government abuses of power

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140416/NEWS/140419123

Police searched a West Bluff house Tuesday and seized phones and computers in an effort to unmask the author of a parody Twitter account that purported to be Mayor Jim Ardis.

The account — known as @Peoriamayor on the popular social media service that limits entries to 140 characters — already had been suspended for several weeks when up to seven plainclothes police officers executed a search warrant about 5:20 p.m. at 1220 N. University St.

Three people at the home were taken to the Peoria Police Department for questioning. Two other residents were picked up at their places of employment and taken to the station, as well.

One resident — 36-year-old Jacob L. Elliott — was booked into the Peoria County Jail on charges of possessing 30 to 500 grams of marijuana and possessing drug paraphernalia, but no arrests were made in connection with the Twitter account.

“They just asked me about the Twitter account, if I knew anything about it,” said Michelle Pratt, 27, a resident who was in the shower when officers first arrived at the front door. “They brought me in like I was a criminal.”

Pratt, who is Elliott’s girlfriend, said she spent more than three hours alone in an interview room before being questioned by detectives. One other resident, who declined to be identified, said he spent considerably less time in custody but was subject to the same type of questions.

“They said they had a search warrant and took all the electronic devices that had Internet access,” Pratt said. “They said there had been an Internet crime that occurred at this residence.”

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard said officers were investigating the creator of the Twitter account for false personation of a public official. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to a year in jail.

The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address.

The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public.

By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.

Settingsgaard, however, said the intent of the account was not clearly satirical.

“I don’t agree it was obvious, and in fact it appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor,” Settingsgaard said in an email response to questions.

Ardis did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

By late March, the @Peoriamayor account was suspended by Twitter. It had about 50 tweets and just as many followers.

“A parody means it’s fake. It was even listed as fake,” Pratt said. “It was a joke Twitter account, and they searched the whole house.”
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that most people are ok with this show of force because the 'rule of law' demands it for a simple twitter account
 
http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140423/NEWS/140429547

No charges will be filed against the people who created a fake Twitter account that cast Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis in a negative light, the county’s top prosecutor said Wednesday.

A review of state law indicates the account holders of now-shuttered Twitter account @peoriamayor didn’t break the law because the actual crime alleged, “false personation of a public official,” has to be done in person, not over the Internet or other electronic media, said State’s Attorney Jerry Brady.

“At this time, no, because subsection (b) doesn’t include the use of electronic media,” he said.

Essentially, Brady said it was clear the account impersonated Ardis, but the fact that the it was done over the Web meant there wasn’t a crime committed, according to state statute.

His thoughts came a day after about a dozen people filled City Hall at the council meeting Tuesday night and blasted Ardis and the police for what was seen as a violation of the account holders’ civil rights. Ardis has maintained he had a right to complain about the Twitter account.
Click to expand...

and it gets better......

A search warrant had been issued for the crime of false personation and given that the Brady believes that section of state law didn’t apply, it could mean any evidence found at the home could be suppressed as there was no legal basis for the warrant.

At issue is whether the drugs still can be used against Elliott if the warrant that allowed officers inside the house wasn’t firmly legally grounded. A quick read of the warrant gives no underlying evidence for the seizure of drugs, other than the mention of a tweet regarding a crack pipe.

Brady said he has not yet received all the reports from the April 15 raid, but noted that’s not uncommon. Often, he said, police reports and affidavits for search warrants arrive days or even weeks later.

But the facts alleged in the affidavits for the warrant matter when it comes to charging a crime, Brady said.

“It depends upon what information and what facts are in the search warrant. Those allegations can include one or more crimes,” he said. “But if you don’t include those facts, then you are risking the legality of the discovery of drugs if you do discover drugs. Why would you not include if you had that information that drugs were going to be present.”

The prosecutor also said nothing about the warrant, in how it was obtained or executed, was done any differently than any other search warrant with respect to his office’s involvement. At the council meeting, it was implied that Brady’s office had an active role in the crafting and the execution of the warrant.
Click to expand...
 
