(Fresno Bee (CA) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) FRESNO, Calif. _ In days gone by, the Hells Angels seemed to follow a legal code not found in any American law book. Anyone who crossed it would face judgment in shades of black and blue.
Now, the famed and feared motorcycle club is seeking a more refined path to justice: It is suing a Visalia, Calif., woman in federal court, alleging "cyberpiracy" and trademark infringement.
The club says Fawn Myers illegally registered more than 20 Internet domain names associated with the Hells Angels and then placed them up for auction on eBay.
Myers, the club says, registered domain names such as ha-mc.com and 81ca.com through the Internet hosting service GoDaddy.com, which is also named in the suit. It was filed this month in U.S. District Court in Fresno, Calif.
The number 81, the suit says, has not only long been an identifier and pseudonym for the Hells Angels, but it also has been used on licensed merchandise such as hats, beanies, bikinis, pins and belt buckles. The letter "H" is the eighth in the alphabet; the letter "A" the first.
In her eBay listings, the Hells Angels allege, Myers specifically mentions the association of the domain names with the motorcycle club. The club says that amounts to trademark infringement and cyberpiracy, among other violations of federal law.
The Hells Angels is showing no mercy in its legal demands.
The motorcycle club wants a court judgment that Myers violated its rights under federal and state statutes. It wants the domain names to be transferred to the club. And they want any profits derived from the domain names, as well as $100,000 in damages for each domain name found to belong to the club.
One legal expert thinks the Hells Angels might have a good case.
David S. Welkowitz, an expert in trademark law at the Whittier Law School in Southern California, said lawsuits such as the one filed by the Hells Angels are common _ as are victories for the trademark owners.
Welkowitz said the key question is whether Myers has any legitimate claim to the domain names, and whether she can withstand a federal cybersquatting statute and prove she didn't make a "bad faith attempt to profit" from the domain names' association with the Hells Angels.
"Putting it on eBay is not going to help you," he said.
Fawn Myers could not be reached for comment, but a man who answered her home telephone number said the case isn't as clear cut as the court file makes it appear.
Terry Myers declined to say how he's related to Fawn, but he said he registered the domain names, not Fawn. And he said there is no way he can fight the Hells Angels.
"I have no money to defend this," he said. "They're going to win in court." (EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE) The suit, filed by Sacramento, Calif., attorney Fritz Clapp, claims Fawn Myers registered the domain names within the past year, using GoDaddy.com as the registrar. GoDaddy did not return a call seeking comment.
This month, the domain names were offered for sale on eBay, with titles and descriptions emphasizing that they signified the Hells Angels and were valuable because of that association. Prices ranged from about $100 to $10,000.
The Hells Angels, the suit says, immediately notified eBay and Fawn Myers that the domain names violated the motorcycle club's rights; eBay stopped the auctions.
Fawn Myers, however, relisted and continued to offer the names for sale through GoDaddy.com, according to the suit.
Terry Myers said he is willing to give up ownership to all the domain names and turn them over to the Hells Angels. He said he called Clapp with the offer but never heard back.
Clapp could not be reached to comment.
Myers wonders who the motorcycle club might seek out next. He said the domain name hamc.org belongs to the Hebrew Academy of Morris County in New Jersey, while the name hamc.com belongs to the Heart of America Medical Center in Rugby, N.D.Add to Technorati Favorites
Is gang legislation becoming more dangerous than gangs?
When we start specifying who you may or may not associate with, what you can and can not do with the fingers on your hands, what you may and may not wear, and where you may or may not do these things Because it may be "gang related" I get scared. When a court holds such actions constitutional I get scared.
Anyone remember back in the day when long hair or blue jeans and girls wearing jeans would get you kicked out of school? Remember?
Remember how restaurants and other establishment would not serve you because of the length of your hair or the color of your skin? Remember?
Remember what white folk who associated with black folk in south were called. Or what the black folk were called by their own just because of association? Remember?
Remember when you could get beat for such things??? Remember?
