(Ft. Worth, TX, USA)

aubreyturner.org

Civil Rights

Monday, December 22, 2008

Stop The MADDness in Texas

Since my last post touched on the madness of MADD, I thought this a good time to bring up MADD’s next pet project: sobriety checkpoints.  Fortunately, Texas is one of 11 states that do not allow checkpoints.  MADD, however, doggedly tries to get enabling legislation enacted whenever the state legislature is in session.  Since the next Texas legislative session begins in January, we can expect to see more MADD press-releases pushing checkpoints disguised as news articles.  We’ve already seen a couple of early ones in print and on TV over the past couple of months.  Further, State Sen John Carona (R-Dallas*) has introduced SB 298 for consideration in the coming session.

As those of you who know me would expect, I don’t like checkpoints.  I think they are an unreasonable and unwarranted seizure and that they violate the plain letter of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Court may think. 

* I would have hoped that a Republican, being supposedly for limited government, would have been against checkpoints, but I should know better by now.  The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans is in which form of statism they want to enact.

The Freedom Argument

I know that arguing for freedom and for the Bill of Rights is not very popular these days, but as it’s my personal windmill at which I must tilt, please indulge me in a few words in that direction.  Those who don’t care for the freedom argument may skip down to the Utilitarian Considerations section.

Let us begin by considering they very plain, and easily understandable, language of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Being stopped by police is a seizure, as you are not free to leave.  The SCOTUS acknowledged that a checkpoint constitutes a seizure in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).  Unfortunately, the court somehow then leapt to the conclusion that while the seizure is an intrusion on individual rights, it’s somehow “reasonable” because it is “minimal” as balanced against the costs of drunken driving.  I think this is one of those cases where the majority got it wrong. 

The ability to go about your business without being seized and searched is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our freedom.  In general, if you’ve done nothing wrong, then the police have no business detaining you.  This principle goes to the very heart of what is wrong with sobriety checkpoints.  If an officer observes a vehicle being operated in a suspicious or unsafe manner, he or she may stop the vehicle and investigate the driver to ascertain whether the driver is impaired.  In this instance, the officer is operating on “individualized suspicion.”  In other words, the officer has some probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that the driver may be in violation of the law.  With a checkpoint, we have all people going through the checkpoint being seized for investigation without any suspicion whatsoever. 

The dissent from Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz captures the essence of the constitutional argument:

The majority opinion creates the impression that the Court generally engages in a balancing test in order to determine [p457] the constitutionality of all seizures, or at least those “dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways.” Ante at 450. This is not the case. In most cases, the police must possess probable cause for a seizure to be judged reasonable. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 209 (1979). Only when a seizure is “substantially less intrusive,” id. at 210, than a typical arrest is the general rule replaced by a balancing test. I agree with the Court that the initial stop of a car at a roadblock under the Michigan State Police sobriety checkpoint policy is sufficiently less intrusive than an arrest so that the reasonableness of the seizure may be judged, not by the presence of probable cause, but by balancing

the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979). But one searches the majority opinion in vain for any acknowledgment that the reason for employing the balancing test is that the seizure is minimally intrusive.

Indeed, the opinion reads as if the minimal nature of the seizure ends rather than begins the inquiry into reasonableness. Once the Court establishes that the seizure is “slight,” ante at 451, it asserts without explanation that the balance “weighs in favor of the state program.” Ante at 455. The Court ignores the fact that, in this class of minimally intrusive searches, we have generally required the Government to prove that it had reasonable suspicion for a minimally intrusive seizure to be considered reasonable. (emphasis added)  See, e.g., Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 882-883 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, (1968). Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action.  See Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 654-655; Martinez-Fuerte, supra, 428 U.S. at 577 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting) (“Action based merely on [p458] whatever may pique the curiosity of a particular officer is the antithesis of the objective standards requisite to reasonable conduct and to avoiding abuse and harassment”).  By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police.  I would have hoped that before taking such a step, the Court would carefully explain how such a plan fits within our constitutional framework.

