|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-body-cameras-20140927-story.html#page=1 Growing use of police body cameras raises privacy concerns By Matt Pearce contact the reporter Scores of law enforcement agencies already use body-worn cameras, and calls for more have only grown across the U.S. after recent cases involving use of force have pitted the word of police officers against angry residents. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles Police Department, along with police in New York, Chicago and Washington, have launched pilot programs to test cameras for wider deployment. But equipping police with such devices also raises new and unsettled issues over privacy at a time when many Americans have been critical of the kind of powerful government surveillance measures that technology has made possible. For many departments, questions remain about when officers should be allowed to turn off such cameras — especially in cases involving domestic violence or rape victims — and the extent to which video could be made public. Such video "sometimes captures people at the worst moments of their lives," American Civil Liberties Union senior policy analyst Jay Stanley said. "You don't want to see videos of that uploaded to the Internet for titillation and gawking," he said. Video from dashboard cameras in police cars, a more widely used technology, has long been exploited for entertainment purposes. Internet users have posted dash-cam videos of arrests of naked women to YouTube, and TMZ sometimes obtains police videos of athletes and celebrities during minor or embarrassing traffic stops, turning officers into unwitting paparazzi. Officers wearing body cameras could extend that public eye into living rooms or bedrooms, should a call require them to enter a private home. Faced with the challenge of striking a balance between transparency for police and privacy for citizens, U.S. law enforcement agencies have not adopted a uniform policy for body cameras, which come in various sizes and can be worn on shoulders, glasses and lapels. A recent federal survey of 63 law enforcement agencies using body cameras said nearly a third of the agencies had no written policy on the devices. (It is not known how many agencies overall currently use body cameras.) "Unfortunately, you're seeing a lot of departments just sticking cameras on their officers without thinking through the policies very well," says Stanley, who supports police use of body cameras, but only with careful regulation. Some observers have raised the possibility that such cameras would not only be used to review officer behavior — to potentially overbearing levels, if used to crack down on minor disciplinary infractions — but someday also may be used with facial-recognition technology the way many departments already use license-plate scanners. "Are these cameras going to eventually be hooked up to these systems where cops can scan the street and pick out anybody's face or anybody's car to see if they have an outstanding warrant?" asked Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and an analyst of surveillance and transparency issues. "I think a lot of these communities that have problems with police will have problems with that, too." In 2014, video evidence has been a powerful public arbiter of behavior. In case after case, the emergence of video has tilted public sentiment over highly fraught encounters that often last only a few moments. But in Ferguson, Mo., where a white police officer shot and killed a black, unarmed 18-year-old man on Aug. 9, no definitive video has surfaced. The police department, besieged by criticism and skepticism from Ferguson residents, has since added body cameras for its officers in hope of rebuilding its credibility, and many other U.S. police departments may not be far behind. "I think it's inevitable," Greenville, N.C., Police Chief Hassan Aden said. "These cameras are going to change the way that police equip their officers. "In the future, you're going to get your car, your gun, your badge, your radio — and your camera. It's going to add to police legitimacy everywhere, and it's going to create a better rapport with the public," he said. A 92-page policy report released this month by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum suggested that "body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer's perspective." Police chiefs who support body-cam technology say that both officers and citizens behave better while being recorded and that with the cameras, complaints against officers have declined, with video often — but not always — supporting the officers' sides of the story. Aden, who helped compile the federally commissioned report, told The Times that the number of sustained complaints against his officers had gone down. "But we've found other [complaints] that really have been valid," he said. "We've actually had terminations because of video." Grand Junction, Colo., Police Chief John Camper, who has been considering body cameras, remains torn. "In this YouTube world and reality-TV world, everybody thinks cameras are the end-all," Camper said. But he worries that body cameras, in addition to not capturing everything, could also capture too much. "We want people to feel free to talk to a police officer as a trusted confidant, and if we sit here and have a camera mounted on a lapel — are you really going to want to talk about a problem with a marriage or with a child or a sexual assault if I have a camera pointed at you?" Camper said. For that reason, experts and privacy advocates have encouraged departments to adopt policies that include allowing victims and reluctant witnesses to be filmed only with their consent. The newly released federal report also suggests that departments should clearly outline policies for how long they will keep video recordings before deletion; 60- or 90-day holding periods are common, unless the video is used as criminal evidence or has been flagged in a complaint. The extra layer of scrutiny is also a labor concern for some police unions, who are worried that a tool intended for transparency will be diverted for workforce surveillance. One notable skeptic of body cameras is Missouri state Rep. Jeff Roorda, business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers' Assn. He is also vice president of a police union charity providing support for Officer Darren Wilson, who confronted and shot Michael Brown in Ferguson. Roorda said St. Louis officers' experiences with dashboard cameras have made them skeptical. "Instead of the cameras being there to protect the officers, they get disciplined for petty stuff constantly — for violating the uniform code, or rolling through a stop sign for an urgent call, or for not turning the camera on," Roorda said. "That's one of the hottest issues for my guys. They're tired of the nitpicking, and that's what the cameras have been used to do." matt.pearce@latimes.com Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
LA wants 4th Amendment to be null and void??? You can't catch any criminals if they have "constitutional rights" Of course that's why the Founders gave us the 4th Amendment, to protect us from government tyrants and government police, like these in Los Angeles!!!! http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-court-la-motels-20140928-story.html L.A. wants court to revive law allowing motel guest registry searches By David G. Savage contact the reporter L.A. officials want the Supreme Court to revive an ordinance that allowed police to see motel guest records Los Angeles defends surprise inspections of guest records at motels, saying they can deter crime Should L.A. police be allowed to see motel guest registries on demand? The U.S. Supreme Court might weigh in. Los Angeles city attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to revive a local ordinance that gave police the authority to inspect guest-registration records of motels and hotels, arguing the surprise checks are needed to deter prostitutes and drug dealers and sometimes catch fugitives. Like dozens of cities across the nation, Los Angeles has long had a law requiring motel operators to keep records of their guests. The city's ordinance says these records "shall be made available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection." A group of motel owners went to court and complained of police searches at all hours of the night. Some said they ran their motels as family businesses and they objected to late-night inspections. In December, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 7-4 vote, struck down the city's ordinance and said the surprise inspections violated the 4th Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the city's attorneys complained about what they called "parking-meter motels," which can serve as "crime magnets" in some neighborhoods. "The city's loss of surprise guest-register inspections has had an immediate and dangerous impact on the decent people who live and work around these motels and these communities as a whole," said City Atty. Michael Feuer in a brief filed last month. The city argued that a motel owner has "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry," which is usually kept in an office that is open to the public. It listed 70 similar ordinances for cities across the nation, including Atlanta, Denver, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle. The case raises questions about whether a motel should be seen as private property or a public business that is subject to close regulation by the city and the police. Frank A. Weiser, a Los Angeles attorney who represented the motel owners, said in an interview that most proprietors were willing to cooperate, but there were complaints about abuses. Sometimes police conducted inspections late at night and went into the family quarters. Weiser said many owners are Asians and some had a limited command of English. "They felt intimidated by the police," he said. The motel owners initially lost in federal court. But the 9th Circuit relied on a pair of recent Supreme Court opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia that restricted police searches on private property. In one case, the high court said police may not secretly attach a GPS tracking device to a private vehicle. And last year, Scalia spoke for a 5-4 majority to say the police may not take a drug-detection dog to the front porch of a house to sniff for drugs. "The business records covered by (the ordinance) are the hotel's private property," said Judge Paul Watford for the appeals court. "The hotel has a right to exclude others from prying into the content of its records." The ruling suggested the police must have a search warrant or at least give the owner a right to challenge the search. Weiser urged the Supreme Court to turn down the city's appeal, saying the case does not have wide importance. "It involves a single section of a municipal ordinance, which applies only to hotel and motel registries in Los Angeles," he wrote. david.savage@latimes.com
Through out the article they say the cops get these military weapons for FREE from Uncle Sam. That's rubbish. Or tax dollars pay for ALL of this phoney baloney FREE equipment. And if Uncle Sam wasn't buying all this military equipment with OUR money and giving it to cops our WALLETS would have a lot more MONEY in them. http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_26614299/bay-area-agencies-reflect-amid-debate-over-military Bay Area agencies reflect amid debate over military equipment use By Karina Ioffee and Robert Salonga Bay Area News Group Posted: 09/27/2014 03:00:00 PM PDT The images from Ferguson, Mo., after the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black teenager were startling to many: Peaceful protesters, including families, community leaders and pastors, confronted by police wearing camouflage, sitting atop hulking armored vehicles, their assault weapons trained on the crowd. The backlash touched off a national fire storm about whether today's police departments have sunk too deeply into the paramilitary functions they've increasingly taken on since the advent of the modern SWAT team in the 1960s. But the discussion was a familiar one in the Bay Area well before Ferguson, especially after the Occupy Oakland protests in 2011, and more recently at smaller protests like one last year in Richmond. The Ferguson case prompted a new round of introspection, with some Bay Area agencies taking to heart the renewed criticism over the use of military equipment they have acquired from federal grant and surplus programs, items valued at an estimated $460 million. With community sensitivities in mind, the San Jose Police Department last month sent back a 15-ton mine-resistant, ambush-protected troop transport vehicle, or MRAP, it received from the Department of Defense earlier this year, making it the only Bay Area police force in recent memory to approve such a significant giveback. "Every agency has to determine what's best for them, for their community," said Dave Hober, SJPD deputy chief of field operations. "Our discussions were already occurring when Ferguson happened. This was a decision for San Jose, and at this time we thought it was the best thing to do." South San Francisco police Lt. Mike Remedios, whose department will keep its surplus MRAP, said that heavy equipment in police hands doesn't have to be a problem, provided officials are transparent about its use. "With Ferguson and everything else, we're under the microscope," Remedios said. "We want to build some equity in public trust and say, 'This is the reason we have this.'" But critics say no amount of training and explanation can nullify the daunting image that a 12-foot-tall armored vehicle sends to citizens. "When police have all this battle gear, you have to really ask, 'Who are they protecting?'" said Chauncey Robinson, a spokeswoman with the Bay Area All Lives Matter Coalition, which formed after the Ferguson protests and urges police departments to return their military surplus. "It only makes people feel more intimidated, like their communities are some foreign land that is being occupied." During a rally last year in Richmond, police approached protesters while dressed in tactical gear and carrying batons and pepper ball launchers while protesters sat in a "docile" manner on the street, recalled Capt. Mark Gagan, a SWAT commander, who said that "officers came dressed for a fight, brought an edge." The response drew searing criticism and some rethinking. In August 2013, the same force of cops had their batons holstered, did not wear helmets, and kept their launchers stashed in the patrol cars. When they arrested 210 people for civil disobedience, there was little to no ruckus. "If you want to show there are consequences for breaking the law, you can do that without intimidating them," Gagan said. "Equipment, tactics, body language, those things really determine how things unfold when you make arrests and take enforcement. I'm not as proud of my police department in the first instance as much as the second." It's a similar story in Oakland. A heavy-handed response by police during the Occupy Wall Street protests there in 2011 prompted more than 1,000 complaints of misconduct and led to more than $6 million in legal settlements for injuries. Today, the entire force has been trained to better understand the First Amendment and small teams of officers can infiltrate a crowd and remove troublemakers without drawing weapons, officials said. Like many, Oakland's police department received millions in grants from the Department of Homeland Security, funds it has used to purchase several big-ticket items such as armored personnel carrier, known as a BearCat, a negotiations team command vehicle, and all-terrain vehicles outfitted with speakers, used to communicate with protesters during Occupy. But the department has grown more sensitive about the negative impression and continually seeks to reassure citizens that they are needed, said Oakland police Sgt. Holly Joshi. "We're very aware of how important public perception is and we want to make sure that our practices are progressive and legitimate and that we are taking communities concerns seriously," Joshi said. During the past decade, various Bay Area agencies have received hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of equipment through homeland security and military surplus programs -- everything from basic law enforcement like communications equipment and uniforms to military gear like heavily armored vehicles, assault rifles and grenade launchers. The items came free, though local police departments pay for transporting and maintaining them. Advocates for the acquisitions question the wisdom of turning down no-cost equipment that can protect both officers and the public. "When you have the federal government giving you these items for free, it would be almost irresponsible to not take advantage of these programs," Antioch police Capt. Leonard Orman said. In November, the city of Antioch took got an MRAP but has not used it. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was one of 65 politicians and other leaders who last month published an open letter urging President Obama to re-evaluate programs that give free weapons to municipal law enforcement. "Deterring crime and protecting communities should not involve military weaponry," Lee and others wrote in the letter, published in the Washington Post. "Effective policing strategies and community relationships will not be advanced if police departments continue to act as an occupying force in neighborhoods. American Civil Liberties Union officials have steadily criticized what they call the "growing militarization" of local police, noting that even small suburbs are in an eternal state of readiness for armed showdowns that seem unlikely to come. The organization issued a national report earlier this year on the use of military weapons in SWAT operations where agents reportedly broke down doors, threw residents on the floor and pointed rifles at them while they search for mostly low-level drug offenders. "There are an estimated 50,000 raids a year in the United States. That's 124 every single day," said Will Matthews, a spokesman for the ACLU of Northern California, citing the report's claim that only 7 percent were "true hostage or barricade situations." U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, acknowledged a need for a review about whether the programs are necessary, saying San Jose officials are striking the right balance between protecting officers and working to earn trust by deciding to return the MRAP before concern was raised. "We need to have a well-equipped set of first responders, but that doesn't mean we should or want to turn the local police into a military force," she said. "That's not what anyone wants. If we're talking radios, that's one thing. If we're talking tanks, that's something entirely different." Lofgren continued, "I don't want to minimize the danger first responders can face, especially when people are posing are threat, but you can turn a controllable situation into an uncontrollable situation depending on how you set up the cues." Several police veterans interviewed for this story said their sensibilities were forever changed after the North Hollywood shootings of 1997, where two robbery suspects with automatic weapons kept outgunned Los Angeles police officers at bay for nearly an hour, injuring 11 officers and seven civilians before dying in the gun battle. It's one reason Pete Constant, a San Jose city councilman and former police officer, takes issue with SJPD's decision to return the MRAP. "We have to realize these are situations our officers may have to respond to, and should be able to match or one-up the use of force by criminals," Constant said. "You can do that without having a paramilitary state in your city. As long as officers are not in fatigues or combat gear on patrol, you can strike that balance." Contact Karina Ioffee at 925-945-4782. Follow her at Twitter.com/kioffee.
Today’s Police Put On a Gun and a Camera If the police have to be wearing cameras to keep them honest something is wrong!!!!! Sadly most people in other countries know that their police are corrupt to the core. Sadly most American's are very naive and actually think American police are law abiding citizens who obey the law. The good news is that's slowly changing. The Rodney King beating put a start to that. And of course the thousands of amateur video that have followed and caught corrupt police officers beating up, robbing or murdering people. That's the main reason I post all these articles. When I tell people the police are corrupt they usually just laugh at me and figure I am a nut job. After the first article they say it's just an isolated incident. After the second article they usually, yea, it's improbable, but every once and a while lightning strikes the same place twice. But after the 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 100th article thought start to happen in their head and they think the system might be corrupt. Of course while video cameras catch cops committing crimes on a daily basis, the courts are still corrupt to the core and police are rarely charged for the crimes they commit. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/us/todays-police-put-on-a-gun-and-a-camera.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Today’s Police Put On a Gun and a Camera By KIRK JOHNSONSEPT. 27, 2014 PULLMAN, Wash. — Amateur videos of police officers doing their jobs have become part of the fabric of urban democracy, with embarrassing or violent images spreading via social media in minutes. But more police agencies, especially after the unrest following an unarmed teenager’s shooting in Ferguson, Mo., are recording events with small body-mounted cameras. In just the last few weeks, law enforcement agencies in at least a dozen cities, including Ferguson; Flagstaff, Ariz.; Minneapolis; Norfolk, Va.; and Washington, have said they are equipping officers with video cameras. Miami Beach approved the purchase of $3 million worth of cameras for police officers, parking enforcement workers, and building and fire inspectors. The New York Police Department, the nation’s largest urban force, has studied how Los Angeles is incorporating body cameras and is planning its own pilot project. A law in New Jersey, signed this month, requires all municipal police departments to buy car-mounted or body cameras, and creates a new fine on drunken drivers to help pay for it. And the United States Border Patrol, with more than 21,000 agents, recently said it would start testing cameras this year. The experience of the police in this college town in eastern Washington provides a glimpse of how the technology is used. Shane Emerson, a barrel-chested police officer with a shaved head, was responding to a report of inebriated students — not an unusual assignment here. Friends of the youths rushed up as he began his questioning, brandishing their cellphones and telling him that they were recording the encounter. “Cool,” Officer Emerson said. “I am, too.” The shift has been sudden and seismic, primarily because various interests, often opposed, have lined up in support of the idea. Liability-conscious city attorneys say the cameras could help in lawsuits; rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say police accountability will be bolstered by another layer of public documentation; and the Justice Department, surveying 63 police departments that were using body cameras and many others that were not, concluded in a report this month that the technology had the potential to “promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice” in interactions between the public and law enforcement. But the spread of police body cameras is also raising concerns about what is recorded, when and how video might be released to the public, and how the millions of hours of video will be archived and protected from leaks and hackers. Some police unions worry that videos could become tools of management, used by higher-ups to punish an officer they do not like, or that private conversations among officers could go public. The rising use of cameras has put the police in a complex and uncertain landscape of public records law. In Oregon, for instance, state law requires notification. Would that mean officers wearing body cameras have to yell warnings — “You’re being recorded!” — as they run into violent situations? “If they don’t yell it, is everything on there now the fruit of the poisonous tree?” asked Sgt. Peter Simpson, a spokesman for the Portland police department, referring to the legal doctrine that improperly gathered evidence can taint an entire case and may not be used in court. The Portland department is testing body cameras on six officers, with plans for a departmentwide rollout. Here in Washington State, which has one of the nation’s most vigorous public records laws, the Seattle police are wrestling with whether video can be posted online almost immediately, as a nearly real-time documentary, and how to blur or obscure images to protect the identities of victims or informers. A pilot project that had been set for the summer was postponed partly because of questions about how public access to the recordings would work. Storage, management and retrieval of the collected data create mammoth questions of their own. Private companies like Taser International offer document storage services, along with the cameras, batteries, docking stations and software, but state laws vary widely about how long criminal records must be stored, from a few years for most misdemeanors to in perpetuity for major felonies. And as Pullman and other police departments are finding, people often request multiple videos. That is because in any major police action, a number of officers may be taping from unique perspectives of height, distance or angle. So defense lawyers are asking for them all. Pullman, which equipped its 29-member force with cameras last year, has spent about $60,000 on the project so far, including about $10,000 a year in storage for nearly 10,000 digital recordings. In Texas, the Fort Worth police have one of the largest camera programs and have spent more than $3 million so far, a department spokeswoman said in an email. That includes more than 600 cameras and accessories, and storage bills for 64 terabytes of data a year, an amount equivalent to at least three times the contents of the 20 million cataloged books in the Library of Congress. Privacy concerns are compounded by what Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the A.C.L.U., called a “wild West situation” of uncertain rules and policies. The A.C.L.U. supports the expansion of police video, Mr. Stanley said, because of the potential for a new check-and-balance system on police action. But constraints are crucial, too, he said, to create safeguards against a file’s being digitally altered. He also wants limits established for when video might be used as open-ended surveillance — scoured later by analytic software for patterns that an officer might have missed. But the biggest wrinkle, police and legal experts say, is also perhaps the most simple: human nature. People forget to turn cameras on or forget to turn them off. [Yea, and cops routinely INTENTIONALLY forget to turn on their cameras when they plan to do something illegal] Gary Jenkins, the chief of police in Pullman, said he feared there would be a day when recording did not happen, for whatever reason, and something went horribly wrong — like the Aug. 9 fatal shooting of Michael Brown, 18, by a policeman in Ferguson. In places where police mistrust is already rife, the failure to document — where documentation is expected — might then become its own new tinderbox. “Now there’s a certain expectation that every event that you want to review — you’re going to have video of it,” Chief Jenkins said. “The reality is that sometimes officers will forget to turn it on, or sometimes the device might fail.” [Yea, oddly, the cameras routinely have HARDWARE failures just after a cop is accused of beating the sh*t out of an innocent person.] But some proponents suggest that cameras can change the behavior of the police and ordinary citizens alike. In the year after Rialto, Calif., began a test of cameras in 2012, for example, citizen complaints dropped to three from 24, while the use of force fell to 25 incidents from 61. Chief Tony Farrar said in an interview that he was convinced there was a direct connection. Which videos should be archived is its own question. Here in Pullman on a recent weeknight, three police officers arrived at a fire station where an agitated man was shouting about his blood pressure. He had thrown his keys onto the station house roof and told the police officers surrounding him — their hands near their weapon belts in postures of tense readiness — that failure to address his medical condition would get them all into serious trouble. He had a senator’s contact information on his cellphone, he said. The cameras were running. In the end, the man’s behavior was not deemed a threat to himself or others. No arrest was made, no criminal file created and thus no video public record entered of those minutes in the firehouse. An automatic 100-day delete clock on the tapes clicked in as the man stomped out into the night. Departmental policy requires that a video file be tagged for storage only when a case file is created, but officers have discretion to save for other purposes too, like training. Heidi Lambley, a senior officer with 10 years on the Pullman force — and one of the responders that night — said a video record felt to her almost like another level of protection, a kind of flak jacket of evidence about what happened, even if it was nothing much. “I get nervous when I think it’s not on,” she said of her camera. “I know it’s going to document what the truth is, and I want the truth out there.”