Remember when all that stuff was considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL???? Remember?
By Jessica Langdon (Contact)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Two times this month, the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth has
upheld elements related to criminal convictions stemming from violations
of the first gang injunction the city and county took on.
The county and city have now prevailed on all three challenges that have
gone through the court, said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant city
attorney for the city of Wichita Falls.
He said the court addressed four major points in the cases. It upheld
that prohibiting association among gang members within the specified
zone is constitutional, and that it is constitutional to prohibit
defendants from flashing gang signs in that area and from wearing gang
clothing, he said. The court also agreed the section of the penal code
that sets out the criminal penalties for violations of the civil
injunction is legal, he said.
"It is simply validation that the VC gang injunction was constitutional,
and everything we did was legal," Hegglund said. "The courts have held
up as legal and proper the injunction on all points so far."
The injunction has been a combined effort among the District Attorney's
Office, the City Attorney's Office, the Wichita Falls Police Department
and the Wichita County Sheriff's Office, Hegglund said.
"The Wichita County District Attorney's Office handled the appeal, and
they prevailed on all points," he said.
The appellate court issued an opinion Feb. 5 in the appeal of Maurice
Felton Lawson, 19, and another Feb. 12 in the appeal of Mario Rico
Martinez, 19. Both are defendants named in the VC injunction, which was
initially filed in 2006. It became a longer-term injunction for a list
of defendants in 2007. The injunction defines a 1.54-square-mile safety
zone in Wichita Falls and sets forth a list of requirements the
defendants must follow in that area. The injunction prohibits gang
members from associating with one another, for example, and also places
about two dozen restrictions on their activities.
The criminal charge for a violation of the civil injunction is a Class A
misdemeanor offense called violation of a court order enjoining
organized criminal activity.
Lawson pleaded guilty to one count stemming from a Feb. 20, 2007,
incident related to associating with a VC member who was subject to the
injunction, according to court paperwork. He was sentenced to 300 days'
confinement and fined $4,000.
Martinez pleaded guilty to five offenses stemming from violations Dec.
13, 2006, and Jan. 2, Feb. 20, April 25, and Sept. 6, 2007. He received
a 305-day sentence and was fined $4,000 on each count.
The first injunction-related appeal to go through the Second Court of
Appeals was that of Franco Andre Goyzueta, 20, who was sentenced in 2007
to 300 days in jail.
The court found in favor of the city and county in his appeal, as well.
That opinion came in August.
Two of the opinions that have come have been published opinions, which
means they can be referred to as precedent, Hegglund said.
Since the VC injunctions began, injunctions have also gone into effect
for defendants associated with the Puro Lil' Mafia criminal street gang.
Reporter Jessica Langdon can be reached at (940) 763-7530 or by e-mail
at langdonj(at)TimesRecord News.com.Add to Technorati Favorites
Anyone remember back in the day when long hair or blue jeans and girls wearing jeans would get you kicked out of school? Remember?
Remember how restaurants and other establishment would not serve you because of the length of your hair or the color of your skin? Remember?
Remember what white folk who associated with black folk in south were called. Or what the black folk were called by their own just because of association? Remember?
Remember when you could get beat for such things??? Remember?
Remember when all that stuff was considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL???? Remember?
Court upholds gang injunction
Read the whole story hereBy Jessica Langdon (Contact)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Two times this month, the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth has
upheld elements related to criminal convictions stemming from violations
of the first gang injunction the city and county took on.
The county and city have now prevailed on all three challenges that have
gone through the court, said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant city
attorney for the city of Wichita Falls.
He said the court addressed four major points in the cases. It upheld
that prohibiting association among gang members within the specified
zone is constitutional, and that it is constitutional to prohibit
defendants from flashing gang signs in that area and from wearing gang
clothing, he said. The court also agreed the section of the penal code
that sets out the criminal penalties for violations of the civil
injunction is legal, he said.
