Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: Fourth Amendment

War on Drugs Claims SWAT team Member Using No-Knock Warrant

Hank McGee should be thankful that he didn’t wind up dead or dreadfully disabled in the no-knock raid on his trailer house in Texas early Thursday morning, December 19. Instead he reacted in fear that he was being robbed, grabbed his pistol and shot and killed one of the SWAT team members.

On Thursday, February 6th, a grand jury in Burleson County declined to indict him for murder, the first time in recent memory such a verdict had been handed down, according to McGee’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin. DeGuerin said McGee thought someone was

Keep Reading…

Pushback increasing against Federal government roadside checkpoints

With some 60 cities participating in federal checkpoints, pushback from citizens and local police and sheriff’s departments is increasing. In its defense, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in an email:

Each year, close to 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes: 27 people a day, or one person every 53 minutes, according to [our] data.

To better understand the issue, the agency has regularly conducted its National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving in communities across the country for over 40 years. The survey provides useful data about alcohol and drug use by drivers, and participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. More than 60 communities across the country will participate this year, many of which participated in the previous survey in 2007.

NHTSA always works closely with state and local safety officials and local law enforcement to conduct these surveys as we work to better inform our efforts to reduce drunk and drugged driving.

This disclaimer neatly avoids any discussion of

Keep Reading…

District Court Judge Rules New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy is unconstitutional

In District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling in Floyd v. The City of New York on Monday, there was both good news and bad news. The good news is that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policy, with the enthusiastic cooperation of his police commissioner Ray Kelly, violates both the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The bad news is that,

Keep Reading…

Backpacks, Pressure Cookers and Baloney

When Michele Catalano blogged yesterday using the title “Pressure Cookers, backpacks and quinoa, oh my!” it didn’t gain purchase until it was picked up by the Guardian. From there the story jumped to The Atlantic which, 24 hours later, had more than a third of a million views.

Catalano used to be the music editor for Forbes but now

Keep Reading…

Surveillance State to be Extended Nationally if NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly Replaces Napolitano at DHS

This article first appeared at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, July 17th, 2013:

 

Although President Obama says he has many strong candidates to replace Janet Napolitano as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, it’s clear that NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly has the inside track. If Obama is determined to complete building the surveillance state nationally, Kelly is just the man

Keep Reading…

New Revelations about NSA Spying Abroad Enrage European Officials

Saturday’s revelations by the German newspaper Der Spiegel that the US placed bugs in European Union officials’ offices in New York and Washington and hacked into EU headquarters in Brussels have ignited a firestorm of indignation among German and European officials. Coming on the heels of the FISA court’s ruling in April that Verizon must turn over telephone records to the National Security Agency and Edward Snowden’s exposure in June of PRISM that has been vacuuming up American citizens’ internet communications for years, expressions of outrage were heard from German and European Union politicians.

Martin Schulz, head of the European Parliament, said:

Keep Reading…

NSA and Verizon and our privacy

By now every sentient being on the planet knows that the National Security Agency ordered Verizon back in April to give it the phone records of its customers.  They also know that it was signed by a phony judge of a phony court under an illegal section of an unconstitutional law passed by congress and then reauthorized by another congress.

I’ve looked into this a little bit and here’s what I’ve found.

Keep Reading…

Furor over new Colorado law giving Secret Service agents police powers continues

The furor over the signing into law of Senate Bill 13-013 earlier this week by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper went viral following the publishing of an article by Mike Opelka at theblaze.com. Opelka suggested that the new law could be “used to

Keep Reading…

Today is the 71st anniversary of California’s illegal incarceration of Japanese

There is at least one comforting thought about this travesty of history: it’s highly unlikely to happen today, thanks to the internet. Back in February, 1942, beloved President Franklin D. got a pass when he signed Executive Order 9066 which initially authorized the Secretary of War (at least they called it War rather than Defense) to

Keep Reading…

Hypocrisy from the NRA

The NRA has changed its position on background checks, or so it says. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Associations CEO and PR front man, got lots of airtime responding to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement of his $12 million ad campaign to drum up support for the wave of gun controls washing over the Senate but being resisted by a recalcitrant few, according to Bloomberg. LaPierre said that Bloomberg “can’t

Keep Reading…

Another Judge Rules National Security Letters (NSLs) are Unconstitutional

On Friday afternoon a federal district court judge ruled that National Security Letters (NSLs) are unconstitutional under not only the First Amendment but under the “separation of powers” principle as well. As Alex Johnson, a staff writer for NBC News put it, those NSLs are

Keep Reading…

US District Judge Susan Illston rules in our favor!

Just when I was beginning to think that 1) all common sense had vanished from the public square and 2) that our privacy was inevitably and eternally to be violated by government snoops, along comes Judge Illston 

Keep Reading…

BATFE Empowered to Override the Constitution

Seal of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, T...

