policies that place even more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards on officers. Some agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, state that officers should use only the "minimum force that is necessary."(12) Other policies state that officers will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to deadly force. Many officers might think that these more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards may not come back to haunt them after a use-of-force incident. However, if you watched the trial of the Los Angeles Police Officers who were accused of using excessive force on Rodney King, you may have noticed that the prosecutor accused Officer Powell of violating departmental policy because even if Officer Powell's use of force was "reasonable", it was still in violation of departmental policy because it was not the "minimum force that [was] necessary."

So the question becomes, what use-of-deadly-force policy should you adopt? That decision is yours and should only be made after very careful consideration. The most important point is to adopt ONLY ONE standard. Many policies improperly adopt more than one standard, and then expect the officers to be able to decipher which standard they will be held accountable to for a given incident. Remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT POLICY. Having said this, lets look at some potentially problematic and confusing areas which we found in the use-of-deadly-force sections of the 1991 Los Angeles Police Department Policy. The following is for discussion purposes only and should not be interpreted as a criticism of the LAPD.

LAPD: Several Standards:

The LAPD Policy Manual Contains the Following Use-of-Deadly Force- Standards:

Deadly Force Defense Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm to protect himself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury ..."(13)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm ... to apprehend a fleeing felon who has committed a violent crime and whose escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."(14)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving serious bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed.(15)
The Crystal Ball Approach (using deadly force to PREVENT a crime) - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ..."(16)
The ANY DOUBT Standard - "... Nor should an officer fire at a `fleeing felon' if the officer has any doubt whether the person fired at is in fact the person against whom the use of deadly force is permitted under the policy."(17)
Unconstitutional Standard (does not specify "imminent" bodily harm - unless officers are supposed to read "imminent" into "reasonable and necessary") - "... Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm."(18)
The NOT LIKELY Standard - "Officers shall not use deadly force to protect themselves from assaults which are not likely to have serious results."(19)
The Exhaust Other Reasonable Alternatives Standard - "... [F]orce may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances..."(20)
The Minimum Force Necessary Standard - "... n keeping with the philosophy that the minimum force that is necessary should be used ..."(21)
The Extreme Caution Standard - "This Department has always utilized extreme caution with respect to the use of deadly force against youthful offenders. Nothing in this policy is intended to reduce the degree of care required in such cases."(22)
Using these use-of-deadly-force "standards", answer the following hypothetical. You are dispatched to an armed robbery in progress of a liquor store. Upon your arrival you see the suspect (a young looking minority male) shoot into the store in the direction of some people, you hear screams from inside the liquor store, the suspect then turns and runs in the general direction of a couple of on-lookers. You are faced with a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving deadly-force confrontation. Governed by the LAPD Policy, make a quick, competent decision within policy? Remember, you may be able to use "reasonable force" in shooting the "fleeing felon", if the fleeing felon's "escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others," as long as you "exhaust all reasonable alternatives", while you use "the minimum amount of force necessary", as long as you "utilize extreme caution" in dealing with the possible juvenile. As you can see your decision will be difficult to say the least.

Now let's add one more quotation from the LAPD Policy Manual: "This policy is not intended to create doubt in the mind of an officer at a moment when action is critical and there is little time for meditation or reflection. It provides basic guidelines governing the use of firearms so that officers can be confident in exercising judgment as to the use of deadly force."(23) While only using the LAPD policy for an example as you can see what management appears to be saying in policy seems to be inconsistent with practice.

Summary:

When drafting and adopting a deadly-force policy make sure only one standard is used, and that it is consistent in its application. Policies must guide officers, reasonably limit their discretion in the field, and provide a basis for fair and consistent discipline. But don't stop with the mere writing of a policy and then issuing it to officers.

