Supreme Court OKs Strip Searches For Minor Offenses..Fascism At Its Finest

Citizens, you may never be closer to living under Martial Law than you are today. This latest Supreme (Kangaroo?) Court ruling, by an assenting vote of 5-4, (at least 4 justices in the highest court in the land have some common sense) says you are now subject to strip searches at any prison official's whim for "their" protection regardless of how minor the infraction.

This is blatant fascism...at its finest.
Wake Up America!

In this Oct. 11, 2011, photo, Albert Florence sits at his home in Bordentown, N.J., with his attorney, Susan Chana Lask. Florence sued after being strip-searched in 2005 when he was arrested because of a computer error.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that guards may routinely strip search even minor traffic offenders when they are arrested and detained. The court's 5-4 ruling came in the case of a New Jersey man who was arrested because of a computer error.

Albert Florence, his wife and little boy were on their way to his parents' home in 2005, when they were pulled over by a state trooper. Mrs. Florence was at the wheel, but the trooper's roadside state records check showed a seven-year-old outstanding arrest warrant for Albert Florence for failing to pay a fine. Florence said he had paid the fine, and pulled out a receipt, which he kept in the car. But the trooper said there was nothing he could do. Florence was handcuffed and taken to the local county jail.

The state would later admit it had failed to properly purge the arrest warrant, but at the time of the arrest, the error turned into a "nightmare," Florence said. He was held in jail for seven days and strip-searched twice.

Florence said the experience "petrified" and "humiliated" him. Upon entering the jail, he was ordered to take a delousing shower, then inspected by a guard who was about "an arm's distance" away and instructed Florence to squat, cough and lift up his genitals.

Florence subsequently sued, contending that automatically strip-searching a person who is arrested for a minor offense violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court disagreed by a 5-4 vote. Writing for the court's conservative wing, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that jails are "often crowded, unsanitary, and dangerous places," and that, therefore, the courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials in order to prevent new inmates from putting lives at risk with weapons or contraband that they may "carry in on their bodies."

The Dissent

The dissenters, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, argued that when a detainee is brought in on a minor charge that involves neither violence nor drugs, correctional officials should have to cite some reason to justify a strip search, as opposed to a less invasive screening with a metal detector or even an inspection of a detainee in his or her underwear. There are some 700,000 arrests for such minor offenses each year, and most of those arrested are brought before a judge and released pending resolution of their case. But an undetermined number have found themselves behind bars because there is no judge on duty, because of a bureaucratic snafu, or an error — as in this case.

Breyer noted that people have been detained and strip-searched for offenses as minor as driving with an inoperable headlight, having outstanding parking tickets, violating a dog leash law, and riding a bike without an audible bell. None of these people could have anticipated being arrested, he said, and none would likely have hidden weapons inside their body cavities.

But Kennedy said that given the number of total arrests each year — 13 million — it would be unworkable for correctional officials to exempt one class of prisoner from strip searches. Indeed, he added, even people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals." He cited, for instance, the case of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who was detained initially for driving without a license plate.

A 'Frightening' Decision?

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr says Monday's decision is a "green light" for prison officials.

"The justices in the majority don't want to micromanage jails," Kerr says. "So they're saying if the people running the jails think they need to do this, they should be able to do this."

Bernard Harcourt, a law professor at the University of Chicago, however, called the decision "frightening ... the kind of logic that can turn a democracy into a police state" because it is premised on the notion of eliminating all risk at the expense of those who reasonably pose little risk.

In fact, at least 10 states outlaw routine strip searches of those arrested for minor charges, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service bar visual body cavity searches for those arrested on misdemeanor or civil contempt charges. "What the court did was to take a practice that was not universal and give it its constitutional imprimatur," says Harvard Law School professor Carol Steiker. The open question, she said, is whether states that have forbidden this practice will not move to permit blanket strip searches of those arrested for minor charges.

Two of the justices in Monday's majority wrote concurring opinions in an apparent effort to soften the tone of the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said that there might be some cases in which strip searches are not justified because they are conducted on prisoners who are not put in with other prisoners.

Court Rules On Immunity For Investigators

In a second opinion issued Monday, the court ruled unanimously that police investigators are immune from civil damage suits for giving false testimony to a grand jury.

The decision came in the case of Charles Rehberg, a Georgia accountant who sent anonymous faxes to businesses and community leaders describing dicey and embarrassing details about the financial practices at the leading hospital in Albany, Ga., Phoebe Putney Memorial. At the request of the hospital, the district attorney launched an investigation. During grand jury proceedings, the chief investigator testified that the accountant had assaulted a doctor and made harassing phone calls — information that since has proved to be untrue. Rehberg was indicted three times, and three times the charges were tossed out. He then sued the chief investigator, alleging that he knowingly gave false testimony to the grand jury.