Presumably, the Court purports to draw support from Martinez-Fuerte, supra, which is the only case in which the Court has upheld a program that subjects the general public to suspicionless seizures.  But as JUSTICE STEVENS demonstrates, post at 463-466, 471-472, the Michigan State Police policy is sufficiently different from the program at issue in Martinez-Fuerte that such reliance is unavailing.  Moreover, even if the policy at issue here were comparable to the program at issue in Martinez-Fuerte, it does not follow that the balance of factors in this case also justifies abandoning a requirement of individualized suspicion.  In Martinez-Fuerte, the Court explained that suspicionless stops were justified because

[a] requirement that stops . . . be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens.

428 U.S. at 557.  There has been no showing in this case that there is a similar difficulty in detecting individuals who are driving under the influence of alcohol, nor is it intuitively obvious that such a difficulty exists.  See Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 661.  That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving, but see post at 469-471, is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion. (emphasis added)

I don’t know about you, but if I’m not free to leave, I would consider myself “seized,” and not quibble about how “slight” the seizure is.

Unfortunately, though, the majority opinion is what we’re stuck with, which (at least at the national level) makes these things “legal.”  Fortunately for us in Texas, though, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Holt v. State, 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (no online cite available) interpreted the 1990 Sitz decision to mean that checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment unless specifically authorized by the legislature.  So I am somewhat heartened to see that at least our own Texas courts understand the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. 

Beyond the legalities, though, these checkpoints also provide another avenue for police to go on a fishing expedition for other activities.  Consider the following bit from the CDC about how to get police officers to get behind checkpoints:

Support among the police officers conducting checkpoints is important. Because checkpoints tend to result in few arrests for alcohol-impaired driving, it is important for officers to understand that the primary goal is to prevent such occurrences. Checkpoints can also lead to the arrest of drivers for other offenses, such as weapons possession. (emphasis added)

Ah… the good-old CDC… they’ve never been known to pass up a chance to stick it to gun owners in this country, constitution be-damned.

Anyone who truly understands the concepts of freedom and liberty that were gifted to us by the founders will abhor sobriety checkpoints as an unreasonable search and seizure.  Those who would ignore and limit our freedom are not so moved, which leads me to the next section.

Utilitarian Considerations

If our freedom is to be limited in trade for some nebulous assurance of “safety,” then we should examine these claims to see if that will truly be the case or if we’re being sold a bill of goods.  In addition, what are the costs of running checkpoints and do they provide a useful return on investment?

First, I’ve learned that checkpoints aren’t so much about arresting drunk drivers as they are about “education” and “awareness.” 

Consider the following from Battling DUI: A comparative analysis of checkpoints and saturation patrols - driving under the influence - FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Jan 2003:

Used to deter drinking and driving, sobriety checkpoints are related more directly to educating the public and encouraging designated drivers, rather than actually apprehending impaired drivers. Typically, sobriety checkpoints do not yield a large volume of DUI arrests. Instead, they offer authorities an educational tool. Education and awareness serve as a significant part of deterrence. Frequent use of checkpoints and aggressive media coverage can create a convincing threat in people’s minds that officers will apprehend impaired drivers—a key to general deterrence. In addition, public opinion polls have indicated that 70 to 80 percent of Americans surveyed favored the increased use of sobriety checkpoints as an effective law enforcement tool to combat impaired driving.

As an aside, I really have to wonder about who was surveyed and how the questions were worded if 70 to 80 percent of Americans really favored checkpoints.  Or perhaps not, given the sad state of understanding that most people have of their civil liberties these days…

Also consider some numbers related to the number of arrests with checkpoints as compared to saturation patrols and other methods:

Since 1989, the Ohio State Highway Patrol has participated in 156 sobriety checkpoints and arrested 807 drivers for DUI.

...

The agency arrests an average of 25,000 DUI drivers per year through all DUI-related operations.

Think about that for a moment.  If the period of operation is 1989 through 2002 (the article was written in early 2003), that means that over 13 years they arrested a total number of DUI drivers at checkpoints that comes to only about 3% of what they arrest in a single year! 

But then, if all of the above is true, the “authorities” don’t care how many arrests they make.  They will simply declare checkpoints a success just because they existed!

Although the program only netted 773 arrests for DUI, the deterrent factor created by the continuous use of the checkpoints and the media attention received resulted in the program’s success.

But even if these checkpoints are effective at raising “awareness,” they’re very costly PR:

This holiday weekend, New Jersey’s “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” campaign will assign hundreds of officers to run sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Officers spend hours screening hundreds, sometimes thousands, of vehicles that pass through a previously announced location.