"It is simply validation that the VC gang injunction was constitutional,
and everything we did was legal," Hegglund said. "The courts have held
up as legal and proper the injunction on all points so far."
The injunction has been a combined effort among the District Attorney's
Office, the City Attorney's Office, the Wichita Falls Police Department
and the Wichita County Sheriff's Office, Hegglund said.
"The Wichita County District Attorney's Office handled the appeal, and
they prevailed on all points," he said.
The appellate court issued an opinion Feb. 5 in the appeal of Maurice
Felton Lawson, 19, and another Feb. 12 in the appeal of Mario Rico
Martinez, 19. Both are defendants named in the VC injunction, which was
initially filed in 2006. It became a longer-term injunction for a list
of defendants in 2007. The injunction defines a 1.54-square-mile safety
zone in Wichita Falls and sets forth a list of requirements the
defendants must follow in that area. The injunction prohibits gang
members from associating with one another, for example, and also places
about two dozen restrictions on their activities.
The criminal charge for a violation of the civil injunction is a Class A
misdemeanor offense called violation of a court order enjoining
organized criminal activity.
Lawson pleaded guilty to one count stemming from a Feb. 20, 2007,
incident related to associating with a VC member who was subject to the
injunction, according to court paperwork. He was sentenced to 300 days'
confinement and fined $4,000.
Martinez pleaded guilty to five offenses stemming from violations Dec.
13, 2006, and Jan. 2, Feb. 20, April 25, and Sept. 6, 2007. He received
a 305-day sentence and was fined $4,000 on each count.
The first injunction-related appeal to go through the Second Court of
Appeals was that of Franco Andre Goyzueta, 20, who was sentenced in 2007
to 300 days in jail.
The court found in favor of the city and county in his appeal, as well.
That opinion came in August.
Two of the opinions that have come have been published opinions, which
means they can be referred to as precedent, Hegglund said.
Since the VC injunctions began, injunctions have also gone into effect
for defendants associated with the Puro Lil' Mafia criminal street gang.
Reporter Jessica Langdon can be reached at (940) 763-7530 or by e-mail
at langdonj(at)TimesRecord News.com.Add to Technorati Favorites
Would you would spend your taxpayer dollars to keep bars safe?
We can understand that if an individual goes into a privately owned establishment and causes problems then the owner has the option to call the police and have the individual removed. The individual being removed paying the cost for engaging in a behavior that necessitated the need for police.
If your business is in need of "regular policing" there a plenty of police who take on extra duty. That duty being paid for by the establishment or event in need of said services.
If your business needs full time policing and you can't afford it, is it your expectation that the taxpayers should pay for it?
If you are a taxpayer that does not drink or hangout in bars is it your expectation that your tax dollars be used to provide such a business with a service that they themselves should be responsible for as a cost of doing business?
And why would police agree to extend their already stretched budgets to provide this service?
Because it gives them more control?
There is something awfully insane about this. But then we are talking Canada and this would never happen in the good ol USA right?
If your business is in need of "regular policing" there a plenty of police who take on extra duty. That duty being paid for by the establishment or event in need of said services.
If your business needs full time policing and you can't afford it, is it your expectation that the taxpayers should pay for it?
If you are a taxpayer that does not drink or hangout in bars is it your expectation that your tax dollars be used to provide such a business with a service that they themselves should be responsible for as a cost of doing business?
And why would police agree to extend their already stretched budgets to provide this service?
Because it gives them more control?
There is something awfully insane about this. But then we are talking Canada and this would never happen in the good ol USA right?
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2009/02/20/8461766-sun.htmlAdd to Technorati Favorites
Fri, February 20, 2009
Gang cops to increase bar presence
UPDATED: 2009-02-20 03:57:37 MST
By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA
Gangsters intimidating downtown bar operators have helped convince
police to deploy another squad to battle organized criminals, said a
senior officer.
Bar owners and staff are being bullied by gang members into allowing
them to ply their illegal activities in watering holes and have sought
assistance from police, said Insp. Bob Ritchie.