But on Monday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that such investigators are immune from such lawsuits.

Writing for the court, Alito said that if witnesses could be sued over their grand jury testimony, they "might be reluctant to come forward to testify."

The justices said that witnesses who testify falsely can be prosecuted for perjury, and that the threat of such a criminal prosecution is an adequate safeguard. But critics pointed out that prosecutors rarely are willing to bring perjury charges against their own police investigators.


Click here to read original article by NPR

Grandfather Gets Arrested for Holding Burglar at Gunpoint While Waiting for Police to Arrive

If you think you have a right to defend your person and property in this country, you might want to think again. This case involving a concerned citizen - and victim - becoming the accused is just another example of a government gone amok!

We CAN make a difference if we choose to...

Wake Up America!

Fleming: "I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground."

A New Hampshire man who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar he caught crawling out of a neighbor's window is now facing a felony charge -- and the same potential prison sentence as the man he stopped.

Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor's home. Fleming said he yelled "Freeze!" before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground," Fleming told FoxNews.com. "He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me."

No one was injured in the incident, but when the police arrived, they made two arrests. Hebert was charged with two counts of burglary and drug possession. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted. Fleming, meanwhile, is scheduled to be arraigned March 20 on a charge of reckless conduct, which could potentially land him a sentence similar to the one Hebert faces.

"I didn't know it was illegal [to fire into the ground], but I had to make that guy realize I was serious," Fleming said. "I've got a clean record. I really don't want to be convicted."

County Attorney Tom Velardi told Foster's Daily Democrat he will review the case and determine if the charge against Fleming is appropriate under the state statutes regarding self-defense and defense of property.

Fleming, meanwhile, is hoping to catch a break.

"I have 14 grandchildren, I don't want to be a felon and go to jail," he said. "I'm kind of wound up about it."

Fleming's collection of seven rifles and a .38-caliber handgun were seized by police. But Fleming said he's not entirely defenseless: "I've got a Louisville Slugger here, but I would call the police," he said.

Calls seeking comment from Farmington Police Department Chief Scott Roberge were not immediately returned.

Penny Dean, a spokeswoman for the Gun Owners of New Hampshire, said her organization is "absolutely outraged" by Fleming's arrest.

"This homeowner fired at the ground, from all accounts, in a safe direction and held a burglar for police and did things correctly," Dean told FoxNews.com. "The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it's open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim."

Rick Pelkey, Fleming's longtime neighbor, said he's now worried how the "straight-forward, working-class guy" will pay legal fees associated with the arrest.

"I think it's outrageous," Pelkey told FoxNews.com. "He did the community a service here. We ought to thank him for it."

To see original article click here

Cop Tasers Handcuffed Girl in Back. She is Now Brain Dead (Video)

We have posted about this type of police abuse in the past and will continue to do so until it comes to an end. When are the citizens of this country going to rise up against the repeated assaults against those that the police have sworn to "serve and protect"? The only ones these goons serve are themselves and the only thing being protected are their own asses.

Wake Up America!

Please Like this post on Facebook if you agree. Your comments are much appreciated

FBI Misconduct Reveals Sex, Lies and Videotapes (Video)

This CNN article is not unique among reports of misconduct in law enforcement. It does however highlight the double standards that law enforcement agencies practice when dealing with "us", the average citizen, and "them", within their own ranks. 

For most of the abuses documented in this article, the majority of us would have been fired at the very least and prosecuted otherwise. The FBI agents in this article weren’t even slapped on the wrist..they were patty-caked.

Washington (CNN) -- An FBI employee shared confidential information with his girlfriend, who was a news reporter, then later threatened to release a sex tape the two had made.

A supervisor watched pornographic videos in his office during work hours while "satisfying himself."

And an employee in a "leadership position" misused a government database to check on two friends who were exotic dancers and allowed them into an FBI office after hours.

These are among confidential summaries of FBI disciplinary reports obtained by CNN, which describe misconduct by agency supervisors, agents and other employees over the last three years.

Read the FBI documents obtained by CNN

The reports, compiled by the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, are e-mailed quarterly to FBI employees, but are not released to the public.

And despite the bureau's very strict screening procedure for all prospective employees, the FBI confirms that about 325 to 350 employees a year receive some kind of discipline, ranging from a reprimand to suspension.

About 30 employees each year are fired.