Expensive

These roadblocks demand considerable staffing-hours and extensive funding, as towns that participate in the campaign receive $5,000 in federal funding. Across New Jersey, $875,000 has been distributed by the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety for the 175 participating law enforcement agencies. But checkpoints yield precious few drunken driving arrests.

With our slowing economy and rising gas prices, resources are tight and getting tighter. That reality makes the $29 million in federal funds earmarked to help run these pricey checkpoints in 2009 a luxury we can’t afford.

With overtime for a dozen or more officers, the costs of everyone’s travel delays and the value of other materials and equipment, the average checkpoint costs about $8,800. (emphasis added)

In 2006, states that relied on checkpoints averaged 7 percent more alcohol-related fatalities than those that used other tactics.

The reason for that discrepancy is readily apparent when considering programs like South Dakota’s, where officers ran more than 300 checkpoints in 2006. Even though the overtime alone cost taxpayers $177,000, the roadblocks, on average, only yielded a single arrest.

Just last week, a checkpoint held in Readington caught only three drunken drivers out of 1,100 motorists stopped and inconvenienced. That is a dismal 0.2 percent success rate.

These examples aren’t unique, and supporters often scramble to defend the low numbers. Last week, New Jersey’s director of the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety, Pam Fischer, said of checkpoints: “This initiative increases public awareness.”

But this claim that checkpoints raise “awareness” of enforcement efforts reduces the tactic to little more than an overpriced publicity stunt.

Finally, roadblocks commit the cardinal sin of not actually being effective. Or at least that’s what some data suggest (unfortunately, finding non-suspect data is difficult, as all of the major players such as CDC, NHTSA, and IHS seem invested in supporting checkpoints).  Looking at data from 2004 and 2003, the ABI found some interesting results using NHTSA’s own numbers.  It turns out that there was a reduction of 411 alchol-related deaths in 2004 as compared to 2003.  Of those, 95.9% came from the 11 states that do NOT operate roadblocks, as compared to only 4.1% from the states with roadblocks. 

Despair Not!  There Is A Solution

It turns out that there is a tactic that works for getting drunks off the road and that respects the Consititution and our liberty: increased patrols.  Wow, imagine that!  Good, old-fashioned, police work gets results! 

Some refer to “roving patrols” while others talk of “saturation patrols.”  These refer to dedicated efforts targeting a specific location or time in an effort to catch impaired drivers.  But here in Keller I think we have a great example of where aggressive traffic enforcement works in getting drunks off the streets. 

Consider these remarks from Chief Mark Hafner in the last issue of the
Keller Police Neighborhood Newsletter:

We continue to take a stance against intoxicated drivers on our roadways. Last month we removed 20 individuals from the streets for DWI. We want the message loud and clear “Don’t drive intoxicated in Keller”. By taking this stance our roadways are safer and hopefully we can reduce the amount of alcohol related deaths. Late evening/early morning hours are the prime time for intoxicated drivers. This is one of the reasons why we stop vehicles for minor traffic violations like wide turns, crossing the center of the roadway, failure to use turn signals, and slow speed. Officers will stop you for these violations. If you are not intoxicated they will send you on your way and thank you for being patient during the brief stop. Please understand we are not “harassing” you but doing our job of removing intoxicated drivers off the roads before a collision occurs.

I’ve done a couple of ride-alongs and I’ve observed our officers in action.  Not only do they target infractions that may indicate impairment, they also keep an eye on the local establishments at closing time to catch anyone who may have had a few too many.  This style of policing keeps our officers out on the streets where they can observe other activities and help prevent other types of crime at the same time.  Further, it helps target the worst offenders, the habitual drunks, who will drive drunk regardless of what the law says.  Finally, it respects individual rights by only stopping people when there is some reasonable suspicion that the individual may be impaired.

Checkpoints do just the opposite.  They tie up police resources at a well-known stationary position, allowing drunk drivers to avoid them and giving other criminals more chances to attempt crimes in the absence of the regular police presence.  Further, they corrode respect of the police by the average innocent citizen who is caught up in them.   

Let’s continue to respect the freedom of our citizens here in Texas by saying “No!” to any attempts to enable checkpoints in our state.  Our resources can be better used by aggressively pursuing criminal drunk drivers rather than sitting around waiting for them to come to us.