So starting this weekend, a second team of nine anti-gang officers will
hit the streets, keeping a close eye on watering holes, he said.
"There are threats of violence to doormen and night managers to allow
criminals to carry on their illegal activities in bars," said Ritchie.
"When we see the fact managers are asking for help with gangs and public
safety in their establishments, we're going to respond."
The new Violent Crime Suppression Team (VCST) will ensure police
coverage of the beat extends to weekend nights, said Ritchie, adding
they'll also go further afield handling other activities such as
enforcing gang members' curfews and bail conditions.
It will also enable officers to play a larger role in policing inside
bars, he said, once the Gaming and Liquor Act is amended toward that
purpose.
"It takes the risk from the doormen and managers and gives it to
police," said Ritchie, noting the policy change was mentioned in this
month's provincial throne speech.
While Wayne Leong said the 17 Ave. S.W. establishment he owns, Melrose
Cafe and Bar, hasn't been targeted by gangsters, he welcomes the added
police presence.
"It's a positive thing -- it would create safety for people to come and
frequent hospitality spots," said Leong.
"We keep police involved -- they've made it easy for us to pick up the
phone and contact them."
He also welcomed a greater police role in tackling criminal activity
inside the bars.
And Leong said he's not worried a greater police role and presence
inside bars will unduly intimidate customers.
"Female customers, in particular, would feel more at ease," he said.
Stand up for Freedom in Mrytle Beach! Feb 28
Going to Daytona for Bike Week? Make a Stop, a Statement and a Stand in Myrtle
Beach!
Have you ever wanted to make a stand on the front lines of the battle for
Motorcyclists' Rights? No, I don't mean lamenting lid laws from some VFW
barstool after an ABATE meeting. And no, I don't mean making whiney postings
about new reckless riding rules on some Yahoo Groups sportbike forum. I mean,
just once in your life, wouldn't you like to truly take the point position in
the fight for *your* Right to Ride? Well here's your chance!
Over the next several days, hundreds of thousands of motorcycle riders and
enthusiasts from coast to coast will be leaving their recession depressions
behind as they stuff their saddlebags, top off their touring cases, or load up
their "Live to Ride" trailers and head to Florida for the 68th Annual Daytona
Beach Bike Week. If you are fortunate enough to participate in that pilgrimage,
I encourage you to add some slack to your schedule and reroute your GPS for a
2/28 side trip to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Here is why:
Defying sound economic reason, overriding the sovereignty of state law, and in
clear violation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights, the municipal
government of the City of Myrtle Beach has passed a series of rules and
ordinances aimed at terminating Myrtle Beach's Bike Weeks, i.e. the
Harley-Davidson Dealers Association Spring Rally, and the Atlantic Beach
Memorial Day Bikefest:
http://myrtlebeachbikerinfo.com/ordinances.html
This Google News link will help to bring you current on the controversy...
http://tinyurl.com/bztbsb
...and I'd like you to pay special attention to the article linked here...
http://tinyurl.com/ddkhlo
...which reads as follows:
***
MOTORCYCLE "FREEDOM" RIDE
By Thema Ponton
WBTW News 13 Reporter
Published: February 13, 2009
In an email to News13, one biker states that the Myrtle Beach Helmet Freedom
Ride will be held on Saturday, February 28, at the Beaver Bar, 3381 Highway 17
Business, Murrells Inlet, beginning at 11:00 AM. The ride will depart at noon.
The email states that "participants will be given instructions and route details
just prior to the departure of the ride. All participants in this Helmet
Freedom Ride do so as common adventurers. Local bikers may coordinate this ride
but no one is considered a leader of this ride. All participants take
responsibility for making their own decisions including, but not limited to,
whether to participate and what equipment they choose to use or not such as
safety equipment (helmets) or vehicle equipment (mufflers)."
Organizers state, "The ride is a grassroots effort to oppose discrimination.