"We do have a no-tolerance policy," FBI Assistant Director Candice Will told CNN. "We don't tolerate our employees engaging in misconduct. We expect them to behave pursuant to the standards of conduct imposed on all FBI employees."

However, she said, "It doesn't mean that we fire everybody. You know, our employees are human, as we all are. We all make mistakes. So, our discipline is intended to reflect that.

"We understand that employees can make mistakes, will make mistakes. When appropriate, we will decide to remove an employee. When we believe that an employee can be rehabilitated and should be given a second chance, we do that."

Will, who oversees the bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility, said most of the FBI's 34,300 employees, which include 13,700 agents, follow the rules.

"The vast majority of our employees do not lie," Will said. "The vast majority of our employees do not cheat. The vast majority of our employees do not steal. The vast majority of our employees do not engage in the type of misconduct you are describing. There is an occasional employee who will engage in such misconduct, and that employee will answer for it."

However, the internal summaries show that even with serious misconduct, employees can keep their job (names and locations of the employees are not listed in the reports):

-- An employee had "a sexual relationship with a source" over seven months. The punishment was a 40-day suspension.

-- The supervisor who viewed "pornographic movies in the office while sexually satisfying himself" during work hours received a 35-day suspension.

-- The employee in a "leadership position" who misused a "government database to conduct name checks on two friends who were foreign nationals employed as exotic dancers" and "brought the two friends into FBI space after-hours without proper authorization" received a 23-day suspension. The same employee had been previously suspended for misusing a government database.

-- An employee who was drunk "exploited his FBI employment at a strip club," falsely claiming he was "conducting an official investigation." His punishment was a 30-day suspension.

-- And an employee conducted "unauthorized searches on FBI databases" for "information on public celebrities the employee thought were 'hot'" received a 30-day suspension.

Will said she could not discuss individual cases, and added: "I can't even confirm whether or not your information is accurate."

She said the bureau follows established guidelines for punishing employees.

"What we try is the holistic approach of the total employee," she said. "You look at the full record of that employee's career. You look at whatever the division has to say about the employee and you look at the facts in the particular case. 

You look at the employee's disciplinary history as to whether or not they have ever been in trouble. You look at how well they performed in the past, and you try to get a sense of whether or not this is an employee who can be rehabilitated, and if so, a period of suspension is imposed and if not, the employee is removed."

To see complete CNN article and video click here

LA Sheriff Plans To Use Heat-Beam Ray To Zap Unruly Prisoners

Given the LA Sheriff office's history of abuse, this new device (weapon?) is most assuredly bound to be employed with glee by prison guards at every opportunity.

LOS ANGELES – A device designed to control unruly inmates by blasting them with a beam of intense energy that causes a burning sensation is drawing heat from civil rights groups who fear it could cause serious injury and is "tantamount to torture."

The mechanism, known as an "Assault Intervention Device," is a stripped-down version of a military gadget that sends highly focused beams of energy at people and makes them feel as though they are burning. 

The Los Angeles County sheriff's department plans to install the device by Labor Day, making it the first time in the world the technology has been deployed in such a capacity.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California criticized Sheriff Lee Baca's decision in a letter sent Thursday, saying that the technology amounts to a ray gun at a county jail. The 4-feet-tall weapon, which looks like a cross between a robot and a satellite radar, will be mounted on the ceiling and can swivel.

It is remotely controlled by an operator in a separate room who lines up targets with a joystick.

The ACLU said the weapon was "tantamount to torture," noting that early military versions resulted in five airmen suffering lasting burns. It requested a meeting with Baca, who declined the invitation.

The sheriff unveiled the device last week and said it would be installed in the dorm of a jail in north Los Angeles County. It is far less powerful than the military version and has various safeguards in place, including a three-second limit to each beam of heat.

The natural response when blasted — to leap out the way — would be helpful in bringing difficult inmates under control and quelling riots, the sheriff said.

But the sheriff was creating a dangerous environment with "a weapon that can cause serious injury that is being put into a place where there is a long history of abuse of prisoners," ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg said. "That is a toxic combination."

Cmdr. Bob Osborne, who oversees technology for the sheriff's department, said the concerns were unfounded. He said he stood in front of the beam more than 50 times and that it never caused any sort of lasting damage.

"The neat thing with this device is you experience pain but you are not injured by it," Osborne said. "It doesn't injure your skin, the beam doesn't have the power to do that."

He said the device would be a more humane way of dealing with jail disturbances. Unlike hitting inmates with batons or deploying tear gas, a shot from the beam has no aftereffects, he said.