If we legalize recreational marijuana and allow them to tax it, then I am sure we will have more of this in the future. Just change everywhere they said tobacco and replace it with marijuana. Currently I suspect the most medical marijuana users get their pot from the black market rather then from members of Andrew Myers's Arizona Dispensary Association where pot sells for $300+ an ounce compared to $50 to $100 and ounce on the black market. I wouldn't put it past the state of Arizona to try and shake everybody that bought medical marijuana on the black market for taxes. Last but not least this article shows that government is more about raising money thru taxes for special interest groups then it is about being a "public servant". If you are not familiar with the term "use tax", it's pretty must just a big word for a "sales tax" that is put on anything that you purchase outside of Arizona and bring into Arizona. Since Arizona can't force out of state vendors to make you pay the "use tax", they have the King's men who work at the Arizona Department of Revenue shake you down for the tax. Like the King's men in this article are doing to Annette Borden of Chandler. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/call-12-for-action/2014/09/28/arizona-smokers-online-taxes/16373237/ Arizona smokers getting tax bills for online sales Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:37 p.m. MST September 27, 2014 About 30,000 Arizona smokers who bought cigarettes online are being hit with bills for thousands of dollars in unpaid state taxes. The Arizona Department of Revenue says smokers owe the state more than $20 for each carton they purchased after 2006 through online companies that offered discounts by sidestepping state use and luxury taxes. Smokers who thought they had saved more half off the retail price of cigarettes are receiving letters from the state demanding immediate payment for the unpaid taxes, plus penalties and interest. Annette Borden of Chandler got a $4,299.20 payment demand last week for cigarettes she purchased online between 2007 and 2009. "I'm kind of baffled by the fact that they are coming after me," Borden said, adding that she knew nothing about the taxes until she received a phone call last week from the state. "You're contacting me seven years later and saying we owe this money. We never received a notice or we would have filed taxes." But Borden said she is more concerned the state might not stop at cigarettes. If the Department of Revenue can come after residents for unpaid taxes on cigarettes, she asked, what's to stop officials from demanding taxes for other online purchases? The state's answer: Theoretically, nothing. However, unlike with online-cigarette sales, state officials currently have no way of tracking individual online purchases for items bought on sites such as eBay, where state sales taxes are often not charged or collected. "Nothing you buy over the Internet is tax-free," said Sean Laux, Department of Revenue spokesman. "People were buying (cigarettes) thinking they were getting a deal, no tax was applied. That didn't mean no taxes were due." In 2012, federal law made online cigarette sales illegal. Companies were forced to give customer lists and purchase data to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which distributed it to states. Laux said the department began notifying taxpayers in 2013 they must pay a use tax of 5.6 percent to 6.6 percent on every pack of cigarettes purchased online. They also have to pay a luxury tax of 10 cents a cigarette, or $20 a carton. Notices went out with specific details about individual cigarette purchases and offered taxpayers an opportunity to avoid penalty interest charges in exchange for immediate payments. Borden said the state offered to knock down her bill to $2,800, a savings of about $1,500. "It is a lot of money," she said. "That's my property taxes for a year." The state is taking the position there is no statute of limitations on the unpaid cigarette taxes, and officials can pursue cases indefinitely. In many cases, laws limit the number of years a state can audit an individual income-tax return. Typically it can go back no more than four years. Laux said the limitations are lifted if a taxpayer committed fraud or never filed taxes. In those cases, the state can go back as far as it wants. He said unpaid cigarette taxes are akin to not filing taxes. "This is no different to us than someone who doesn't file income tax,' he said. A carton of Marlboro Reds in Phoenix today costs about $71. Customers who bought cigarettes online paid about half of the retail price. Laux said most of the online sales occurred in Arizona from 2006 to 2011. He said bills for unpaid taxes range from hundreds of dollars to several thousand. He said he is unaware of any tax bills that top $10,000. Borden said she purchased cigarettes online for the convenience factor, not to try to avoid paying taxes. "It's shocking," she said of the state's effort to collect back taxes. "I'm not going to lie. I bought the cigarettes." Borden said the tax bill won't make her quit smoking. But she is adamant it will make her quit shopping online. "My thought process was, 'Oh my God, do you know how much money I spend online?' What's to say they won't come back to me eight years from now?" she said. "I'll never buy another thing online." Reach the reporter at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com. Follow him on Twitter @robertanglen.
I suspect Arizona Governor candidates Doug Ducey and Fred DuVal are leaving out the details of their plans because neither of them wants to say anything that MIGHT tick off the powerful teacher unions causing them to lose votes. Hey, it ain't about telling the world about YOUR plan and hoping you get elected because everybody thinks YOUR plan is the BEST. It's about shoveling the BS and trying to con everybody into thinking that you support THEIR plan. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/28/arizona-school-funding-short-details/16378141/ Plans for Arizona school funding short on details Mary Jo Pitzl and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez , The Republic | azcentral.com 1:18 a.m. MST September 28, 2014 Both Doug Ducey and Fred DuVal talk a lot about education as they campaign for governor. But neither has a long-range plan to deal with the funding crisis facing Arizona's K-12 system. Ducey, a Republican, and DuVal, a Democrat, agree more money should be directed to classrooms. They link Arizona's future economic success to an educated workforce. They talk about the need for high standards, and they support school choice. Both are fathers who send their sons to private schools. But neither candidate has explained how he would address the biggest education-related challenge to face state government in recent history: how to pay for a court-enforced voter mandate to increase school funding at a time when state government is projected to run a deficit as soon as June. The annual inflation adjustments to school funding pencil out to about $317 million for this year, and a similar amount in future years. In the short term, Ducey and DuVal differ on how to approach the state Supreme Court ruling, now a year old. Their contrasting priorities have fueled an increasingly contentious debate as the race rolls toward the Nov. 4 general election. The candidates will square off in a debate on education issues tonight at Camelback High School. Ducey backs Republican legislative leaders' plan to appeal the court decision, which calls for payments to start this budget year. An appeal will buy time, Ducey said, to work on his education priority: a vague plan to provide money to excelling schools so they can build more space and eliminate wait lists.He also wants to rework the state's education-funding formula. DuVal says he would immediately provide the funding, noting there is money in the state's "rainy-day fund" to cover the first $317 million installment. How he would pay for it beyond the coming fiscal year is unclear.He rejects any appeal of the lawsuit, saying there have already been too many delays in fully funding the schools. His priority is restoring the school budget to where it was before the recession hit and lawmakers cut funding by nearly 19 percent over four years. The two also part ways on a proposed settlement from the school districts that sued over the funding. If the state agrees to immediately increase basic funding to the K-12 system by $317 million a year, the schools say they would forgo an estimated $1.6 billion in back payments they're due for the years when the Legislature underfunded them. DuVal says he would take the offer. Ducey wouldn't, but said he would be open to negotiation. They also differ on the Common Core educational standards. DuVal says the state should continue with the national standards. Ducey said he would replace them with standards tailored to Arizona. However, acknowledging the standards are already being used in Arizona classrooms, Ducey said the state would have to stay with them until he could get together with parents, teachers and business leaders to craft a "preferable" alternative. Ducey: Reduce wait lists Ducey's main education plank is reducing wait lists at schools — primarily charter schools — that lack space to accommodate the additional students. He wants to find a way to get money to those in-demand schools. But his emphasis on funding wait lists has left many familiar with school finance scratching their heads. His speeches have veered from a focus only on wait lists at charter schools to district schools as well. Last week, he defined it this way: "For charters, it's capital needs. For district schools, it's space and it's about capacity and it's about operating costs." Yet charter schools do not receive state funding for capital needs such as new classrooms. To do so would require changing state law and securing a source of funding. Ducey said that's precisely why he wants to revamp the state school-funding formula: He believes it could produce efficiencies that would free up money to eliminate wait lists. In a debate earlier this month, Ducey threw out the idea of using empowerment scholarship accounts, which pay for private schooling for disabled children, to provide the money for school construction.But those accounts can't be used to build classrooms. Ducey would again need to change the law in order to spend the money on infrastructure: "It's not something you could just change administratively," said Charles Tack, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. After he mentioned the plan in the first gubernatorial debate earlier this month, Ducey acknowledged that his idea needs to be fleshed out. But, he said, "I think there is a flexibility around those dollars ... I want to see those kids go where they and their parents want them to go." The Legislature earlier this year rejected a bill that would have expanded the scholar-ship program to thousands more students in low-income areas. Ducey said as Arizona's economy grows, more money will flow into the school system. As the current state treasurer, he is quick to note the state is on firmer financial footing now than during the recession, and he believes the current money earmarked for education might be enough to fund his plan if better spent. "I think we have $9 billion in total federal, state and local dollars in the system that can be effectively spent," he said, when asked if he believes the schools are adequately funded. He has ruled out tax increases, an echo of the successful campaign he led in 2012 against a ballot measure to continue the temporary penny sales-tax hike and spend the money on schools. At the time, Ducey said if voters would reject Proposition 204, he would join with parents, teachers, business leaders and others to craft a better plan to fund education. That never happened. Two years later, he's talking again about a group effort. "There's no role like the governor to assemble influencers and to drive change legislatively and in policy," he said. DuVal: Comply with court DuVal has made education his top campaign issue. Not only has he proposed immediately paying schools to comply with the court order, but DuVal has also said he would seek out "every discretionary, additional dollar" and direct it toward Arizona schools. He doesn't see much additional money for schools in the first year or two of his administration, noting the state's grim financial forecast. The legislative budget office is forecasting a $282 million deficit for the current budget year, and a $765 million hole for the following year. But he's optimistic that before the end of the next governor's four-year term, the financial picture will brighten. Aside from hoping for a speedier economy, DuVal doesn't have a long-range funding plan. Like Ducey, he rules out tax increases. Unlike Ducey, he sees no sense in reworking the school-funding formula as a way to put more money into the schools. "Changing the funding formulas is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if the Legislature keeps ignoring them," he said. "We need to reinvest in our schools now, not use changes to the funding formula as an excuse to keep delaying reinvestment in our children's schools." The current funding formula, created in 1980, provides money to operate the schools. There is no funding formula for school repairs and construction, despite a 20-year-old court ruling that directed Arizona to create a system that would evenly distribute such funding to school districts. But the larger issue is the state's tax structure, which isn't generating enough money for Arizona's needs. The formula doesn't generate more money for schools, it's simply the tool to distribute funding, said Chris Thomas, general counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association. Unlike