There is no single group or individual leading this grassroots effort. Bikers in
every town or city of the Carolinas are the backbone of this effort.
Motorcyclists of every walk of life are welcome."
Organizers add that free legal assistance will be provided for the
participants...
Organizers have also set a rain date for the event, March 7, 2009 at the same
time and place.
***
Despite the focus of Ms. Ponton's report, DON'T THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT THE
ISSUE HERE IS LIDS. The real issue here is *your* right as an American
motorcyclist to share the road equally with other motorists, and whether the
City of Myrtle Beach--or any other municipality--can blatantly disregard state
law and the Constitution of the United States in an open and unapologetic
attempt to take away that right. Remember WHY WE FIGHT:
"The battle for bikers' rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We
fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists
... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and
lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish
those who violate our rights or right-of-way." [ http://BikersRights.LdrLongDistanceRider.com
]
And whether you're going to Daytona for Bike Week or not, please make a stop, a
statement and a stand in Myrtle Beach!
Speaking strictly for myself and no other individuals or organizations,
Bruce Arnold
Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com
Author and Publisher, LdrLongDistanceRider.com
Co-Moderator, Bruce-n-RC's Biker Forum
Mile Eater Gold Member, Iron Butt Association (IBA)
Member, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance (BOLT of Florida)
Sustaining Member, Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF)
2009 Chairman's Circle, American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
***
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL CONCERNED MOTORCYCLISTS NATIONWIDE!
***
MYRTLE BEACH BIKE WEEK LINKS
http://www.myrtlebeachbikeweek.com/
http://www.myrtlebeachharley.com/custompage.asp?pg=bike_weekAdd to Technorati Favorites
Beach!
Have you ever wanted to make a stand on the front lines of the battle for
Motorcyclists' Rights? No, I don't mean lamenting lid laws from some VFW
barstool after an ABATE meeting. And no, I don't mean making whiney postings
about new reckless riding rules on some Yahoo Groups sportbike forum. I mean,
just once in your life, wouldn't you like to truly take the point position in
the fight for *your* Right to Ride? Well here's your chance!
Over the next several days, hundreds of thousands of motorcycle riders and
enthusiasts from coast to coast will be leaving their recession depressions
behind as they stuff their saddlebags, top off their touring cases, or load up
their "Live to Ride" trailers and head to Florida for the 68th Annual Daytona
Beach Bike Week. If you are fortunate enough to participate in that pilgrimage,
I encourage you to add some slack to your schedule and reroute your GPS for a
2/28 side trip to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Here is why:
Defying sound economic reason, overriding the sovereignty of state law, and in
clear violation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights, the municipal
government of the City of Myrtle Beach has passed a series of rules and
ordinances aimed at terminating Myrtle Beach's Bike Weeks, i.e. the
Harley-Davidson Dealers Association Spring Rally, and the Atlantic Beach
Memorial Day Bikefest:
http://myrtlebeachbikerinfo.com/ordinances.html
This Google News link will help to bring you current on the controversy...
http://tinyurl.com/bztbsb
...and I'd like you to pay special attention to the article linked here...
http://tinyurl.com/ddkhlo
...which reads as follows:
***
MOTORCYCLE "FREEDOM" RIDE
By Thema Ponton
WBTW News 13 Reporter
Published: February 13, 2009
In an email to News13, one biker states that the Myrtle Beach Helmet Freedom
Ride will be held on Saturday, February 28, at the Beaver Bar, 3381 Highway 17
Business, Murrells Inlet, beginning at 11:00 AM. The ride will depart at noon.
The email states that "participants will be given instructions and route details
just prior to the departure of the ride. All participants in this Helmet
Freedom Ride do so as common adventurers. Local bikers may coordinate this ride
but no one is considered a leader of this ride. All participants take
responsibility for making their own decisions including, but not limited to,
whether to participate and what equipment they choose to use or not such as
safety equipment (helmets) or vehicle equipment (mufflers)."