I'm hoping that we see two things in the future, which is he gets ALL of his property back intact and that he doesn't settle with the city, but gets a huge judgement awarded
 
it's been made very clear by the courts that video recording cops in public is a 1st Amendment right, but until the courts hold these COWARDLY cops PERSONALLY responsible, these abuses will continue.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/04/28/man-arrested-after-taping-arrest-with-cell-phone/

The charge against freelance disc jockey Lazaro Estrada is obstruction of justice. He was arrested on St. Patrick’s Day after using his cell phone to record a video of an arrest at a Cutler Bay store where he was spinning records for a promotional gig.

Miami-Dade Ofc. Michael Valdez arrived at the store to arrest owner Andre Trigiano on outstanding misdemeanor traffic charges.

Estrada says he began recording the episode with his iPhone only after the officer removed Trigiano from the store and threw the handcuffed man to the ground.

The cell phone video begins with the officer standing on the sidewalk about twenty feet from Estrada, holding a handcuffed Trigiano by the arm. The cop tells two women who are much closer to him to back away, one of the women tells Estrada to move back. The officer then turns to Estrada and says something unintelligible, gesturing at him to get away. The video shows Estrada immediately beginning to back pedal up the walk and into the store where he remains – until pulled out by other arriving officers.

“I backed off into the building and I stayed behind the glass doors,” Estrada told CBS4′s Gary Nelson. “Obviously, all I had was my phone in my hands in clear sight…and he only told me once. I did what he told me.”

In the arrest report, Ofc. Valdez wrote that he gave Estrada “verbal commands to back away and he refused to do so.” The video shows Valdez waving Estrada off only once, and Estrada retreating inside the store, where he continued to record the arrest.

“I felt threatened by his presence,” Ofc. Valdez wrote of Estrada.
 
of course, a DEMOCRAT looks to limit this 1st Amendment right further by providing an already too powerful police force the authority to determine, for themselves, when to order cameras turned off.....oh, and call it a bill to strengthen the right to record cops in public LOL

http://foxct.com/2014/04/18/bill-proposal-dealing-with-recording-police-activity/

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney is a co-sponsor of House Bill 5060, “An Act Concerning The Recording Of Police Activity By The Public.”

Sen. Looney said the bill will protect people who photograph how cops handle their jobs

Exceptions allow police to interpret when photography may interfere with their ability to enforce the law, protect public safety, preserve a crime scene and safeguard a person’s privacy.

“It actually authorizes the police in having you turn the camera off each and every time because the exceptions are so broad they swallow the rule,” Attorney Norm Pattis said.

“No responsible officer, operating reasonably in the performance of his duties, should have anything to fear from this bill, but anyone who is acting aggressively, bullying the public or behaving improperly should be worried,” Sen. Looney said.

Sen. Looney acknowledged that police and the chief state’s attorney were involved with drafting the exceptions in Bill 5060.
 
Rune said:
What about free speech? Isn't twitter speech? If money is speech, twitter is definitely speech.
Click to expand...

There are limits on Free Speech, impersonating another person, in such a way that is not a clear parody, is one such limit.
 
I believe it may be ok if it clearly indicates it is only for political satire or commentary. I have seen worse on the Internet.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
all search warrants are valid until your precious courts/judges hear a complaint/lawsuit from the victim, therefore your claim is that all police searches are valid, until they aren't. ridiculous
Click to expand...

No, if they have a search warrant, I am okay with what they did. If they had an invalid search warrant, the issue is with the Court that issued it, not the agency that executed it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the 'letter of the law' is irrelevant, it's the 'spirit' of the law in which it is intended?
Click to expand...

NO, its that absolutes taken to extremes produce absurd results that were clearly not the intent of the framers. I don't believe you should be allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater when the obvious result will be loss of innocent life, even if the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It should be hard to limit speech, it should only be done if the cost of doing so outweighs a compelling government interest such as providing for the health and safety of the people.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
when is a search warrant shown invalid?
Click to expand...

It could be invalid for many, many reasons.

Maybe the judge did not follow proper procedure, maybe he granted it based on unsworn information, maybe he was bribed, maybe it was not signed by a judge, maybe it was issued by the wrong court.
 
Jarod said:
It could be invalid for many, many reasons.

Maybe the judge did not follow proper procedure, maybe he granted it based on unsworn information, maybe he was bribed, maybe it was not signed by a judge, maybe it was issued by the wrong court.
Click to expand...

you didn't answer the question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top