Be sure to give your officers the guidance, training, and supervision they need to allow them to make that decision under the harsh realities of the deadly-force confrontation. After all, making deadly-force decisions is a core task of the officer's duties.(24)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See generally: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, (1985); Pruitt v. Montgomery, 771 F.2d 1475, 1479 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1985); Model Penal Code § 3.11(2) (1962); Mattis v. Schuarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1009 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1976)(en banc). Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 359. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 580 - under heading "force." Restatement of Torts Second, 䅻(d). 
CALEA Standards, Chapter 1, Glossary, page 1-4, March 1991, revision. See also: Restatement of Torts Second, Section § 63(b); United States v. Johnson, 637 F.2d 1224, 1246 (9th Cir. 1980). 
See: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 631. Wisconsin Statute § 939.22. Words and phrases defined, number (14). Klein v. Ryan, 847 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1988) - (Illinois). 
Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989). 
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). 
Model Penal Code Section 3.07. Use of Force in Law Enforcement. 
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. 
CALEA Standard 1.3.2 
CALEA Standard 1.3.3 A written directive specifies that use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" must meet the conditions required by standard 1.3.2. 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(1). 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(2). 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.55, Suspected Felony Offenders, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; also in Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, Minimizing the Risk of Death, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.60, Youthful Felony Suspects, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.10, Pream ble to the Policy on the Use of Firearms, page 108. 
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, et al, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).

If law enforcement uses a killer micro-drone to zip up a hostage taker's nose and detonates an explosive charge, it's just like using a SWAT Precision Marksman to put a .308 round into his cranial cavity. Graham V. Connor applies in both cases.

If a police aircraft is used, the same caselaw applies if the pilot is in the aircraft or sitting in a cubicle a distance away.

Hester v. US, 265 U.S. 57 (1924)-the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields.

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207(1986)-The Fourth Amendment simply does not require police traveling in the public airways at 1000 feet in a fixed wing aircraft to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227(1986)-The use of vision enhancement equipment accessible to the public to examine open fields from a plane is permissible.

United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)-The warrantless naked-eye observation of an area protected by the Fourth Amendment from an open field is not unconstitutional.

Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 (1989)-Viewing contraband located on private property from a helicopter flying at 400ft. falls within the "plain view" doctrine and is not a search. The helicopter must be operated at a level that the general public can operate.

US v. Ishmael, 48 F.3d 850 (5th Cir. 1995)-The use of a thermal imager in an open field does not offend the Fourth Amendment.

I guess Justice Sotomayor though it was applicable. At Least Ted Olson attempted to answer it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/28/175623980/in-light-of-high-court-arguments-what-does-gay-marriage-tells-us-about-polygamy

One of the more interesting exchanges to emerge from the Supreme Court hearings on gay marriage this week, wasn't about the sexes, instead it was when Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a question about polygamy.

Sotomayor asked Ted Olson, the lawyer asking the court to repeal California's ban on gay marriage, that if he was right and "marriage is a fundamental right" could any state restrictions ever exist. In other words, does declaring gay marriage a civil right, pave the way to legalization of, say, polygamy?

Olson responded:



"You've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you — if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. It's selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases, you're picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you've said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case."

During the second hearing, which considered the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, attorney Paul Clement took the opposing position, saying the government has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

"If you look at historically, not only has the Federal Government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular — particular programs, it's also intervened in — in other areas, including in-state prerogatives," Clement siad. "I mean, there's a reason that four state constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them."

All Things Considered's Robert Siegel had the same question, so, today, he talked to Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who represents the reality TV stars "Sister Wives," and is seeking to overturn a Utah law that effectively bans polygamy.

Turley said that polygamy is now where gay marriage was a decade ago, when Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, which stopped states from prohibiting sexual acts between same-sex couples. The implication is that polygamy will move forward in time.

"You cannot defend a new civil liberty, while denying it to others. I think there's a grander more magnificent trend that can see in the law and that is this right to be left alone," Turley said. "People have a right to establish their families as long as they don't harm others."

 As far as I'm concerned, they do.

 

I did once get an answer, but I don't recall what it was.

Because the leftist groupthink in Hollywood and academia haven't yet found polygamy to be an effective tool in destroying what's left of the American family.

This is why BD can't address my questions.