the candidates, Thomas has a quick answer on where to find increased funding: postpone or cancel corporate tax cuts scheduled to take effect in upcoming years. Those cuts total $295 million for the next fiscal year, growing to $538 million by fiscal 2018, according to estimates made in 2011, when the Legislature approved the reductions. DuVal hasn't considered the idea, his campaign said. For DuVal, school funding will be restored as state revenues grow. He won't cut other major programs to free money for schools. But any spare change will go to his priorities: stopping the exodus of teachers and reducing class sizes. "We now have the largest class size in the country, on average," he said. "This teacher flight thing is really under my skin. It's slow and insidious." One bad year in a student's education can carry into the next year, putting the student behind, DuVal said. Having a revolving cast of teachers, especially in the early years, can lead to such results. He said he's seen the effects of what he calls a leaky education pipeline from his years on the Arizona Board of Regents. "The remediation costs at the universities of our K-12 graduates is astronomical," he said, a stark testament to the work that's needed to improve schools. DuVal said keeping teachers doesn't necessarily require more money, although pay is always an issue. He would promote policies that promote teacher success, such as smaller class sizes, more money for school supplies so teachers don't have to pay out of pocket, and recognition of successful teachers using the bully pulpit of the Governor's Office. "It's changing our rhetoric in the public space where we don't demonize teachers," he said. Those are examples of the incentives the state should create to encourage innovation and competition. "You don't get that with poverty and cutting," he said. "You get that with incentivizing." Beginning today and continuing for the next few weeks, The Arizona Republic will scrutinize the gubernatorial candidates' positions on key issues. GUBERNATORIAL DEBATES Arizona Gubernatorial Debate on Education Sunday at 6 p.m. Camelback High School Auditorium, 4612 N. 28th St., Phoenix Airs on KSAZ-TV, Channel 10. Clean Elections Debate Monday at 5 p.m. Airs on "Arizona Horizon," KAET-TV, Channel 8. ON THE BEAT Yvonne Wingett Sanchez covers the Governor's Office, and state politics with an emphasis on accountability of state officials. How to reach her yvonne.wingett@arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-4712 Twitter: @yvonnewingett Mary Jo Pitzl covers state government, with an emphasis on state agencies, and legislative policies that affect how government functions. How to reach her maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-8963 Twitter:@maryjpitzl
US Patent 6630507 OK, I found this on Facebook. And I am just reposting it. But that doesn't make it any less important. http://nevergetbusted.com/hot-news/dea-owns-marijuana-patent-6630507/ DEA Owns Marijuana Patent #6630507 Consult with Barry- Email us at info@nevergetbusted.com DEA Owns Marijuana Patent #6630507 The US Government classifies marijuana as Schedule 1 defined as, “No medicinal value and highly addictive” yet they own the patent for using cannabinoids as an antioxidant and neuro-protectant. Yes you are reading this correctly: The U.S. government which includes the DEA has patented medical marijuana. Patent #6630507. The hypocrisy is hysterical. Why would the Government want to own a patent on a drug that has no medicinal value and is highly addictive and toxic? The patent begins by saying: “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NDMA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants…” Millions of Americans have been caged for marijuana while the cagers hold a patent for the same plant. And they wonder why we are angry! About the Author Barry Cooper “You may have seen him on the pages of Maxim, or during one of his many appearances on CNN, Fox News and Spike TV. He’s the cop who turned against the drug war. In American pop culture right now, there’s nobody quite like him. As one of the former top drug cops working the Texas highways, he was ferocious, bringing down hundreds of people for possessing even tiny amounts of an illegal substance.In his new life as an anti-prohibition crusader and activist filmmaker, he’s just as ferocious, but now it’s his former colleagues in law enforcement who are sweating his intimidating gaze…Cooper is on a mission to free America’s pot prisoners and take down the abusive cops he once sought to emulate. In the terminology of war, Barry is an insurgent, lobbing bombs into the fourth estate as his form of penance for all the people he put behind bars on drug offenses.” —True/Slant Barry Cooper has received global attention by being reported in over 700 newspapers and magazines including Rolling Stones, High Times, a feature in Maxim Magazine and a front cover feature in Cannabis Culture Magazine and the Texas Observer. He has been a guest on numerous radio shows and every cable news channel including MSNBC Tucker Carlson, FOX Geraldo At Large, ABC I Caught, NBC Mike and Juliet Morning Show and NPR’s, This American Life. He has also appeared as drug and legal expert in five episodes of SPIKE TV’s reality show, MANSWERS. Barry recently starred with Woody Harrelson, 50 Cent, Eminem and Susan Sarandon in the anti drug war documentary, “How To Make Money Selling Drugs.” The movie features Barry freeing prisoners. “Barry was even better than he says he was. He had a knack for finding drugs and made more arrests and more seizures than all of the other agents combined. He was probably the best narcotics officer in the state and maybe the country during his time with the task force.” –Tom Finley, Commander Permian Basin Drug Task Force https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMy34OtgxD0 Patent Number 6,630,507; Marijuana hypocrisy in America. Published on Aug 29, 2013 Patent number 6,630,507 states unequivocally that; "Cannabinoids" are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. So, why is this important? Here is a legal document, in the public domain, which flies in the face of the US Government's stated position with regard to the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance having no "currently accepted medical use". Believe me, citing this patent stops the "medical marijuana is a myth" advocates dead in their tracks. They simply cannot argue with it. The forces that would keep cannabis illegal are vocal and well funded, but they are not impervious to persistent effort. The lynch pin in the War on Drugs is cannabis. Without the suppression and interdiction of this popular and widely used substance, there simply would not be enough "illegal drug use" going on to justify the huge amount of money and resources spent on "fighting drugs." I believe disseminating information about this patent as widely as possible, and to as many people as possible is a crucial strategy in loosening that lynch pin, and changing public perception about cannabis. I, personally, downloaded the first page of this patent and sent a copy (with the assignee highlighted) to every one of my elected representatives. I have also included information about it in "letters to the editor" referencing any cannabis related news story I come across, I use it as an argument in every State medical cannabis and decriminalization initiative, and have mentioned it in all my comments to online posts and blogs of the same nature. I would be delighted if everyone who believes the War on Drugs is a failed and destructive policy, would do the same, until the existence of this irrefutable patent becomes widely held public knowledge, and government 's rhetoric is shown to be as hollow as a busted drum. Story by: Brinna Nanda Video edit by MCM=POA https://www.facebook.com/notes/make-it-legal/united-states-government-owns-marijuana-patent-6630507-hypocrisy/201851959859445 United States Government Owns Marijuana Patent #6630507; Hypocrisy! May 26, 2011 at 9:01pm The legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would drastically reduce crime in our cities and form a more productive society through its positive uses. The war on drugs deals with every level of society. Every year, the U.S. government spends large amounts of money to control drug use and to enforce laws enacted to protect society from the dangers of certain drugs. Some argue that the fight against drugs is not needed and that society has already lost the war on drugs and the only way to remedy the problem to end most of the fighting altogether is by decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Government spending is the major reason for the many Americans that are pushing for the legalization. The U.S. criminal justice system is overcrowded with offenders who have been convicted of crimes related to marijuana possession, trafficking, and dealing. If marijuana became legal, much of the prison and jail overcrowding problem would be solved. In addition, money and resources allocated by police forces to combat marijuana crimes could be used toward other divisions like violent crimes units. Also, marijuana laws disproportionately affect African-Americans, Hispanics, and people of lower socio-economic classes. Legalizing marijuana would be a step toward ending these institutional biases. The federal government spent $1 billion on marijuana enforcement in 1980 alone and about $5 billion in 1990.We may now be spending $10 billion annually . Basically, legalization would give the government more control over the purity and potency of the marijuana that it would allow the international drug trade to be regulated more effectively. Over the past few decades, many credible minds have stated their concern about the outrageous spending of the government on enforcing marijuana laws. All of these minds have come to the same conclusion, which is to legalize marijuana. The US Government classifies marijuana as schedule 1; no medicinal value and highly addictive. Yet they own the patent for using cannabinoids as a antioxidant and neuro-protectant. Yes you are reading this correctly: THE US GOVT. HAS PATENTED MEDICAL MARIJUANA. Patent #6630507 Why would the Government want to own a patent on a drug that has no medicinal value, is highly addictive and toxic?? Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties,unrelated to NDMA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants. Having a regulated market for marijuana sale and purchase is beneficial on numerous levels. Legalizing marijuana and creating a regulated market would mean that the seemingly endless amount of money being sent to foreign countries for illegal drug smuggling would stop. When a substance is made illegal its value immediately rises, and that means that someone is making a profit. In many cases, that profit is being made by individuals in foreign countries. In addition, a regulated market would also mean that teenagers would be less likely to sell marijuana to make a quick buck. In turn, teens would be less likely to be exposed to other, harder illegal drugs being sold on the same market. Everyone is well aware of the dangers that alcohol and tobacco use presents to the population, but there is no definitive, scientific evidence that states that marijuana has long-lasting, harmful effects. Alcohol and tobacco use causes hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States every year. Annual deaths are even reported from abuse of aspirin, and yet not one single death an be attributed to the recreational use of marijuana. To further attest to its non harmful effects, many patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma, and other ailments use medical marijuana as a treatment. Medical grade marijuana is used to treat symptoms including pain and nausea, and many credit its use as essential to their recovery. Make It Legal® http://nypost.com/2013/09/11/feds-patented-medical-marijuana-even-when-they-were-fighting-it/ Feds patented medical pot… while fighting it By John Crudele September 11, 2013 | 9:21pm Feds patented medical pot… while fighting it On Oct. 7, 2003, the US government issued Patent No. 6,630,507. Actor Michael J. Fox and many millions of other Americans — my dear late wife, Tricia, included — could have gotten very excited about this development back then. But it was, apparently, not the sort of thing Washington wanted advertised. Patent No. 6,630,507, you see, is for cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. Most people would simply refer to this as medical marijuana. Who got that patent? The US government gave this patent to itself. Just so you understand me, this is the same US government that has been fighting the use of marijuana as a drug. Yet its own scientists were claiming a decade ago that marijuana had been effective against a number of diseases. Here’s what three scientists from the Department of Health and Human Services said in the abstract — or summary — of their findings submitted with the patent application: “The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroproectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke or trauma, or the treatment of neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.” Fox has had Parkinson’s for many years. My wife suffered for nearly a decade from Multiple Sclerosis, a neurological disease, before she died nearly two years ago. I don’t know if Fox is secretly using marijuana to ease his pain, but in a minute I’ll tell you why finding out about Patent No. 6,630,507 this week angers me. Just last week Attorney General Eric Holder said the Federal government will not attempt to challenge state laws that allow for medical and recreational use of pot. His directive will affect 20 states that now allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes, as