Monday, October 20, 2008

The Obligatory Presidential Election Post

After weighing my choices as to whether to sit out the presidential vote or not, I’ve decided that for the first time since 1992 I am going to vote for the Democrat on the ticket.

Some of you may be gasping right now.  That’s OK.  It took me a while to come around to the decision to vote for McCain.  Oh…. you thought I was talking about Obama?  Heh.  He never had even a snowball’s chance in hell that I’d vote for him.  Now I’m not being completely facetious when I call McCain a Democrat.  He sounds a lot like the Democrat party of 20 or 30 years ago.  Not the quasi-socialist fringe leftists we are faced with today.  So it’s not so much that I fully support McCain but that I cannot sit by and allow Obama to gain access to the Presidency.  That way lies madness.

I’m not sure there’s a single policy of Obama’s that I agree with (or that doesn’t have me yelling expletives whenever I hear it), but of all his quasi-socialist baggage, it’s his anti-freedom, anti-gun stance that I find the most offensive.  Of course, Obama has been careful to try to work around his history on this, with weaselly statements about how he’s not going to take your ‘hunting guns.’  Which is double-speak for the fact that he is coming after everything else. 

I’ve noticed that both he and his supporters are quick to change the subject when guns come up.  I’ve been particularly fond of their tactic of insinuating that it’s stupid to care about guns when the economy is in such bad shape (Oh, but Obama supports the Second Amendment…. hey look… it’s a bank collapsing!).  But I use the issue of the right to keep and bear arms as the primary test of how a candidate views his fellow citizens, and whether he thinks them capable of any semblance of self-governance.  Only after he or she passes that test do I then consider all of the other issues. 

When anyone asks why I place so much emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms, I always end up referring back to an old essay by L. Neil Smith, entitled Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?:

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.  (Emphasis added)

So, of the choices available to me, I’ve decided to take Mr. Squishy Loophole over Mr. Evil Ban-it-all.  It was really the only choice someone like me could make.  So, given that, I will make my one and only political call-to-action of the season:  If you’re a gun owner, or you believe in freedom, and you vote for Obama, you are essentially cutting your own throat.  Don’t come crying to me in the middle of an Obama administration when he gets another AWB passed, or finds a way to hamper or encumber concealed carry across the country to the point where it’s practically useless.  I’m not going to exhort you to go join a campaign or to join a party or to do canvassing or phone banking.  I’m not a joiner and I’m not going there.  But whatever you do, don’t vote for evil.  No matter how smooth, slick, and enticing it may be.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Tarnished Star

I used to be somewhat a fan of the Dallas Cowboys.  But these days I’m having a hard time of it.  Ever since the city of Arlington stole the homes of some of its residents to build the Cowboys a new stadium I just can’t get into them.  I see red every time I think about it.  So I’ve decided that I will not be watching any games from now on, I won’t purchase any of their merchandise for myself or anyone else, and I will never attend one of their games just on the general principle that I don’t want to support the organization in any way, shape, or form if they’re willing to accept and benefit from the theft of land.

The abuse of eminent domain is something that infuriates me beyond belief.  My first impulse when I see it is that the politicians involved should be gibbeted from lampposts at the town’s entrance as an example to others of what happens to thieves.  But then I remember that other parts of our laws frown on such behavior (unfortunately). 

I realize that eminent domain is sometimes a necessary evil.  But it should never be used for the benefit of any private enterprise.  If a company wants to build something, they can negotiate with the owners just like anyone else.  If the owners don’t want to sell, then too bad. 

Now I’m sure there will be people who object to my use of the term theft.  But, it seems to me, that there are major conflict-of-interest issues with having the same governmental entity that is taking the land decide its value.  If the owner is compelled to sell a property at less than his/her asking price, then he or she has been deprived of the value and that is theft. 

Of course, the next objection is that some people would demand much more than the land is worth.  To which my reply is, “So?”  While some ascribe this to greed, it’s usually a signal to the marketplace that they DO NOT WANT TO SELL.  Many of the people in Arlington were in situations where taking the city’s offer, even if it was “fair,” would have ruined them financially.  Because they were in an older neighborhood they often had older homes that were worth less.  But at the same time, new developments in the surrounding area have driven up new home prices.  It would have been impossible for many of them to afford a similar home and lot in an area reasonably close to their current locations with the amount being offered by the city.