Organizers state, "The ride is a grassroots effort to oppose discrimination.
There is no single group or individual leading this grassroots effort. Bikers in
every town or city of the Carolinas are the backbone of this effort.
Motorcyclists of every walk of life are welcome."
Organizers add that free legal assistance will be provided for the
participants...
Organizers have also set a rain date for the event, March 7, 2009 at the same
time and place.
***
Despite the focus of Ms. Ponton's report, DON'T THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT THE
ISSUE HERE IS LIDS. The real issue here is *your* right as an American
motorcyclist to share the road equally with other motorists, and whether the
City of Myrtle Beach--or any other municipality--can blatantly disregard state
law and the Constitution of the United States in an open and unapologetic
attempt to take away that right. Remember WHY WE FIGHT:
"The battle for bikers' rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We
fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists
... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and
lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish
those who violate our rights or right-of-way." [ http://BikersRights.LdrLongDistanceRider.com
]
And whether you're going to Daytona for Bike Week or not, please make a stop, a
statement and a stand in Myrtle Beach!
Speaking strictly for myself and no other individuals or organizations,
Bruce Arnold
Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com
Author and Publisher, LdrLongDistanceRider.com
Co-Moderator, Bruce-n-RC's Biker Forum
Mile Eater Gold Member, Iron Butt Association (IBA)
Member, Bikers of Lesser Tolerance (BOLT of Florida)
Sustaining Member, Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF)
2009 Chairman's Circle, American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
***
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL CONCERNED MOTORCYCLISTS NATIONWIDE!
***
MYRTLE BEACH BIKE WEEK LINKS
http://www.myrtlebeachbikeweek.com/
http://www.myrtlebeachharley.com/custompage.asp?pg=bike_weekAdd to Technorati Favorites
Make sure you know what about YOU is in a database-exclusionary rule?
From Bruce Schneier passed on to us by Mike of GoldIron:
The Exclusionary Rule and Security
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence gathered as a result of errors in a police database is admissible in court. Their narrow decision is wrong, and will only ensure that police databases remain error-filled in the future.
The specifics of the case are simple. A computer database said there was a felony arrest warrant pending for Bennie Herring when there actually wasn't. When the police came to arrest him, they searched his home and found illegal drugs and a gun. The Supreme Court was asked to rule whether the police had the right to arrest him for possessing those items, even though there was no legal basis for the search and arrest in the first place.
What's at issue here is the exclusionary rule, which basically says that unconstitutionally or illegally collected evidence is inadmissible in court. It might seem like a technicality, but excluding what is called "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is a security system designed to protect us all from police abuse.
We have a number of rules limiting what the police can do: rules governing arrest, search, interrogation, detention, prosecution, and so on. And one of the ways we ensure that the police follow these rules is by forbidding the police to receive any benefit from breaking them. In fact, we design the system so that the police actually harm their own interests by breaking them, because all evidence that stems from breaking the rules is inadmissible.
And that's what the exclusionary rule does. If the police search your home without a warrant and find drugs, they can't arrest you for possession. Since the police have better things to do than waste their time, they have an incentive to get a warrant.
The Herring case is more complicated, because the police thought they did have a warrant. The error was not a police error, but a database error. And, in fact, Judge Roberts wrote for the majority: "The exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level."
Unfortunately, Roberts is wrong. Government databases are filled with errors. People often can't see data about themselves, and have no way to correct the errors if they do learn of any. And more and more databases are trying to exempt themselves from the Privacy Act of 1974, and specifically the provisions that require data accuracy. The legal argument for excluding this evidence was best made by an amicus curiae brief filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, but in short, the court should exclude the evidence because it's the only way to ensure police database accuracy.
We are protected from becoming a police state by limits on police power and authority. This is not a trade-off we make lightly: we deliberately hamper law enforcement's ability to do its job because we recognize that these limits make us safer. Without the exclusionary rule, your only remedy against an illegal search is to bring legal action against the police -- and that can be very difficult. We, the people, would rather have you go free than motivate the police to ignore the rules that limit their power.