well as Colorado and Washington, where marijuana can be used for recreational purposes. The new guidelines do not change marijuana’s classification as an illegal drug. The issue of marijuana’s effectiveness as a pharmaceutical, as far as I know, has never been mentioned by Washington. Marijuana plants contain a lot of different chemicals. Tetrahydrocannabinol — or THC — is considered the most active of them. Civilizations have known for thousands of years that marijuana had special properties. In a Hindu text the weed is referred to as “sacred grass.” Despite a track record of thousands of years, Americans are still debating whether we should allow sick people to relieve symptoms of nausea and pain with pot because marijuana may sometimes end up in the wrong hands. This past week, for instance, New Jersey changed medical marijuana legislation — again. If Govs. Jon Corzine and Chris Christie hadn’t been so pigheaded over the past few years, my wife and others might have suffered a lot less. Jersey’s medical pot law was passed years ago but hasn’t even gone into effect yet. A revision in the law will permit licensed dispensaries to grow and sell more than three varieties of the weed and provide an edible version for children. Christie now gets a chance to drag his feet some more before he signs the revised bill. But don’t feel too sorry for New Jersey residents. New York doesn’t even have a medical marijuana law in the works. Usually I don’t talk about my own life in this column — unless it’s something strange, odd or funny. My experience with medical marijuana was none of those, but I’ll tell it anyway. Tricia had been diagnosed with MS in 1992. It wasn’t until around 2002 that she became truly helpless. MS is an inflammatory disease in which the insulating covers of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord are damaged. Tricia was on so many drugs — pain killers, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, etc. — I lost count The idea of using marijuana to ease Tricia’s severe spasms — which could last 30 minutes or more — came up frequently. But the law was a problem. New Jersey hadn’t implemented its medical marijuana law, so I would need to acquire the drug the old-fashioned way — on the street. I knew that if I got caught buying pot illegally I could have been fired from my job and lose my medical coverage. That would have taken me several steps backwards. Another one of Tricia’s many doctors had us try a synthetic form of THC — the marijuana chemical — but we had to pretend that my wife was suffering through weeping spells because that’s what the drug was intended for. She wasn’t weeping. In fact Tricia was about as happy as anyone could be under those circumstances, but we played along. Knowing what I do now, I regret not taking the risk of getting pot on the street. Experts say that the potential for marijuana as a drug is endless. Dr. Gerry Crabtree, chief executive officer of drug firm Nuvilex, says it has even proven in tests to be effective against cancer. “There’s enough literature in respectable scientific journals to justify examining cannabis as a possible treatment of cancer,” Crabtree told me this week. You won’t really appreciate what I’m talking about until someone you love might be helped by medical marijuana. But you will probably never understand just how angry I am after finding out about Patent No. 6,630,507.
If EVERYBODY would take the 5th and refuse to answer any and all police questions we wouldn't have these problems with cops stopping all the time and shaking them down. Daniele Watts, LAPD encounter raises question: When must you show ID? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daniele-watts-lapd-id-lewd-act-20140928-story.html Daniele Watts, in her own words By Daniele Watts Daniele Watts didn't cooperate. Here's why. If we are unclear about our rights, we allow the police to abuse their power Some experiences stay with us. When I was 16, my father was driving me home from a school play when we saw flashing lights. We hadn't been speeding. I remember my father asking the police officer what was wrong. The officer ignored his question and demanded identification. He pointed to me and asked in a tone I had never encountered before, "Who is she?" He made a condescending remark about my costume and questioned my father again: Was he sure of "his story"? The questions had nothing to do with the rules of the road or how my father had been driving. Eventually, he checked my father's license and, after what felt like a long time, let us go without a ticket. I told him my refusal was based on my belief in the law that protects us from unreasonable searches. - I could tell my father was disturbed. We had been stopped for no reason, and he was powerless to stop the questioning or protect me from the officer's judgments. As we drove off, I asked my dad why he had given up his license when he had done nothing wrong. He gently explained to me what so many African Americans of his generation know too well: "You don't want to mess with the police. They can judge you unfairly and make life very hard." These words took on a special significance for me in recent months. Since late spring, I have experienced four disturbing stops by law enforcement. In Texas, driving with my partner, Brian Lucas, I was speeding and deserved the ticket I got. But I was also forced to stand away from our vehicle, and questioned by an officer who yelled at me threateningly when I glanced at Brian during his questioning, and who asked repeatedly how I knew Brian, where we were headed and why we were going there together. The next three stops were in California. One evening, an officer passed us while we were talking in our parked car near a public park. He returned quickly, lights flashing. He said he was responding to citizen concerns of "suspicious persons" because of a "recent flurry of robberies." The third time, an officer said he was responding to reports of a "suspicious black and white couple loitering," and concerns about "robbery." We were sorting through Brian's father's garage in broad daylight. The officer asked for identification. Brian provided his license. I refused, explaining that I thought I was within my rights to decline his request. I told him I appreciated his position, but I had done nothing wrong. I told him my refusal was based on my belief in the law that protects us from unreasonable searches. I didn't have to provide him with ID because it was clear I was not breaking any law. Then there was the last stop, this month, which has become the subject of so many headlines. Many people believe they know what happened that day. Here's what I know. I was standing on the grass near a public sidewalk when a Los Angeles Police Department officer approached Brian. He said he had received a call about a couple engaged in lewd conduct and asked for our IDs. A few minutes before, Brian and I had been making out in his car; I was sitting on his lap. We were not having sex, and both of us had our clothes on. I told the officer, Sgt. Jim Parker, I did not want to give him my ID as it was obvious nothing illegal was going on. He said I had to give it to him, and he was going to get it "one way or another." And one way or another, he did. Could I have been calmer, or more patient? Certainly. Still, the sergeant seemed to be trying to teach me a lesson. "She needs to know that she doesn't dictate what happens," he says on the recorded police audio. Do I regret threatening to call my publicist? I was grasping at anything to make it clear I wasn't a lawbreaker. Do I think the officer was "racially profiling" me by answering a call? I know police have to answer calls for service. But does that render invalid my initial question to the sergeant — "Do you know how many times the cops have been called … because I'm black and he's white?" California law does not require you to produce identification simply because a police officer demands it. - Would someone have called the police if it had been a white couple? Would the sergeant have been so zealous in "investigating" what was clearly not a crime? Does bias have something to do with how and why Brian and I have been stopped this year? I think it probably does. And I think that the conversations our country has been having about the role of race in minor incidents, such as mine, and life-and-death ones, must continue. One last question I can answer: If I had nothing to hide, why didn't I just hand over my identification? I might have ended the stop much sooner, and I certainly would have avoided the avalanche of accusations, insults, slurs and even threats that I've received. But in saving myself time and pain, I would have lost something far more valuable: my right as an American to limit intrusions by police. When I was forced into handcuffs, the detaining officer said it was because Sgt. Parker ordered me to stay and I left. But the sergeant said no such thing. And California law does not require you to produce identification simply because a police officer demands it. I objected — and I continue to object — because if we are unclear about our rights, and we continue to believe that in every case when a police officer tells you to do something, you have to do it, as I was told, we allow the police to abuse their power. We have rights because people throughout history struggled and even died to secure them. If I had handed over my ID, I would have denied their efforts. And I would have turned my back on the 16-year-old who watched her father endure an unfair and humiliating stop by police. Daniele Watts is an actress and producer. Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-show-id-20140915-story.html Daniele Watts, LAPD encounter raises question: When must you show ID? By Kurtis Lee contact the reporter When you have to show police your ID and when you don't In the aftermath of the uproar over "Django Unchained" actress Daniele Watts' detainment by Los Angeles police officers, questions have been raised about what rights an individual has when approached by law enforcement. After police arrived on the scene of a call about alleged indecent exposure in Studio City, Watts refused to give police her ID and was detained along with her boyfriend, celebrity chef Brian James Lucas. She was handcuffed and released shortly afterward. The officer has defended his actions. Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, spoke with the L.A. Times about when individuals must provide identification to police. Here's a rundown of the law and the ACLU's recommendations for people who are asked for their ID. Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one? No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID. Police can always ask for identification, just like they can ask if you'll step over and answer a few questions, or if they can search your bag or come into your house. But just because they can ask doesn't mean you have to allow them to see your ID. If you don't want to provide identification, you can politely say you do not want to do so and ask if you are free to go. When can police ask for identification? If you are driving and are stopped by police, you must provide a drivers license. And although California law generally requires that officers release people who are cited for misdemeanors, rather than taking them to jail, it makes an exception if the person cannot provide satisfactory identification. If officers are actually trying to write you a misdemeanor citation, you may have to provide identification or face arrest for the misdemeanor offense. If you are a suspect in a crime, do you have to show your identification? No. If police reasonably suspect you of a crime, they can detain you to investigate that crime. Some states have what are called "Stop and Identify" statutes that require someone suspected of criminal activity to provide identification to police, making refusal a crime. California has no such statute, so if you refuse to provide an ID while police are detaining you, they can't arrest you just for refusing. When might showing your ID be a good idea anyway? If you really haven't done anything wrong, knowing your identity could help police resolve their investigation in your favor, and refusing to provide identification could prolong it. For example, suppose a neighbor reports a burglary at your house and police arrive at the moment you happen to be carrying a computer out of the house. They would have a reason to detain you to investigate the burglary call, but you might be able to clear up the situation by showing your ID to prove you live there. In that case, refusing to show ID could make their investigation take longer even though it's not illegal to refuse. Providing identification can also just help an interaction with police go more smoothly. Police may want to check for warrants so they can be sure you aren't a dangerous, wanted criminal. They may be less nervous if they feel they know who they're dealing with. Follow @kurtisalee and email kurtis.lee@latimes.com