Perhaps one way to fix this would be to require that the injured party be made whole again.  So instead of paying “fair value” (whatever the city decides that to be), there should be some sort of third-party, independent, evaluation of the replacement costs of the home and land.  This would be what it would cost for the purchase of a new home of the equivalent size (with equivalent size lot) within no more than five or ten miles from the original home (so that they can maintain job and family ties).  Would this be more expensive?  Yep.  That’s the whole point.  Cities ought to be forced to pay what’s really fair, not what they can get away with.

I’d also like to see this used for the Trans-Texas Corridor.  I really don’t like the idea of eminent domain used for a privately-financed road (and I could give less than a damn about the rhetoric being spewed from mealy-mouthed spokesmen about how it’s going to be state-owned; it either has to be 100% state owned and financed or it’s private, but eminent domain privileges should only be used for a fully state-funded project)

Monday, October 02, 2006

Slowly Sinking The Statist Ship

I haven’t taken the time to read the actual text of the bill, but this announcement marks an interesting turnaround in disaster-related firearms policy.

Fairfax, VA- The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners scored a significant victory yesterday when the United States Congress acted to prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency, barring practices conducted by officials in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This action was included in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed both chambers of Congress. This bill now heads to President Bush for his expected signature.

I remember some years ago that CDC was pushing a rather odious idea known as the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (which later came under the “Turning Point National Collaborative on Public Health Statute Modernization”).  The model legislation had been around for a while, and 9/11 gave them the excuse to push it under the guise of homeland security.  Here’s a brief summary of the key points of the act (emphasis added):

Under the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, upon the declaration of a “public health emergency,” governors and public health officials would be empowered to:

1. Force individuals suspected of harboring an “infectious disease” to undergo medical examinations.
2. Track and share an individual’s personal health information, including genetic information.
3. Force persons to be vaccinated, treated, or quarantined for infectious diseases.
4. Mandate that all health care providers report all cases of persons who harbor any illness or health condition that may be caused by an epidemic or an infectious agent and might pose a “substantial risk” to a “significant number of people or cause a long-term disability.” (Note: Neither “substantial risk” nor “significant number” are defined in the draft.)
5. Force pharmacists to report any unusual or any increased prescription rates that may be caused by epidemic diseases.
6. Preempt existing state laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to privacy, medical licensure, and—this is key—property rights.
7. Control public and private property during a public health emergency, including pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, nursing homes, other health care facilities, and communications devices.
8. Mobilize all or any part of the “organized militia into service to the state to help enforce the state’s orders.”
9. Ration firearms, explosives, food, fuel and alcoholic beverages, among other commodities.
10. Impose fines and penalties to enforce their orders

Sometimes I really worry about “health professionals.”  So often when you scratch the surface of one you run into an unalloyed statist, and this proposal is just more of the same (it’s interesting to note that one of the key players in this nonsense was also deeply involved in the Hillarycare debacle). 

I can only hope that this new legislation overrides or invalidates any confiscation-related firearm provisions that might have been adopted in various states:

As of July 15, 2006, thirty-two (32) states have introduced a total of one-hundred and three (103) legislative bills or resolutions that are based upon or feature provisions related to the Articles or sections of the Turning Point Act. Of these bills, thirty-nine (39) have passed.

A lot of the provisions that have passed were related to reporting of diseases, so you’d have to check state-by-state for emergency firearms laws.  But that this passed is a positive step in the direction of invalidating odious laws.

Update.  The new law forbids the Federal government, or anyone working for or on behalf of (takes Federal funds), from confiscating firearms, etc.

‘‘SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
‘‘(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—
No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—
‘‘(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
‘‘(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
‘‘(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
‘‘(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.”

The repeated references to “Federal, State, or local law” have me wondering, though.  Reading (3), it would appear that if a state passed a law in advance that gave the police power to confiscate firearms in an emergency, that it might just fall under the “not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law” phrasing.  I suppose the proof will be in whether we see anyone actually win a suit based on this law and the size of the verdict (it’s somewhat telling that no criminal liability appears to be attached to violation of the new statute).

Monday, February 06, 2006

Time To Grow Up!