By not applying the exclusionary rule in the Herring case, the Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to motivate the police to purge errors from their databases. Constitutional lawyers have written many articles about this ruling, but the most interesting idea comes from George Washington University professor Daniel J. Solove, who proposes this compromise: "If a particular database has reasonable protections and deterrents against errors, then the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply. If not, then the exclusionary rule should apply. Such a rule would create an incentive for law enforcement officials to maintain accurate databases, to avoid all errors, and would ensure that there would be a penalty or consequence for errors."
Increasingly, we are being judged by the trail of data we leave behind us. Increasingly, data accuracy is vital to our personal safety and security. And if errors made by police databases aren't held to the same legal standard as errors made by policemen, then more and more innocent Americans will find themselves the victims of incorrect data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf
http://epic.org/privacy/herring
Government database errors:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e9708/index.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0206/index.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0301/final.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05813.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0527/final.pdf
http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-08-06-26100.pdf
EPIC amicus curiae brief:
http://epic.org/privacy/herring/07-513tsac_epic.pdf
Other commentary on this ruling:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/herring_v_unite.html or http://tinyurl.com/8hn2vn
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-surpassing-significance-of-herring
http://volokh.com/posts/1231961926.shtml
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-goldberg-variations.html
Me on our trail of data:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-219.html
More on the assault on the exclusionary rule.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html
Here's another recent court case involving the exclusionary rule, and a thoughtful analysis by Orin Kerr.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2009/02/03/illegal_search_dekalb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13 or http://tinyurl.com/aoahu9
http://volokh.com/posts/1233720663.shtml
This essay originally appeared on the Wall Street Journal website:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301316511017419.htmlAdd to Technorati Favorites
The Exclusionary Rule and Security
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence gathered as a result of errors in a police database is admissible in court. Their narrow decision is wrong, and will only ensure that police databases remain error-filled in the future.
The specifics of the case are simple. A computer database said there was a felony arrest warrant pending for Bennie Herring when there actually wasn't. When the police came to arrest him, they searched his home and found illegal drugs and a gun. The Supreme Court was asked to rule whether the police had the right to arrest him for possessing those items, even though there was no legal basis for the search and arrest in the first place.
What's at issue here is the exclusionary rule, which basically says that unconstitutionally or illegally collected evidence is inadmissible in court. It might seem like a technicality, but excluding what is called "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is a security system designed to protect us all from police abuse.
We have a number of rules limiting what the police can do: rules governing arrest, search, interrogation, detention, prosecution, and so on. And one of the ways we ensure that the police follow these rules is by forbidding the police to receive any benefit from breaking them. In fact, we design the system so that the police actually harm their own interests by breaking them, because all evidence that stems from breaking the rules is inadmissible.
And that's what the exclusionary rule does. If the police search your home without a warrant and find drugs, they can't arrest you for possession. Since the police have better things to do than waste their time, they have an incentive to get a warrant.
The Herring case is more complicated, because the police thought they did have a warrant. The error was not a police error, but a database error. And, in fact, Judge Roberts wrote for the majority: "The exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level."
Unfortunately, Roberts is wrong. Government databases are filled with errors. People often can't see data about themselves, and have no way to correct the errors if they do learn of any. And more and more databases are trying to exempt themselves from the Privacy Act of 1974, and specifically the provisions that require data accuracy. The legal argument for excluding this evidence was best made by an amicus curiae brief filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, but in short, the court should exclude the evidence because it's the only way to ensure police database accuracy.
We are protected from becoming a police state by limits on police power and authority. This is not a trade-off we make lightly: we deliberately hamper law enforcement's ability to do its job because we recognize that these limits make us safer. Without the exclusionary rule, your only remedy against an illegal search is to bring legal action against the police -- and that can be very difficult. We, the people, would rather have you go free than motivate the police to ignore the rules that limit their power.
