Posts Tagged ‘ 4th amendment ’

Following Shooting, Miami Cops Grab Cell Phones at Gunpoint, Destroy Them

Carlos Miller
Pixiq.com
June 3, 2011

Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets Memorial Day.

First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer.

Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling “you want to be fucking paparazzi?”

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer’s back pocket as he was laying down on the ground.

And finally, they took him to a mobile command center where they snapped his photo and demanded the phone again, then took him to police headquarters where they conducted a recorded interview with him before releasing him.

But what they didn’t know was that Narces Benoit had removed the SIM card and hid it in his mouth, which means the video survived.

Benoit showed the video to Miami Herald reporters on Thursday, who described it in their article.

The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone begins as officers crowd around the east side of Herisse’s car with guns drawn. Roughly 15 seconds into the video, officers open fire.

Benoit filmed the incident from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of 13th Street and Collins Avenue, close enough to see some officers’ faces and individual muzzle flashes.

Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street.

The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them.

The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.

“They put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground,” Davis said.

Benoit has not posted it on Youtube because he is asking to be compensated. But it sounds as if he won’t have much trouble getting compensated through a settlement with the police department.

However, he first must post the video for the world to see.

Benoit and his girlfriend also said police smashed several phones from other witnesses, so hopefully they were able to recover the videos as well.

The new details emerged a day after police announced they had found a gun in the car they had shot up.

It took police two-and-a-half days to find the gun in the Hyundai but they still haven’t determined if it was discharged that night.

For all we know, it could have been locked away in the trunk of the car.

Four innocent bystanders were shot during that shooting, most likely from police bullets.

Also, an hour after that shooting, another officer shot at a man who she believed was driving towards her. But he turned out to be allegedly drunk, which is why he was driving erratically and eventually into a police cruiser.

Advertisements

Coming Soon To Your Home: Warrantless Searches! You Were Warned!

Fourth Amendment Busting Sneak and Peek Warrants On the Rise

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 19, 2011

An Albuquerque television news report aired earlier this week reveals a steep increase by the federal government in the use of unconstitutional sneak and peek search warrants.

“The warrants have always been around, but their use has spiked since the War on Terror and revamped Patriot Act was signed in 2005,” reports KOAT. “The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to approaching close to 2,000 in 2009.

See a video report on the KOAT website.

According to KOAT, a majority of the search warrants were not related to terrorism cases. Justice Department figures indicate the majority of the secretive warrants were issued in drug cases.

“While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations,” Peter Simonson of the ACLU told the news station.

The ACLU said it expects so-called delayed-notice warrant numbers to increase so long as the PATRIOT Act remains law.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the Fourth Amendment protected Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires the government to both obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose property is to be searched prior to conducting the search. The notice requirement allowed a property owner to assert his or her rights under the Fourth Amendment.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

For example, a person with notice might be able to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no authority to be looking in dresser drawers, the ACLU points out. The Supreme Court recently ruled that notice is a key Fourth Amendment protection.

The FBI has has engaged in a similar practice for decades. Commonly known as black bag operations, the practice permitted FBI agents to illegally enter offices of targeted individuals and political organizations.

In 1966, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover claimed he put an end to the prctice used by the agency since the early 1940s, but in the late 60s and through the 1970s the agency routinely violated the Fourth Amendment under COINTELPRO, the federal effort to undermine political individuals and groups the government opposed. In 1972 in the Plamondon case, the Supreme Court ruled black bag jobs unconstitutional.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The criminal practice came back into vogue following the attacks of September 11, 2001. “The refocusing of FBI operational priorities and the new emphasis placed on intelligence-based activities… has resulted in a dramatic increase” in the demand for black bag jobs, according to an unclassified FBI document. “It does not detail how many of the secret searches it carries out, and the FBI did not respond to comment,” ABC News reported in June of 2007. It went to Congress that year and demanded $5 million to pay for the surreptitious operations.

The New Mexico report on increased sneak and peek illegal entry in drug and other criminals cases follows a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that residents of that state do not have the right to resist the invasion of their homes by rogue cops.

While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011

Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In a precedent described by dissenting justices as “breathtaking” and “unnecessarily broad,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.

“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Dissenting Justices Brent E. Dickson and Robert D. Rucker made it clear that the ruling represented a total rejection of rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

“In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” Dickson wrote.

“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,” added Rucker. “There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The ruling was made under the justification that resisting a police officer had the potential to escalate and cause violence against the officer, meaning that the God-like status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.

In a separate case, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can now also bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

Of course, the fact that police officers have been known to habitually lie in order to justify illegally entering a property and violating the Fourth Amendment (which is apparently now null and void anyway), was not considered.

These two cases merely scratch the surface of America’s descent into an authoritarian tyranny, which has noticeably deepened over the last few weeks. Describing the United States as a “police state” is no longer a glib or alarmist use of rhetoric, because by every measurable tenet and in every context, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are now being completely ignored by government or simply abolished altogether.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The fact that Supreme Courts are now attacking the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold is proof that America has been hijacked by rogue criminal elements who are busy dismantling everything that once made the country a beacon of liberty for the world.

The debate is officially over. America has now entered the annuls of history as an authoritarian police state on a par with Soviet Russia, and as that virus spreads throughout all levels of society it will ultimately lead the United States to the same fate – the only question remaining is how messy the collapse will be, how many people will be incarcerated, and how many people the government will murder in the process.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

The TSA’s Faulty Reasoning and Your Rights!

Notice how they reason away your rights right from the opening paragraph?  Then they try to sell you the notion that the pat downs are being way over criticized.  This is just part of the continuation of preparing Americans for more government interference in our lives by trying to dumb us down according to their standards. (Click on the underlined paragraph above for the source of this article).

Texas House of Representatives Seeking to Ban Current TSA Pat-Down

What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.

We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn’t the case unfortunately.  Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.  It’s important to note that if a passenger (or bag) alarms during screening, our officers must resolve the alarm before allowing the passenger and their baggage on the airplane.
Here are some pat-down myths and facts:
Myth: Everyone who travels will receive a pat-down.
Fact: In fact, less than 3% of passengers receive pat-downs. Only passengers who alarm a walk through metal detector or AIT machine or opt out of the AIT receive a pat-down. In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures.  In his testimony to a Senate subcommittee, Administrator Pistole said: “The bottom line is few people in the overall scheme of things will actually receive those pat downs. Now, we’ve heard some examples, and obviously, there’s a vocal group out there who have experienced this for the first time, and, rightfully so, raising concerns, what’s behind this. And the bottom line is we, the transportation security officers in particular, are trying to work in partnership with the traveling public to say we want to ensure that you are safe on this flight. Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security. And that’s what it comes down to.”
Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.
Fact: No. TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family, while providing the best possible security for all travelers. Children 12 years old and under who require extra screening will receive a modified pat down.
Myth: Complaints about the pat-downs are extremely high.
Fact: Only a small percentage of the traveling public receives a pat down as they travel through the security checkpoint.  Between November 2010 and March 2011, TSA screened nearly 252 million people. In that same time period, we received 898 complaints from individuals who have experienced or witnessed a pat down. That’s roughly 0.0004%.
Myth: Pat downs for certain individuals are limited to the head and neck.
Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be screened effectively.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.