One of the things that strikes me about the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons is that it reflects an immature worldview.  Mature people recognize that you can’t respond to words or images with violence, no matter how offensive those words or images may be to your beliefs.

I grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt.  Many people decry the ways of fundamentalist or even overtly-religious Christians, ascribing all sorts of malacious actions to them.  But I can tell you that I didn’t worry about them trying to kill me because we didn’t agree.

I tend to operate on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with regards to religion.  It’s only the overly zealous types who try to “save” me who earn my ire and disrepect.  I have told several of the more pushy sorts that I wasn’t interested in their “creation myth.”  That tended to send them off muttering about “burning in hell,” etc, but even so, I’ve never worried about them doing violence against me.

Grown-ups don’t burn down your house or kill you over a religious disagreement.  It’s time for the Muslim world to learn to live and let live.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Raich Quickie

It occurs to me that even though the FedGov appears to have won a victory, there are still ways to monkey-wrench federal enforcement actions with regards to medical marijuana.

In particular, I wonder what the Feds would do if no jury could be found that would convict in a federal medical marijuana case?  I doubt we could get to that point very soon, since most people don’t know that they can judge the law as well as the facts of the case.  But I suspect that once we see sick and dying people being prosecuted (persecuted?) in the news on a nightly basis, some people won’t be able to find it in their hearts to convict such a person, no matter how carefully the judge crafts the jury charge.

Still, it’s depressing to know that it has come to this.  This decision, unless a future court changes direction, could allow no end of really bad federal laws to come to pass.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Big Brother In Your Car?

It seems that legislators in the Texas house have taken time from their busy tax-raising schedule to send HB2893 out of committee.

What is HB2983? First, iIt requires the insurance companies to report all automobile insurance policy purchases, renewals, and cancellations to the state.

Sec. 601.502.  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The motor vehicle liability insurance compliance program shall require that, on or after the effective date of this subchapter, when an insurance company authorized to write motor vehicle liability insurance in this state or its designated agent issues or renews a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that provides the minimum coverages required by this chapter to a person who is required to maintain insurance under this chapter and who is the holder of a Texas driver’s license or a Texas commercial driver’s license, or terminates or cancels such a policy, the insurance company or its designated agent shall furnish to the department or administering entity the following information:
          (1)  the insurance policy number;
          (2)  the effective date of the policy;
          (3)  the make, model, license plate number, and vehicle identification number of each vehicle covered by the policy; and
          (4)  any other information reasonably required by the department.
     (b)  The required information relating to an insurance policy that is issued or renewed shall be provided to the department or administering entity not later than the third business day after the date of issuance or renewal.
     (c)  The required information relating to an insurance policy that is terminated or canceled shall be provided to the department before the effective date of the termination or cancellation.

But once the state has its grubby paws on the data, they plan to do far more with it than just check vehicles at registration renewal.  The bill would also add RFID tags to inspection stickers, such that these tags could be read by existing toll-tag readers as well as any other readers that our “friends” in Austin decide to set up.

Sec. 601.507.  SPECIAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATES. (a) Commencing not later than January 1, 2006, the department shall issue or contract for the issuance of special inspection certificates to be affixed to motor vehicles that are inspected and found to be in proper and safe condition under Chapter 548.
     (b)  An inspection certificate under this section must contain a tamper-resistant transponder, and at a minimum, be capable of storing:
          (1)  the transponder’s unique identification number; and
          (2)  the make, model, and vehicle identification number of the vehicle to which the certificate is affixed.
     (c)  In addition, the transponder must be compatible with:
          (1)  the automated vehicle registration and certificate of title system established by the Texas Department of Transportation; and
          (2)  interoperability standards established by the Texas Department of Transportation and other entities for use of the system of toll roads and toll facilities in this state.

By the way, the next section of the bill establishes that if a vehicle is spotted via tag reader that doesn’t have current insurance, the system automatically mails a $250 ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Here’s the full text (PDF) for those who may be interested.

The bill calls for “tamper-resistant” transponders.  Would it be tampering to hit it with an EM pulse?  After all, you didn’t actually touch the device.  Of course, the downside is that a strong EM pulse is difficult to generate and would also fry your car’s electronics.

Maybe a clear metal-film layer applied over the glass instead?

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Sneak And Peak?