More on those Apple iPhones that lock out the NSA 1) Remember if you really have a secret you don't want the government to know about, it's stupid to broadcast it on the airwaves with a cell phone or put it on the internet. 2) Remember if the NSA or some other government agency wants to read your encrypted emails or phone calls, and they really want you they almost certainly can spend millions of dollars doing it. And it's probably just a matter of time and money before they do. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26614294/law-enforcement-grapples-apples-enhanced-encryption Law enforcement grapples with iPhone's enhanced encryption By Julia Love and Robert Salonga Staff writers Posted: 09/26/2014 04:22:52 PM PDT Apple is no stranger to disruption, having upended the music business with iTunes and the mobile industry with the iPhone. But now some law enforcement officials are warning that the company is threatening to disrupt their efforts to fight crime. With its new iOS 8 software, Apple is locking itself out of users' smartphones -- and leaving cops and the courts out in the cold. The Cupertino-based company announced last week that photos, email, contacts and other information will now be encrypted with users' passcodes, meaning "it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data" from the phone. Google followed suit the next day, saying that the forthcoming version of its Android software will offer the same protections. The software change is a deft way for Apple to underscore its commitment to privacy and distance itself from the shadow cast over the valley after revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. But it has triggered some concern from Bay Area law enforcement officials, and a sharp rebuke from FBI Director James Comey. "There will come a day -- well, it comes every day in this business -- when it will matter a great, great deal to the lives of people of all kinds that we be able to, with judicial authorization, gain access to a kidnapper's or a terrorist's or a criminal's device," he said Thursday. "I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well, how come you can't save this kid?' " To be sure, law enforcement will have other ways to follow a suspect's digital trail. Apple can still share data that people back up from their devices to their Internet-based iCloud accounts, and carriers give investigators call logs and other information gleaned from cell phone towers. Law enforcement in the Bay Area is still gauging how the heightened encryption will affect their investigations. And multiple local law enforcement sources told this newspaper that the new policy is a continuation of ongoing difficulties they have had in getting compliance from Apple while carrying out search warrants involving its customers. They described long delays and a lengthy backlog in responding to law enforcement requests, but declined to speculate on the reasons behind that occurrence. San Francisco police offered a measured reaction to the new policy. "It does make it challenging. But we're not in the business of dictating policy for private companies," spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said. "Although it could impact investigations, there are other ways to obtain information." Esparza acknowledged that the investigative value of a smartphone has jumped sharply in recent years, calling them "personal lifelines" that could contain a trove of evidence in a suspected crime. But he said it's too soon to forecast the impact on police work that the security measures will have, particularly with what are known as "exigent circumstances" where a safety emergency triggers one of the exceptions outlined in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer holding that in all but a few cases, warrantless cellphone searches are unconstitutional. "There will be cases where we'll have to be able to get access, and if we can't, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there," Esparza said. A spokesman for Apple declined to comment but cited the company's new privacy policy and a recent conversation Apple CEO Tim Cook had with journalist Charlie Rose. In the interview, Cook stressed that Apple collects minimal data from users because its business is selling devices rather than targeted ads. The company already encrypted iMessages and FaceTime calls with users' passcodes. Despite concern among some in law enforcement, experts say Apple's move to wall off more information was probably less about thumbing its nose at the U.S. government than extricating itself from criminal investigations in which it has little interest. "If I'm a private company, that's the last place I want to be," said John Roman, a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. But Roman fears that the encryption will pose a huge hurdle, particularly for local law enforcement agencies. With limited forensic capabilities, scanning a smartphone is often one of few convenient options for a local officer to jump-start a case, Roman said. "On normal, everyday cases, this will be a dead stop for them," he said. Civil liberties advocates say those concerns are greatly overblown. Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that although information gleaned from smartphones is often useful, it rarely makes or breaks a case. And though Apple is unable to provide a user's passcode to unlock a phone, he predicts that many suspects will voluntarily supply it, drawing from his experience as a public defender. "When people are in that interrogation room, they're telling the police, 'Sure, you can open my phone,' " he said. Fakhoury said it is still unclear whether a judge could order a suspect to open his phone or be held in contempt of court, perhaps foreshadowing a future legal battle. What's more, experts say, Apple users' data will also be more secure as a result of the shift. When companies maintain the ability to circumvent passcodes for law enforcement, hackers can easily abuse the opening, experts say. The safest option is to wall off the information entirely, experts say. "If you create an access point, both good guys and bad guys can use it," said Bruce Schneier, a computer security and privacy expert. Contact Julia Love at 408-920-5536; follow her at Twitter.com/byJuliaLove.
Hmmm ... I wonder, will this I-Phone really lock out the NSA??? Or is the NSA in a partnership with Apple and this is just a propaganda article written by the NSA to convince people that if they have an Apple phone the NSA can't spy on them??? Of course the bottom line is if you have something you don't want the government to know about you shouldn't be broadcasting it on the airwaves with a cell phone, or putting it on the internet. And of course if the folks at the NSA don't like you, there is nothing to prevent them from spending millions of dollars in an attempt to decrypt your messages. Something they probably have the resources to do if given enough time and money. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/technology/iphone-locks-out-the-nsa-signaling-a-post-snowden-era-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Signaling Post-Snowden Era, New iPhone Locks Out N.S.A. By DAVID E. SANGER and BRIAN X. CHENSEPT. 26, 2014 WASHINGTON — Devoted customers of Apple products these days worry about whether the new iPhone 6 will bend in their jean pockets. The National Security Agency and the nation’s law enforcement agencies have a different concern: that the smartphone is the first of a post-Snowden generation of equipment that will disrupt their investigative abilities. The phone encrypts emails, photos and contacts based on a complex mathematical algorithm that uses a code created by, and unique to, the phone’s user — and that Apple says it will not possess. The result, the company is essentially saying, is that if Apple is sent a court order demanding that the contents of an iPhone 6 be provided to intelligence agencies or law enforcement, it will turn over gibberish, along with a note saying that to decode the phone’s emails, contacts and photos, investigators will have to break the code or get the code from the phone’s owner. Breaking the code, according to an Apple technical guide, could take “more than 5 1/2 years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers.” (Computer security experts question that figure, because Apple does not fully realize how quickly the N.S.A. supercomputers can crack codes.) Already the new phone has led to an eruption from the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey. At a news conference on Thursday devoted largely to combating terror threats from the Islamic State, Mr. Comey said, “What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to hold themselves beyond the law.” [You mean like the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security and a whole slew of other Federal police agencies flushing the 4th Amendment down the toilet and spying on us???] He cited kidnapping cases, in which exploiting the contents of a seized phone could lead to finding a victim, and predicted there would be moments when parents would come to him “with tears in their eyes, look at me and say, ‘What do you mean you can’t’ ” decode the contents of a phone. “The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened — even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order — to me does not make any sense.” Apple declined to comment. But officials inside the intelligence agencies, while letting the F.B.I. make the public protests, say they fear the company’s move is the first of several new technologies that are clearly designed to defeat not only the N.S.A., but also any court orders to turn over information to intelligence agencies. They liken Apple’s move to the early days of Swiss banking, when secret accounts were set up precisely to allow national laws to be evaded. “Terrorists will figure this out,” along with savvy criminals and paranoid dictators, one senior official predicted, and keep their data just on the iPhone 6. Another said, “It’s like taking out an ad that says, ‘Here’s how to avoid surveillance — even legal surveillance.’ ” The move raises a critical issue, the intelligence officials say: Who decides what kind of data the government can access? Until now, those decisions have largely been a matter for Congress, which passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act in 1994, requiring telecommunications companies to build into their systems an ability to carry out a wiretap order if presented with one. But despite intense debate about whether the law should be expanded to cover email and other content, it has not been updated, and it does not cover content contained in a smartphone. At Apple and Google, company executives say the United States government brought these changes on itself. The revelations by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden not only killed recent efforts to expand the law, but also made nations around the world suspicious that every piece of American hardware and software — from phones to servers made by Cisco Systems — have “back doors” for American intelligence and law enforcement. Surviving in the global marketplace — especially in places like China, Brazil and Germany — depends on convincing consumers that their data is secure. Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has emphasized that Apple’s core business is to sell devices to people. That distinguishes Apple from companies that make a profit from collecting and selling users’ personal data to advertisers, he has said. This month, just before releasing the iPhone 6 and iOS 8, Apple took steps to underscore its commitment to customer privacy, publishing a revised privacy policy on its website. The policy described the encryption method used in iOS 8 as so deep that Apple could no longer comply with government warrants asking for customer information to be extracted from devices. “Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode, and therefore cannot access this data,” the company said. Under the new encryption method, only entering the passcode can decrypt the device. (Hypothetically, Apple could create a tool to hack into the device, but legally the company is not required to do that.) Jonathan Zdziarski, a security researcher who has taught forensics courses to law enforcement agencies on collecting data from iPhones, said to think of the encryption system as a series of lockers. In the older version of iOS, there was always at least one locker that was unlocked, which Apple could enter to grab certain files like photos, call history and notes, in response to a legal warrant. “Now what they’re saying is, ‘We stopped using that locker,’ ” Mr. Zdziarski said. “We’re using a locker that actually has a combination on it, and if you don’t know the combination, then you can’t get inside. Unless you take a sledgehammer to the locker, there’s no way we get to the files.” The new security in iOS 8 protects information stored on the device itself, but not data stored on iCloud, Apple’s cloud service. So Apple will still be able to obtain some customer information stored on iCloud in response to government requests. Google has also started giving its users more control over their privacy. Phones using Google’s Android operating system have had encryption for three years. It is not the default setting, however, so to encrypt their phones, users have to go into their settings, turn it on, and wait an hour or more for the data to be scrambled. That is set to change with the next version of Android, set for release in October. It will have encryption as the default, “so you won’t even have to think about turning it on,” Google said in a statement. A Google spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Comey’s suggestions that stronger encryption could hinder law enforcement investigations. Mr. Zdziarski said that concerns about Apple’s new encryption to hinder law enforcement seemed overblown. He said there were still plenty of ways for the police to get customer data for investigations. In the example of a kidnapping victim, the police can still request information on call records and geolocation information from phone carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless. “Eliminating the iPhone as one source I don’t think is going to wreck a lot of cases,” he said. “There is such a mountain of other evidence from call logs, email logs, iCloud, Gmail logs. They’re tapping the whole Internet.” David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Brian X. Chen from San Francisco. Conor Dougherty contributed reporting from San Francisco.