Seal of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after it moved to the Department of Justice. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Justice Department under Obama is no friend of the Second Amendment. It has just issued, on its own authority, a new rule allowing the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to help themselves to your guns without a warrant. As Nita Chei, a writer at the Washington Times, explains:

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due  process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice  Department granted the Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)  authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in  controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other  property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any  crime.

What this does is dispense altogether with the need for a search warrant as required under the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Under the rule, the items to be seized are

Keep Reading…

Where Did the Tea Party Republicans Go?

Wired – House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The House on Wednesday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

privacy

privacy (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Where are the Tea Party Republicans on this one? This re-authorization of a law that should never have been passed in the first place (thanks, George, for that) passed the House by 301 to 118. Most of those voting against it were – ready? – Democrats!  Only seven Republicans mustered enough courage to say no to warrantless wire-tapping!

This is from the article in Wired.com:

The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

So the whole fishing expedition is wrapped in secrecy.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, sponsored the bill, saying that it “is one of the most important votes we cast in this Congress” because “terrorists are committed to the destruction of our country.”

Question: what about the terrorists in Congress who are determined to shred what remains of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and turn the country into a dictatorship? As Pastor Chuck Baldwin just wrote in his weekly newsletter:

Think of it: in the name of the 9-11 attacks, the United States is being transformed into the kind of despotic countries that we are told we are being protected from!

There was at least one small voice for common sense, expressed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren – a Democrat from California! – who said: “I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time [what a concept!]. We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States.”

Accurate and persuasive. But not enough to persuade the Tea Partiers to vote against it.

Tossing the Fourth Amendment Under the Cell Phone Tracking Bus

Paul Lilly: Appeals Court Empowers Police to Track Suspects by Cell Phone Sans Warrant

Privacy advocates aren’t going to like this one, but a 2-1 ruling in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has given law enforcement officials the legal right to track suspects by cell phone in real-time without first obtaining a warrant.

New phone

New phone (Photo credit: fd)

This is how the Fourth Amendment is undermined: ignore what it says, set up a straw man argument, and then argue against that straw man.

The straw man the court used was an analogy of hounds chasing a fox. The fox cannot be protected under the Fourth Amendment just because the Fox didn’t know he was providing the hounds with his scent.

Here is what the court wrote:

This is not a case in which the government secretly placed a tracking device in someone’s car. The drug runners in this case used pay-as-you-go (and thus presumably more difficult to trace) cell phones to communicate during the cross country shipment of drugs.

Unfortunately for the drug runners, the phones were trackable in a way they may not have suspected. The Constitution, however, does not protect their erroneous expectations regarding the undetectability of their modern tools.

Let’s look at what the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution actually says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let’s be picky. “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”  Where does it say, “except when tracking by cell phones?”  “Supported by Oath or affirmation.” By a judge, having looked at the evidence, and deciding that there is “probable cause.” Where is that in the court’s decision? Oops, missing.

And what about “particularly describing” the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?” Did the officers know in advance that they would find 1,100 pounds of marijuana in his motor home? Or was that just luck?

Here’s the outrage, from the court:

The Constitution, however, does not protect their erroneous expectations regarding the undetectability of their modern tools.

What is that?

Big Brother is Watching Everyone Doing Everything

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Gazillions

Gazillions. That’s the number of times the federal government has spied on Americans since 9/11 through the use of drones, legal search warrants, illegal search warrants, federal agent-written search warrants and just plain government spying.

Drone During Storm

Drone During Storm (Photo credit: Truthout.org)

This is bad enough. And it confirms what we conspiratorialists (yep, that’s me!) have been saying for years. As my good friend Jeff Wright says, if “they” have the technology to spy on us, “they” will use it, regardless.

What’s truly horrifying is the other point Napolitano is making, and that is that Senator Paul isn’t able to tell his citizens what he knows: it’s against the law!

Here’s how the good judge explains it:

The rules for classified briefings of members of Congress on areas of government behavior that the government wants to keep from its employers—the American people—are a real Catch-22. Those rules allow representatives and senators to interrogate government officials about government behavior that they are afraid to reveal, and they require those officials to answer honestly and completely. But the rules keep the interrogations secret, and they expressly prohibit members of Congress from telling anyone what they have learned.

So Paul and his colleagues who joined in the secret briefing now know the terrible truth about the government watching us, but they cannot reveal what they know. Paul—who is the son of Rep. Ron Paul, the greatest congressional defender of limited government in our era—when asked what he learned at these secret briefings and aware that he could be prosecuted for telling the truth, chose a fictitious word to describe the vast number of violations of privacy at the hands of federal agents: gazillions…

The point here is terrifying. If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can it do things to us to which we have not consented? And when it does these things—like send a drone over your back yard to learn who is coming to your Saturday barbeque or to see what fertilizer you are using in your vegetable garden or to take a peek into your living room or bedroom—and when the laws the government has written prevent our elected representatives from telling us what it is doing, we are at the doorsteps of tyranny.