An interesting thought just occurred to me.  Under the “sneak and peak” rules created by FISA in 1994, the FBI is allowed to get a FISA warrant under which it has the authority to enter your house, photograph your papers, duplicate your computer hard drive, and never let you know it’s been there.

I wonder how they would accomplish the task of duplicating my hard drives?  My computer systems are a) always powered on, b) protected by screen lock passwords when not in use, c) protected by power-on passwords, and d) require a valid id and password to log on.  Further, the system that stores most of my important data is a Linux system using a RAID-5 array.  I will notice if that system is powered off and tampered with.  Not only would they have to take the system down, they’d have to root it and remove all traces of the shutdown and restart, and then somehow restore my desktop to its original state (which might vary based on whatever I was doing last before I locked it).  At least they’d have to do that if they wanted an exact duplicate of the hard drives.  If they just wanted the data, perhaps they could root it and plug in a USB device (and then remove the evidence from the logs, since Linux logs these connections). 

If I really wanted to be paranoid I suppose I could hook up motion sensitive cameras to my computer and have it upload the pictures to an offsite server somewhere everytime it noticed movement as well as storing them in encrypted form in several hidden locations on several hard drives (just in case they got smart and posed as Verizon techs and disabled my internet connection and phone, which takes out the alarm system as well). 

This makes for an entertaining thought exercise.  Trying to come up with a foolproof way to determine someone with lots of technical knowledge, power, and resources has secretly entered your house.  The cards are stacked against you.

An Arrogant Quickie

A quick note to police and other public servants.  Unless you’re currently serving in the military, you may not call me a civilian.  If I hear this word out of your mouths, I know immediately that you are not to be trusted.

Give Them What They Want And Die

I saw something on the news this morning that pissed me off to the point where I was yelling obscenities at a Colleyville police officer and an airhead reporter.  It seems that some miscreants are targeting home owners in the Colleyville and Coppell areas for home invasion robberies.

Police in Colleyville and Coppell are warning homeowners to be alert after a string of home invasion robberies.

The departments are investigating four incidents that happened around 10 p.m. Monday night. Authorities believe they are all related.

Police are encouraging residents to lock their doors and be aware of their surroundings. The suspects are armed and searching for easy opportunities, they said.

That’s bad enough, but what got me was that the cops are pushing the typical “give them what they want” crap. 

Police said the robberies were crimes of opportunity and added that only a trained expert should ever try to confront a suspect.

“The bad guy has the advantage,” Hudgins said. “He knows what he’s gonna do, whereas the complainant or the victim doesn’t know what is going to happen next.”

“Just give them what they want. If they’re not gonna hurt you, then you’re that much better off.”

To which I can only say, “Bullshit!”  We all know that simply giving them what they want doesn’t work anymore.  You’re just as likely to get shot after complying as you would if you’d resisted these days. 

Of course, if you’re in condition white, you’re an easy target and it’s too late after the robbers stick a gun in your face.  One of the problems here is that people get a false sense of security and let down their guard at home, especially because Colleyville hasn’t had a home invasion in seven years prior to this string of them.  People need to remember to stay alert (condition yellow) and be prepared.  If they do this, it negates the bad guy’s advantage.

Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed.  This is Texas after all.  We should be getting righteous shooting reports out of Colleyville or Coppell instead of more “trained expert” nonsense!  Anyone who would invade someone’s home at gunpoint deserves whatever they get.

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Move Along Or Go To Jail

I've been researching the issue of police powers and the subject of "lawful orders" and I'm not finding a lot. I did, however, find the statute that gives police (and firemen) authority to tell you to leave a location.

    § 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without legal privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
        (1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or
        (2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:
            (A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or
            (B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
    (b) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.
    (c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

I've highlighted the sections that would imply that they can order you to leave an area. From what I can see, it doesn't directly address being ordered out of your home (I guess the question comes down to the meaning of "gathered in dangerous proximity"). Frankly, in those circumstances, I don't have too much problem with being asked to leave, provided that I'm given meaningful information. But free citizens don't blindly follow orders from anyone.

Monday, August 23, 2004

Silly Script Kiddies

So, those silly, dissent-loving leftist-anarchists have hacked Protest Warrior.  I find it ironic that they scream so much about their right to speak (dissent!) then turn around and try to destroy the rights of others to do the very same thing.  I guess it’s all a matter of who’s doing the speaking (some animals are more equal than others and all that).