After reading this article you might think the American police state is worse then the police state in Communist China. And of course based on the number of people in American prisons, the US police state is far worse then the police state in Communist China. Of course that is if you ignore the number of people executed by the communist government. Most people in American prisons are there for political crimes, victimless political drug war crimes. 51% of the people in American Federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. Two thirds or 66% of all Americans in prison are there for victimless drug war crimes. I am not sure what percent of the people in Communist Chinese prisons are there for political crimes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/after-china-gives-police-new-guns-spate-of-suspicious-shootings-follows/2014/09/26/7a150ab0-21c2-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?hpid=z1 After China gives police new guns, spate suspicious shootings have followed By William Wan September 26 at 9:15 PM LUOKAN VILLAGE, China — Invoking the threat of terrorism, Chinese police for the first time in years have started carrying guns and, with little training, using them. The fatal effects have rippled across the country, reaching even this tiny mountain village. China’s removal of a ban on police guns came in response to a gruesome attack on a train station several hundred miles from here, but it has given the police almost blanket authority to shoot whenever they see fit. More than a decade into America’s war on terror, China is launching its own. And experts worry that the flood of newly armed police — combined with poor training and the government’s take-no-prisoners attitude — could become as fearful a problem as the terrorism it is intended to combat. In the latest police-related violence, at least 40 people died Sunday in China’s restive Xinjiang region, according to state-run news media, which attributed the incident to terrorists and identified the deceased as “rioters” shot by police or killed in explosions. By contrast, the sleepy village of Luokan is about as remote and unlikely a place for terrorism as can be found. Yet when police fatally shot a man recently in the middle of a busy market here, they declared him a terrorist as well and abruptly closed the case. Police armed with guns, armored vehicles and suffocating security cordons at the Kunming train station have become the new reality. (William Wan/The Washington Post) “But everyone knows this is a lie,” said one villager in a hushed midnight interview inside his home. “There are no terrorists here,” said another beside him. “The only ones we’re afraid of are the police.” While police shootings are often viewed with suspicion worldwide — most notably in the death last month of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo. — there are few countries where local authorities have as much power as they do in China to suppress all evidence afterward. No one knows how many people die here from gun violence each year, much less from police shootings, because of government secrecy. Among the killings publicly reported in the past five months, since the policy change: A man with a history of mental illness shot by police in Sichuan province. An allegedly drunk officer in Luoping county who quarreled with one man and then killed another who was trying to intervene, according to reports quickly taken down by censors. News of such shootings is often deleted. Physical evidence is seized and rarely released, lawyers say. And it is often impossible to find witnesses willing to testify. Amid growing fears among the public, officers say they have trepidations of their own because many received their new guns with little to no training. At a recent training session in Shandong province, one detective said, several officers — not aware of the recoil force that comes with shooting — gripped their guns improperly and broke their thumbs. Some police officers have been issued licenses without visiting the firing range, because their departments are fudging paperwork, according to officers who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Most of us haven’t shot a gun in years,” said the detective. “A lot of cops are afraid to even hold one.” Luokan is an isolated village. With few jobs, most here get by on low-paying work in surrounding counties. The closest airport is in the equally impoverished city of Zhaotong. From there, it takes a six-hour drive through treacherous mountains followed by an hour-and-a-half hike up a single-lane dirt road to get here. The road has been heavily monitored of late by local police, ever since they killed Fang Jiushu on May 15. The shooting occurred in the town square in front of hundreds of witnesses on the busiest market day of the week, according to villagers. Yet few today are willing to even say Fang’s name in public. Several Luokan residents — approached by a foreign journalist who had snuck into their village under the cover of night a few weeks after the shooting — refused to talk. Fang’s friends and relatives were similarly reluctant, believing their phones to be tapped and their houses watched by informants. Since Fang’s death, they said, government officials have visited many homes, warning all not to talk to outsiders. But over the course of a night in secret interviews inside their homes, more than a dozen villagers gave their account of the shooting. And their testimonies, coupled with cellphone pictures they provided of the shooting, contradict many aspects of the government account. Those who knew Fang, 45, scoffed at the police characterization of the lifelong villager and father of two as a “terrorist.” Before the March 1 attack on the Kunming train station that sparked China’s new guns, they said, the word was seldom heard in their village. Fang — who earned a living hauling goods in his truck — rarely got into fights, said his aunt Yang Daxiu, 68, but he did have a temper. “If he felt wronged, he was never shy about standing up for himself,” she said. Fang Jiushu’s wife and two children appeared along with a large crowd of villagers gathered outside the government office a few hours after he was shot and killed. (William Wan/The Washington Post) Last year, a state-owned power company had seized part of Fang’s property to build a transmission tower, she and others said. Such land disputes are often the source of government corruption in China and have ignited much anger among rural residents. For months, Fang had complained, to no avail. After he protested in front of the village’s government offices, local leaders threw him in jail for several days, relatives said. On the day he was shot, Fang had told a friend, “What I want is justice.” So that morning, Fang covered his truck with angry handwritten banners and parked it in front of the same government offices, blocking all traffic, according to authorities and witnesses. For five hours he negotiated with local leaders over compensation for his land. At 2 p.m., armed officers suddenly arrived outside the building, according to an account corroborated by more than a dozen witnesses. Plainclothes police surrounded Fang’s truck, joined by several uniformed SWAT officers, who had been summoned from a large county police department 30 minutes away. Fang came out of the government building, having apparently agreed to take down his banners. But while he was removing them, officers put Fang’s brother in handcuffs. Seeing that, Fang scrambled to get in his truck. When officers tried to stop Fang, he showed them a knife inside the truck, according to police. A few witnesses, who knew Fang and saw the knife, said he often kept it in his truck on long hauls as insurance against bandits. The shooting began once Fang closed the door and started the engine, witnesses said — at least 11 shots total, in quick succession. It was the first time in decades, residents said, that the crack of gunfire rang out in their village. Since the discovery of gunpowder more than 1,000 years ago, Chinese authorities have had a complicated history with weapons. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” said China’s Communist founder, Mao Zedong. Perhaps for that reason, China has long had one of the world’s strictest gun policies. Possession of firearms is forbidden to nearly everyone except the party-controlled military. Since 2003, most police have been barred from carrying guns – except for special SWAT personnel and teams on dangerous operations such as the arrest of armed gangs. Police take part in an anti-terrorism exercise in Shanghai. (Reuters via China Stringer Network) Then came the attack in Kunming by knife-wielding Muslim extremists, who tore through the train station killing 29 and injuring more than 130, according to the government. What shocked many wasn’t just the attack’s brutality but its location — deep in the south, far from China’s usual pockets of unrest in western Xinjiang and Tibet. Exactly what happened inside the train station isn’t clear; the government immediately banned all domestic reports, except for a few details from the state-run news agency. But according to witnesses and experts who work closely with Kunming police, the initial response from rank-and-file officers was alarmingly weak. One police expert in Kunming said the lead officer on the scene — one of the only ones with a gun — quickly ran out of bullets. Others said the assailants’ rampage continued unabated for as long as 40 minutes, until the arrival of special SWAT police who fatally shot several attackers. China began arming police soon after. In Shanghai, more than 1,000 patrol officers began carrying revolvers; in Guangzhou, more than 4,000. In Beijing, authorities stationed newly armed police at major subway stations and doubled the ammunition carried by SWAT teams. Along with the guns, Chinese leaders issued this new rule: When dealing with those deemed to be terrorists, officers should shoot instantly, without warning or hesitation. The problem with the new order is that authorities can use it to justify any shooting, said Peking University law professor Zhang Qianfan. “There’s no need for this extra rule,” Zhang said. “Police with guns should handle terrorists the same way they do any kind of violent attacker.” In interviews, half a dozen current and retired officers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, criticized the government for thrusting police into life-and-death decisions that they are ill-prepared to make. Giving guns to woefully untrained officers is useless and reckless, said one gun instructor for the Beijing police. “It would probably be much safer for everyone if they were given knives or some other weapon.” Within three hours of Fang’s death in Luokan village, police had cleared the officers of wrongdoing and issued a statement on the incident. The police shot Fang, the brief statement said, to prevent him from plowing into villagers with his truck. But witnesses said that no bystanders appeared to be in immediate danger and that even after police started shooting, the truck was only inching along. “It was moving slower than a person walks,” said one village elder. Local police declined to answer questions about the incident. Two police representatives — upon hearing Fang’s name in separate calls — immediately claimed the phone signal had grown weak and hung up. Before also hanging up, a third police representative said briefly that even if Fang wasn’t a terrorist, he clearly intended to hurt others. In their brief May 15 statement, authorities also said three villagers were injured by Fang. But one of them, tracked down weeks later, said he received his minor injuries only after police shot Fang and caused him to lose control of the truck, which slid into his motorcycle. According to that man — Wang Ancai, 45 — a government official visited him while he was in the hospital and offered him $160 — a year’s wages for many villagers — as “compensation for being injured by a terrorist.” “I don’t think it was an act of terrorism,” Wang said, but he took the money without question. After Fang’s death, his wife, along with their 9-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter, moved back to her home village, abandoning the property he died trying to preserve. Recently, his relatives handed over all records and testimony from the shooting to a woman named Yu Jiaci, who claimed to represent a nonprofit organization wanting to help. But there are signs that Yu may have been sent by authorities in their latest effort to acquire all lingering evidence of the shooting. Online records show the nonprofit was formed just days after the shooting. And when contacted by a foreign newspaper, Yu sent a flurry of threatening texts. Similarly, authorities have managed to suppress the biggest piece of evidence of all: Fang’s body. On the day he died, after the shooting stopped, Fang fell out of the truck into a bloody heap on the ground. Witnesses said it was hard to tell whether he was already dead because officers immediately picked up his limp body, slapped on handcuffs and stuffed him into the back of a police car. To this day, no one, including his family, has seen him again. Xu Jing contributed to this report.
