Jackson-Lee: Burning the 4th Amendment

Sheila Jackson Lee needs a constitutional refresher:

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.

Here’s an a program she’s currently implementing:

Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee unveiled the program, labeled Bus Safe, during a press conference on Friday. According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

The proper response to this ought to be outright defiance. The police or TSA have absolutely no right to randomly search anything of yours. Remember, these people don’t just believe the 2nd Amendment is dead letter. They would willingly destroy every freedom in America if given half the chance.

h/t to Thirdpower

Faster Than You Can Say Furious

It appears the watchdog groups are getting bold with highlighting just how easy it is to get a ballot without any form of identification. The title of the post refers to a line of comedy gold in the video about how not even the Attorney General is safe from voter fraud that could be committed in his name.

Is This For Real? Say It’s a Hoax, McDonalds!

UPDATE: It’s a Hoax

Apparently McDonalds is teaming up with the NYPD to try to talk people into surrendering their 4th Amendment rights.

McDonald’s and the New York Police Department are launching Three Strikes, You’re In!, a new program that rewards New Yorkers for their patience with the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” policy.

This makes me glad I generally prefer to go to Wendy’s or Chic-Fil-A. But it gets better!

The company says that Three Strikes, You’re In! is a project of McDonald’s 365Black.com, which celebrates African American culture and achievements all year round. Vouchers for “Three Strikes, You’re In!” may be downloaded at McDonald’s Web site.

So McDonald’s idea of celebrating African American culture and achievements is, let me make sure I understand this, aiding and abetting the NYPD to stop and frisk more black people? To help convince blacks to surrender their rights under the constitution? To make them feel happy in the violation?

I think I feel pretty comfortable saying McDonalds is participating in a blatantly racist program here. Anyone out there among my readers who’s African American care to comment?

UPDATE: Hoax. Good. I don’t eat at McDonalds very often, but I’d hate to have to boycott it over something like this.

Arrested without Evidence over Accusation of Gun Ownership

There’s a story out of Canada about a guy who was arrested and told by officers that he was being charged with possession of a firearm. Normally, you would expect this to happen after they found someone in possession of a firearm.

He was given an attorney who was informed of the charges and even had a date set with a judge for a bail hearing for this charge. At no point did he ever possess a firearm, but they kept him locked up and moved forward with the charges.

With his wife hauled down to the station and his children taken in for questioning by the relevant agency for possible endangerment issues, he signed a document that allowed police to search his home. They did and there was still no firearm found in his possession. Finally, they let him go free.

The evidence seems to come from a he said/she said scenario because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a firearm and said the guy holding it was her daddy who would fight off bad guys and monsters. Yes, a child who thinks monsters are real was used as evidence for the arrest instead of, you know, actual possession of a firearm.

Sebastian and I were talking about this, and it’s not actually that easy to pinpoint where things broke down beyond what seems to be an irrational fear of firearms and the mandate to report everything to authorities before anyone stops to ask logical questions.

Blame the police? They definitely take the blame for actually arresting the guy without question, but I don’t know the standards of arresting people in Canada.

Blame the social services workers who called police? They have to report it to them if they think a crime may have happened. What if they were told the little girl was drawing graphic scenes of her father killing “bad guys” that came along with a story of how he does this around her? If they didn’t see the drawing yet or actually overhear the interaction with the teacher, then that can sound pretty damn bad and very criminal in nature.

Blame the principal who called the social services workers who were then required to call police? What if she was told something similar to what I outline for the social services worker? Or, maybe it is her fault for misrepresenting what the teacher told her?

Ultimately, I do think that someone should have stopped the process and really inquired just what the hell actually happened in regards to the drawing and how the teacher asked questions about it. However, depending on how stories are passed along, concerns about a potential crime could continue to be blown way out of proportion. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah, same thing, only with real lives on the line.

But, when we have a bunch of bureaucrats who believe they are there to do good no matter what impact it might have on innocent people and who fear not following an exact protocol that makes no accommodation for stopping to ask questions, then things like this will happen more often regardless of the country. At some point, we have to demand accountability from those who allow these things to get out of hand. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s easy to do, especially with many protections in place for staff in these various jobs.

Federal Lawsuit Over Philly Open Carry Incident

The federal complaint can be found here. The media story about the lawsuit is here. I’ve read over the complaint. In addition to suing over the February 2011 incident last year, he’s also suing over two prior incidents with the Philadelphia police. He’s suing up the chain of command to reach Ramsey, the Philadelphia Police Commissioner. Section 1983 doesn’t just allow you to sue the individual officers, you can sue all the way up the chain to anyone responsible for overseeing and training officers. The agents of the PPD are being sued in their individual capacities, which means the plaintiff here needs to overcome qualified immunity. If successful, he will be able to recover damages. This is looking like it’ll be an easy case here:

60. During discussions with PPD Internal Affairs Sergeant Maria Cianfrani (Badge #8704), which occurred after Mr. Fiorino filed a written complaint with Internal Affairs relating to the Second Incident, Sergeant Cianfrani specifically stated to Mr. Fiorino that what happened to him with regard to the First and Second Incidents was “outright illegal.”

61. Sergeant Cianfrani also admitted to Mr. Fiorino that the Policy was illegal, and admitted that the officers involved in the First and Second Incidents were following the Policy when they detained Mr. Fiorino and when they confiscated his firearm, magazines and ammunition.

Even better:

Furthermore, in a May 18, 2011 radio interview with Michael Smerconish, which aired live on 1210 AM WPHT Philadelphia, Commissioner Ramsey admitted that at the time of the three aforementioned incidents, PPD officers were not aware that open carry was legal with a valid LTCF and that training on the issue was necessary and would be given to all officers.

The lawsuit asks the court to enjoin the city from confiscating firearms unless a crime is committed, and unless it’s necessary for an investigation. It would be a huge victory for everyone if such an injunction is forthcoming from the court. It also asks for damages and attorneys fees from each of the defendants. The complaint is rooted in the 4th Amendment rather than the 2nd. That’s a good thing here. His 4th Amendment rights are what was violated.

On Ginsburg’s Statement to Egypt

When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).

Eugene Volokh also sticks up for Justice Ginsburg:

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions — for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own states’ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesn’t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.

Banning Perfume

SayUncle notes that New Hampshire is considering a ban on perfume for public workers, using some of the same logic that proponents of smoking bans were proffering. Everyone’s ran into women who smell like they bathe in perfume, and certainly there are men who seem to shower in Aqua Velva. But it seems to me that people aren’t willing to surrender much personal discomfort for the sake of freedom. Bitter is asthmatic, and perfume is a trigger for her, but her philosophy is not to make her problem everyone else’s; there are discomforts that must be tolerated in respecting the freedom and autonomy of others. This form of extreme selfishness is the same mentality that is getting peanut butter and jelly banned from elementary schools. I’d also note that this form of selfishness is highly prevalent among our opponents as well.