The device was made specifically for the sheriff's department by Raytheon Missile Systems. Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said its $750,000 cost was paid for by a Department of Justice technology grant.

After a six-month trial, the sheriff will determine if the device is effective and if it should be deployed in other jails.

"When this pilot program is done, the realistic hope is it will accomplish not only what the sheriff's department wants but what the ACLU wants, which is to save lives harmlessly," Whitmore said.

A Raytheon spokesman on Thursday referred questions to the sheriff's department, but provided a fact sheet describing how the device only penetrates skin to a depth 1/64 of an inch. The military's version of the device can shoot a beam more than 800 feet but the sheriff's department model has a maximum range of 85 feet.

Angelica Arias, an attorney with the county's Office of Independent Review, which monitors the sheriff's department, said only deputies with special training would be able to use the device and a video would be automatically recorded each time it is operated.

"Based on the level of scrutiny the department has put on itself and its training, it doesn't appear there would be too much wiggle room for misuse," Arias said. 

Article by THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press

Another Tasering by Law Enforcment. This Time The "Bad Guy" is an 86 Year Old Disabled Grandmother (Video)

Oklahoma Granny Gets Tasered

El Reno, OK police officers are being sued for using a Taser last December to subdue a disabled grandmother, then 86, in her apartment bed.

Police officers are being sued for using a Taser last December to subdue a disabled grandmother, then 86, in her apartment bed. 

Her grandson pleaded with officers, "Don't taze my Granny!" according to the lawsuit.  

She and her grandson, Lonnie D. Tinsley, on Monday sued the city of El Reno, officer Thomas Duran, officer Frank Tinga, officer Joseph Sandberg and other unknown police officers.

"I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone else," Lona M. Varner, now 87, told the Oklahoman.



Varner and Tinsley allege in the federal lawsuit in Oklahoma City that their civil rights were violated. They also allege the city has failed to adequately train and discipline its police officers.
 
A city attorney, Roger Rinehart, said the city would have no comment. Assistant Police Chief Kevin Wilkerson said, "With the federal lawsuit, we can't make any comment on it right now."
 
Police have admitted using a Taser to incapacitate the suicidal woman Dec. 22. Officer Duran wrote in a police report she pulled a kitchen knife from under her pillow and threatened to kill him. "I tried talking to Varner and calm her down but nothing would work," he reported.

The officer reported she took "a more aggressive posture on the bed" when other officers arrived. He reported she raised the knife above her head and said, "If you come any closer, you're getting the knife." He reported he feared she would injure someone.
 
Police went to the apartment Dec. 22 after her grandson called 911 for a paramedic to check on her. "She says ... her life is over. She wants to end it. ... She's taken some medicine. I don't know what she's taken," Tinsley said in the 911 call. "I can't get her to tell me what she took. ... She's kind of upset and everything else."

Varner's attorney, Brian Dell of Oklahoma City, said police acted inappropriately and could have killed her with the Taser shock. He said she was never charged.

He said Varner has had a series of health problems, including strokes. She uses an oxygen machine to help her breathing and can barely walk by herself. She uses an electric cart to get around and can see out of only one eye.

He said she was in a hospital-type bed when she was shocked.

"Even if you reasonably believe someone's going to commit suicide, do you Taser them?" the attorney asked.

He said police ripped the skin of her arms when they grabbed her. "She's an old lady," he said. "Her skin is like tissue paper."

The lawsuit said she was taken first to an El Reno hospital where she was treated for the burns to her chest and the torn flesh on her arms. The lawsuit alleges she was placed on Dec. 23 in the psychiatric ward of an Oklahoma City hospital at the direction of the El Reno police. She was held in the psychiatric ward for six days.

Dell said she had $30,000 in medical bills from the police conduct.

The lawsuit alleges as many as 10 police officers pushed their way into the apartment after the grandson called 911. The police first stepped on her oxygen hose "until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation," and then police fired a Taser at her, striking her with only one prong, according to the lawsuit.

"The police then fired a second Taser, striking her to the right and left of the midline of her upper chest and applied high voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain and to pass out," attorneys alleged in the lawsuit. "The police then grabbed Ms. Varner by her forearms and jerked hands together, causing her soft flesh to tear and bleed on her bed; they then handcuffed her."

The grandson also was handcuffed and placed in a police car when he protested police attempts to Taser his grandmother, the attorneys alleged. He was freed to go with his grandmother in an ambulance to the El Reno hospital.

The lawsuit does not mention that Varner had a knife.