They also posted a list of emails stolen from the site to Indymedia.  I had recently signed up as I was interested in attending some of the counterprotests in the area.  I see that my email is on their list.  Now I get to decide whether to kill that email address or wait to see what kind of crap shows up there.  I think for now I’ll wait to see what shows up.  But I feel sorry for people who don’t have the ability to create and destroy email addresses at will.  I suspect that some of these ever-so-tolerant Indymediots will shortly be sending out spam and virus-laden emails to these addresses.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Shoot, Shovel, And Shut Up

Jeff mentions the situation in England where defending yourself or your family will likely get you a stiffer penalty than the criminal who attacked you.  This naturally could lead to situations where citizens just kill the bastards and hide the bodies.  Why call it in if you know your life is ruined, regardless of justification?

In a similar vein, the same idea when related to certain “protected” wildlife in certain states (*cough* California *cough*) has led to the pithy phrase “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” 

Unfortunately, the British don’t have many guns (or at least the law abiding citizens don’t), so perhaps it will be “stab/bludgeon, shovel,and shut up”, but it’s a logical outgrowth of an intolerable situation in regards to self defense.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Police Request Vs Order?

The item below and subsequent discussion on The High Road about the police actions in Oskhosh got me to thinking about another, related issue.

Specifically, the police “evacuated” a 6-block area and forced the residents to a shelter for the duration of their search.  What rights does a private citizen have to refuse to leave his home in the face of a police demand to evacuate?

My first thought about it is that in the absence of a specific, immediate threat, I would be reluctant to leave.  I’d ask the officer whether it was a request or an order.  If it’s just a request, I’ll tell him to get lost.  If it’s an order, then I think the law would require me to leave, but I’d insist on locking the house and arming the alarm.  I just don’t trust cops enough anymore to leave things open for them to get in and mess with my stuff.  This incident simply reinforces that.

Update:  This has also brought up something that’s been stewing in the back of my mind for a while now.  The weekly Keller newspaper publishes records of all arrests from the previous week.  Reading through them, the majority are either DWI (no objection there, for the most part) or small drug posession arrests based on a consent search following a simple traffic stop (headlight out, speeding, failure to signal, etc).  It amazes me that people would consent to a search in this circumstance, but I understand that a lot of people a.) don’t know their rights, and b.) are often browbeaten or intimidated into consenting.  Now that I know the Keller cops are search-happy on traffic stops (and I already knew they were like sharks in a small pond when it comes to looking for traffic violations), I’ll be more on guard.  However, asserting your rights can get you arrested if the officer feels like it.  Texas law allows them to arrest you for simple traffic violations if they feel like it.  Given this, I think I need to find a good criminal defense attorney and if not put them on retainer, at least establish a relationship.  Besides, it’s probably stupid of me to have gone this long without doing so.  Partially it’s a matter of procrastination, but there’s also the fact that I haven’t a clue about how to find a good lawyer.  I’ve found a few directories that list attorneys in the area by speciality, but I have no idea how to determine if they’re any good.

By Gosh Something Stinks In Oshkosh

After one of their officers was shot last week, it would appear that the police in Oshkosh, WI need a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment.

From the Wisconsin Gun Owners website:

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

  Residents reported returning home from area shelters—where they were herded by police—to find their guns gone.

  Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

  “However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,” said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. “So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there’s no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic.”

  Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department’s “Guilty-until-proven-innocent” posture towards citizens.

  In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

  According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

  Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

  Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

      “That’s what makes me so mad,” said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). “They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.” [Emphasis Added]

  In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

  “They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on,” the man said on camera.

  An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

  “Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” that she could have committed this heinous act?” asked Graff.

  “Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?” He said.

  In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, “declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…”

 

I think this just shows once again why you should never, ever allow police into your house without a warrant.  Of course, the police may barge in anyway, but if they do at least you still have legal standing to contest their entry.  If you give consent to a search you’ve given up the ability to challenge the search.  The same goes for traffic stops.  I will never, ever give consent to a search of my house or vehicle, even if I haven’t done anything wrong.

Because Wisconsin Gun Owners don’t provide any way to link directly to their news articles I’ve reproduced their entire article in the extended text area of this entry so it will be available in case it scrolls off of their main page.