By not applying the exclusionary rule in the Herring case, the Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to motivate the police to purge errors from their databases. Constitutional lawyers have written many articles about this ruling, but the most interesting idea comes from George Washington University professor Daniel J. Solove, who proposes this compromise: "If a particular database has reasonable protections and deterrents against errors, then the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply. If not, then the exclusionary rule should apply. Such a rule would create an incentive for law enforcement officials to maintain accurate databases, to avoid all errors, and would ensure that there would be a penalty or consequence for errors."
Increasingly, we are being judged by the trail of data we leave behind us. Increasingly, data accuracy is vital to our personal safety and security. And if errors made by police databases aren't held to the same legal standard as errors made by policemen, then more and more innocent Americans will find themselves the victims of incorrect data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf
http://epic.org/privacy/herring
Government database errors:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e9708/index.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0206/index.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0301/final.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05813.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0527/final.pdf
http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-08-06-26100.pdf
EPIC amicus curiae brief:
http://epic.org/privacy/herring/07-513tsac_epic.pdf
Other commentary on this ruling:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/herring_v_unite.html or http://tinyurl.com/8hn2vn
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-surpassing-significance-of-herring
http://volokh.com/posts/1231961926.shtml
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-goldberg-variations.html
Me on our trail of data:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-219.html
More on the assault on the exclusionary rule.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html
Here's another recent court case involving the exclusionary rule, and a thoughtful analysis by Orin Kerr.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2009/02/03/illegal_search_dekalb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13 or http://tinyurl.com/aoahu9
http://volokh.com/posts/1233720663.shtml
This essay originally appeared on the Wall Street Journal website:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301316511017419.htmlAdd to Technorati Favorites
Hacking road signs? Nothing we would ever do but
From PGR Fl State Captain
Connie and I will be attending this mission. Any one who would like to ride along to Oldsmar FL to honor this hero can meet us in the parking lot of WalMart on 3535 Apalachee Pkwy. KSU at 10:15 a.m. You should be aware that our plan is to have dinner w/ the PGR there after the mission and find a motel to stay in for the night and will return the following morning.
Mike Donohoe
FL State Captain
Patriot Guard Riders
______________________________________________________________________
SHORT NOTICE
February 21, 2009
Welcome home escort for Marine Sgt. Nathan Handville. Sgt Handville served three deploymets in Iraq and was injured twice. He received two purple hearts and spent the last year and a half recovering from his last injury. He is being medically retired and we have been asked to help provide a flag line at his welcome home dinner/benefit. I will also need 4 flag bikes to go and help escort Sgt. Handville to the dinner from his home. Let's show Sgt. Handville that we will never forget his sacrafice.
Staging 5:30 PM : East Lake Woodland Country Club
1055 East Lake Woodlands Parkway
Oldsmar, FL 34677
Briefing : 6:00 PM
Set Flag Line: 6:30
Please bring your 3 x 5 American Flag
Ride Captain: Harleymom
Respectfully submitted: Harleymom
Assistant State CaptainAdd to Technorati Favorites
Mike Donohoe
FL State Captain
Patriot Guard Riders
______________________________________________________________________
SHORT NOTICE
February 21, 2009
Welcome home escort for Marine Sgt. Nathan Handville. Sgt Handville served three deploymets in Iraq and was injured twice. He received two purple hearts and spent the last year and a half recovering from his last injury. He is being medically retired and we have been asked to help provide a flag line at his welcome home dinner/benefit. I will also need 4 flag bikes to go and help escort Sgt. Handville to the dinner from his home. Let's show Sgt. Handville that we will never forget his sacrafice.
Staging 5:30 PM : East Lake Woodland Country Club
1055 East Lake Woodlands Parkway
Oldsmar, FL 34677
Briefing : 6:00 PM
Set Flag Line: 6:30
Please bring your 3 x 5 American Flag
Ride Captain: Harleymom
Respectfully submitted: Harleymom
Assistant State CaptainAdd to Technorati Favorites
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)