Indeed we are.

Senate Defeats Cybersecurity Act, No Thanks to Colorado

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Victory Over Cyber Spying

This morning [Thursday, August 2nd], the US Senate defeated the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, a bill that would have given companies new rights to monitor our private communications and pass that data to the government. The bill sponsors were 8 votes short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the bill (vote breakdown here). This is a victory for Internet freedom advocates everywhere.

EFF_logo_notype_whiteWe need victories like this.

The Cybersecurity Act failed because debate couldn’t be ended, and that essentially iced the bill. What’s interesting is the gaggle of lefties who decided, some at the last minute, to abandon their support for the bill. Here is a list of some of them, along with their Freedom Index rating (courtesy The New American) which rates each Senator’s voting record based on how closely they hew to the Constitution. A 100 is perfect, a 0 is complete and total disregard for the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government.

Here they are:

Wyden opposed the bill “on privacy grounds,” according to the EFF. Said the liberal Senator:

Today’s vote was one in which Senators were asked to sacrifice Internet users’ privacy and civil liberties for weak proposals to improve cyber security. I voted no.

Here’s a guy who supports legalized abortion, gun control and gay marriage, among other things, and who is considered a “hard core liberal” by the feminist magazine On the Issues. And yet, apparently, the pressure to do something right for a change was just too great. Says the EFF:

Pressure from civil liberties groups and Internet users didn’t just defeat the bill—it changed the conversation around cybersecurity in fundamental ways…

While the bill still had big problems, there were new privacy protections such as limitations that prevented data collected for cybersecurity purposes from being used to prosecute unrelated crimes. Those privacy protections were created as a direct result of pressure from the netroots.

Of course, the two Democrat Senators from Colorado, Bennet and Udall, voted for the bill. Their Freedom Index ratings are 17 and 20, respectively.

Senator Rand Paul’s Bill to Protect Citizens From Drone Surveillance

U.S. Predator drone flies over Kandahar Air Field

U.S. Predator drone flies over Kandahar Air Field (Photo credit: AN HONORABLE GERMAN)

When Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced his bill in June, he was responding to growing concerns over privacy by American citizens. The purpose of his bill is elegantly simple: “To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.” Paul’s bill is very specific:

[A] person or entity acting under the authority [of], or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Paul explained that “Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics.”

One of those claiming to have had his rights infringed upon is Rodney Brossart of Lakota, North Dakota, who is “the first American citizen to be arrested with the help of a Predator surveillance drone,” according to USNews. Brossart’s troubles began in 2010 when six cows

Keep Reading…

Privacy-Eliminating CISPA Awaits Fate in the Senate

Stop CISPA

Despite an increasingly noisy chorus of resistance to many of its provisions, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed the House, 248-168, on April 26. Passage in the House was assured with more than 70 percent of those supported by the Tea Party voting for it. It moved to an uncertain future in the Senate.

That opposition noted that the bill’s many flaws included precious little “protection” for rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, especially those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the zeal to “protect” the country against “cybersecurity threats,” Internet providers and other communications companies would be allowed to share their customers’ private information with agencies of the federal government, and vice versa. As Techdirt’s Leigh Breadon explained,

[The] government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime.”

Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said virtually the same thing in his opposition to CISPA:

CISPA permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications without judicial oversight [as required by the Fourth Amendment] provided that they do so of course in the name of cybersecurity.

The bill is another heavy-handed effort to expand government’s surveillance of private citizens’ communications without restraint. By using words such as “may” instead of “must” and “cybersecurity” without defining the term, the bill creates just the sort of opening through the Fourth Amendment that has, until now, largely

Keep Reading…

Policing for Profit in Tennessee

Asset ForfeitureWhen George Reby was pulled over for speeding in Putnam County, Tennessee, little did he know it was going to cost him $22,000 despite never being charged with a crime.

An insurance investigator from New Jersey, Reby was driving down Interstate 40 on his way to a convention. He had $22,000 in cash with him, rolled up in 22 $1000 packages in a bag, which he intended to use to purchase a car that he had found on eBay. From the video provided by NewsChannel 5 in Nashville, Reby was stopped for speeding and the following conversation between Reby and Office Larry Bates took place:

Bates: Are you carrying any cash?

Reby: Around $20,000.

Bates: Do you mind if I search your vehicle?

Reby: No, I don’t mind.

From there it all went downhill. Bates seized the money under the suspicion that Reby might be planning to use the money to purchase illegal drugs. When interviewed by NewsChannel 5, Bates was asked why he was suspicious: 

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.