In his report, Duran wrote he deployed his Taser first but it did not affect her because one of the two prongs went into a blanket. He wrote, "I told Officer Sandberg who was next to me that my Taser was not working. Officer Sandberg deployed his Taser with both prongs making contact. The Taser rendered Varner incapable of any further aggressive action. Officers were able to remove the knife from Varner's hand and secure it safely."

Duran reported Varner had looked him in the eyes after he arrived at the apartment and said to him, "If you try and get the knife I will stab you and kill you. I killed four Japs in World War II and I would not bat an eye killing you."

Duran also reported, Varner talked of killing police again after being taken to Parkview Hospital in El Reno. "Varner told me she was going to kill every officer that was in her apartment when she got out. Varner told me she was going to snap my neck like a twig just like she did during World War II." 

Article by Nolan Clay The Oklahoman

3 officers plead not guilty in Katrina shootings

NEW ORLEANS – Three police officers charged in the killing of two unarmed residents on a New Orleans bridge after Hurricane Katrina and a cover-up that followed pleaded not guilty on Wednesday.

Sgts. Robert Gisevius and Kenneth Bowen and Officer Anthony Villavaso stood before a federal magistrate in green prison garb, shackled at the waist and ankles. They will remain jailed at least until a hearing Friday. A tentative trial date is set for Sept. 13.

Magistrate Louis Moore Jr. read the counts — 13 against Bowen, 11 against Gisevius and 10 against Villavaso. Former officer Robert Faulcon made his initial court appearance Tuesday in Texas, where he was arrested, but has not entered a plea.

The charges against the four carry a maximum sentence of life in prison or the death penalty, although U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said the Justice Department hasn't decided whether to seek the latter punishment.

The family of two victims — Ronald Madison, who was killed, and his brother, Lance, who survived — sat in the front row of the packed courtroom. Gisevius cried quietly as he stood with his lawyer.

"We'll be able to pick this indictment apart," said Frank DeSalvo, Bowen's lawyer. "There is a lot of fantasy there."

Bowen, Gisevius and Villavaso were suspended without pay after the indictments were released Tuesday, NOPD spokesman Bob Young said on Wednesday.

Five former officers already have pleaded guilty to charges they helped cover up the shootings. Prosecutors have said police fabricated witnesses, falsified reports and plotted to plant a gun to make it appear that the shootings were justified.

The shootings at the Danziger Bridge happened Sept. 4, 2005, six days after Hurricane Katrina smashed levees and left the city flooded and in chaos. Bodies floated in filthy flood waters. There were reports of looting and gunshots rang out throughout the blacked-out city.

It was in this backdrop that police, desperate to regain control, were called about 9 a.m. that morning after reports of gunfire at the bridge.

Seven heavily armed New Orleans police officers stormed the bridge. Prosecutors said they shot at the first people they saw, people they say were crossing the bridge to find food.

When it was over, two men were dead and four others lay wounded on the hot concrete.

The indictment claims Faulcon shot mentally disabled Ronald Madison, 40, in the back as he ran away on the west side of the bridge. Bowen is charged with stomping and kicking Madison while he was lying on the ground, wounded but still alive.

Madison's brother, Lance, was arrested and charged with trying to kill police officers. He was jailed for three weeks before being released without indictment.

Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso also are accused of shooting at an unarmed family on the east side of the bridge, killing 17-year-old James Brissette and wounding four others.

Sgt. Arthur Kaufman and retired Sgt. Gerard Dugue, who helped investigate the shootings, were charged with participating in the alleged cover-up. Charges against them include obstruction of justice.

Kaufman and Bowen "specifically discussed using Hurricane Katrina to excuse failures in the investigation, and thereby to help make any inquiry into the shooting go away," the indictment states.

Kaufman allegedly took a gun from his home and claimed to have found it at the crime scene a day after the shootings, then lied about that gun under oath and in reports, prosecutors said.

Dugue is accused of lying to a federal agent when he said he had no concerns about the truth of the officers' statements.

"In fact, he had many 'red flags' and 'question marks' about the officers' stories, but he reported the questionable information as fact and relied upon it without qualification," the indictment says.

The charges, unsealed Tuesday, are the culmination of a two-year probe by the federal government. An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing by officers. A state grand jury convened to look into the matter charged seven officers with murder or attempted murder, but a state judge threw out all the charges in 2008.

By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer Mary Foster, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jul 14, 6:25 pm ET

Another out of control cop playing with his taser.

Taser Nation. This video shows a Utah highway patrolman tasering a non-violent young man for refusing to sign a speeding ticket. Since when is refusing to sign a ticket - can you say subpoena? - an arrestable offense worthy of physical restraint? What happened to the 5th amendment where we are protected from self-incrimination?