The crooks that run the Photo Radar Theft Company in Scottsdale are moving to Mesa Riverview. Photo radar doesn't have a thing to do with traffic safety and is mostly a scheme by governments to raise money by shaking down motorists with their automated photo radar bandits. For useless information I discovered what looks like a secret unmarked site that American Traffic Solutions uses as office space in Tempe. It's on Industrial Park Avenue, just north of Alemda in Tempe. Industrial Park Avenue is also called Beck Street north of Broadway. The American Traffic Solutions is in an unmarked, unsigned office building just north of Gorilla Industrial Coatings. I took a bunch of photos of the place and will post them when I get off my butt and stop being so lazy. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/09/23/mesa-riverview-lands-corporate-hq-jobs/16109237/ Mesa Riverview area lands corporate HQ, 600 jobs Parker Leavitt, The Republic | azcentral.com 1:46 p.m. MST September 23, 2014 Tempe-based photo-radar provider American Traffic Solutions will move its corporate headquarters and 600 jobs to a new office building planned at Mesa's Riverview complex by fall 2015, the company announced Tuesday. Two Valley-based developers, Harvard Investments and Lincoln Property Co., are building the 250,000-square-foot Waypoint office complex in northwest Mesa near Alma School Road and Bass Pro Drive and are expected to break ground in January 2015. Mesa's sprawling Riverview mixed-use center is home to Bass Pro Shops, Toby Keith's I Love This Bar & Grill, hotels, car dealerships and a movie theater. The city recently built a new spring-training complex for the Chicago Cubs and an elaborate public park directly west of Riverview. American Traffic Solutions plans to occupy the smaller of two buildings in the Waypoint complex, where it will be the sole tenant of about 108,000 square-feet. The company will move 600 employees from Tempe and Scottsdale into the space and plans to add as many as 170 more employees there by 2017. The new facility will allow ATS to bring its fleet services and government solutions units under one roof, company CEO James Tuton said in a written statement. ATS first implemented a speed-camera program in Paradise Valley in 1987 and rolled out red-light cameras a decade later. Its municipal customers include New York City, Chicago, Seattle and Washington, D.C. The company also provides an automated electronic toll payment service for rental car companies and this year acquired Texas-based Rent A Toll, which provides a similar service. "This is exactly the type of development we want in Mesa," Mayor John Giles said in a written statement. "High quality jobs, next to two freeways and lots of restaurants and shopping make Riverview an ideal location for employment centers like Waypoint. We hope to keep the momentum moving and see more well-planned developments like this throughout Mesa." Waypoint's second building includes about 150,000 square-feet and is still available for a single tenant or multiple users. In a interview with The Republic in June, Harvard Investments President Craig Krumwiede cited the area's retail, dining and entertainment in describing its appeal for the office project. He also mentioned Riverview's proximity to some of the state's busiest transportation corridors, the loops 101 and 202. Development partners Craig and David Krumwiede are also brothers, and Waypoint is their second joint project in the Valley and third nationally.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/09/26/southern-scottsdale-nicknames-more-ideas/16295945/ More ideas for southern Scottsdale nicknames Larry Byrne 5:54 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 Those concerned with the branding of south downtown Scottsdale to "SoDo" (rhymes with Go-Go) need to consider other options that more accurately reflect the true nature of the area and what they are trying to convey. Not North Scottsdale — No-No. What you have if you live there — No-Do. The up-and-down nature of the economy there — Yo-Yo. A Christmas destination — Ho-Ho. The young and hot crowd — Yo-Ho. A greater police presence in the area — Mo-Po. High-rise residential area — Hi-Ho. Trendy fashion destination — Fo-Do. Higher cost of living — Mo-Mo. Thoughts of the old-timers in the area — Hell no. People who think up these things — Do-Do. —Larry Byrne, Scottsdale
Pot smokers want to boot U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema???? The folks that want to legalize marijuana certainly are not throwing in the towel in their attempt to boot Kyrsten Sinema out of office. U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema tried to make medical marijuana illegal when she was a member of the Arizona Legislator by attempting to slap a 300% tax on it. That would have been a $900 an ounce tax on medical marijuana based on the current price of about $300 an ounce at Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries. The tax would have raised the cost of medical marijuana to $1,200 an ounce. Needless to says U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is rather well hated by the folks that want to legalized the victimless crime of using marijuana. http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2014/09/26/sinema-gop-throws-in-towel/16290937/ GOP throws in the towel against Sinema Robert Robb, columnist | azcentral.com 4:06 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 The national GOP and conservative groups seem to have thrown in the towel on Wendy Rogers' challenge to Kyrsten Sinema. That's in part understandable. Although Republicans have a registration advantage over Democrats, the district has a center-left voting record. Obama won the district over Romney. Even more telling, Goddard took it over Brewer in 2010. Still, it's theoretically a swing district and Rogers is a plausible candidate. If Republicans are going to win the seat, an off-presidential year with an apparent national GOP trend would be the time. Spending some early money and seeing if anything gained traction would have seemed worth the effort. The towel may have been tossed prematurely. Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com. Follow him on Twitter at @RJRobb.
If you are a racist sadist who enjoys beating up Mexicans the Border Patrol has a job for you. For the rest of us there are jobs in the private sector. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/09/26/border-patrol-agent-charged-assault-teen-migrant/16292479/ Border Patrol agent charged in assault of teen migrant Bob Ortega, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:57 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 A Border Patrol agent from Arizona has been accused of punching a teenage boy in the stomach after catching him with a cellphone at a detention facility where he was being held. The agent was booked Thursday on charges of aggravated assault on a minor for hitting the 15-year-old boy from Mexico, who was in custody at the Nogales Border Patrol station. A security-camera video of the Jan. 30 incident shows that Agent Aldo Francisco Arteaga entered the boy's holding cell, took away his phone, which detainees are prohibited from having, and punched the boy in the stomach, according to Santa Cruz County Attorney George Silva. Customs and Border Protection referred the case to Silva's office for prosecution after an investigation by the CBP's Office of Internal Affairs. By turning over the Border Patrol agent for prosecution in an assault case, the CBP may be signaling a tougher stance on abuse allegations against agents. Outside watchdogs say they remain skeptical. Law-enforcement agencies vary widely on when they refer assault allegations against officers to prosecutors. It has not been a common practice at the CBP. The agency has been under tremendous pressure this past year for failing to hold agents accountable and for being secretive about how it handles complaints against agents and cases in which agents use deadly force. Since spring, CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske has been promising measures to make the agency more transparent and its agents more accountable to the public. Human-rights groups remain wary about whether this new prosecution represents an isolated instance or signals a broader change at the CBP. The fact this incident was caught on tape makes it difficult to deny it happened. James Duff Lyall, ACLU attorney "It's too early to assess whether this is real progress," said Guillermo Cantor, a senior policy analyst at the American Immigration Council. Cantor was one of the authors of a May report by the council that looked at 809 complaints against agents filed from 2009 to 2012. The report said that in 97 percent of the cases in which the agency issued a formal decision, it took no action against its agents. "I'm a little skeptical," Cantor said Friday about the prosecution. "I'd need to see more, to see if this is just one case ... or a new pattern in how they approach these cases and publicize their actions." Late Thursday, the CBP put out a press release announcing that an agent, whom it didn't identify, had surrendered himself to the Santa Cruz County sheriff to be booked. In the past, when agents were accused of wrongdoing, the CBP generally made a statement only in response to a specific query from a reporter — meaning the news had to come from somewhere else first. The CBP's Tucson Sector spokesman, Vic Brabble, confirmed Friday that the order to put out a press release in this assault case came at the specific direction of the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. According to the CBP, a Border Patrol supervisor at the Nogales station reported that Arteaga, a nine-year veteran, had committed an assault. After investigating, the Office of Internal Affairs turned over its findings and the videotape of the incident to Santa Cruz prosecutors. "It may be encouraging that Internal Affairs finally appears to be doing its job," said James Duff Lyall, an attorney in the Tucson office of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has filed several lawsuits against the CBP over alleged abuses by agents and officers. "But the scale of the problem is so vast that a single incident does not a reform make," Lyall said. "These abuses most frequently happen when no one is looking and the agent is not caught on camera. The agency is particularly quick to ignore complaints or to discount them when they're not on camera. And we've seen that this is particularly true in the case of children. "The fact this incident was caught on tape makes it difficult to deny it happened." Arteaga, who could not be reached for comment Friday, was released on his own recognizance after being photographed and fingerprinted Thursday, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said. Arteaga is scheduled to make his initial court appearance Tuesday, prosecutor Liliana Ortega said. Ortega would not say whether the teen, who is considered a material witness in the case, is in the United States or Mexico, but she said he is expected to testify. Earlier this month, Kerlikowske conceded that the agency has not investigated itself well in the past. Newly appointed Internal Affairs chief Mark Morgan said that no agent or officer has been disciplined internally in any use-of-force death since 2004. Among other changes meant to improve accountability, both Morgan and Kerlikowske said Internal Affairs investigators were being given lead authority to conduct criminal investigations of wrongdoing by agents or officers. They also said they were creating an interagency review board that will examine every use-of-force incident by agents. That board will include representatives from the CBP's Internal Affairs Office, the Border Patrol and other divisions, Homeland Security's civil-rights and inspector general's offices, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. ON THE BEAT Bob Ortega is a senior reporter for The Arizona Republic specializing in coverage of the U.S.-Mexican border. Ortega received the 2014 Virg Hill Award as journalist of the year in Arizona. How to reach him bob.ortega@arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-8926 Twitter: @bob_ortega
US Forest Service uses taxes and permits to flush First Amendment down the toilet. This is why I said that if we are going to legalize marijuana we must make it illegal for the government to tax it. If marijuana is legalized one way for the politicians to do an end run around an initiative to legalize marijuana would be to pass draconian taxes on marijuana that make it illegal. U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema tried to make medical marijuana illegal when she was a member of the Arizona Legislator by attempting to slap a 300% tax on it. That would have been a $900 an ounce tax on medical marijuana based on the current price of about $300 an ounce at Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries. The tax would have raised the cost of medical marijuana to $1,200 an ounce. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/27/forest-service-photo-rule-limit-news-media/16319265/ Forest Service photo rule could limit news media Brenna Goth, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:49 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 A vaguely worded U.S. Forest Service proposal to tighten restrictions on commercial photography and video in millions of acres of designated wilderness areas has raised concerns that journalists will be hampered from informing the public about potential wrongdoing. The rules, which have been in place as a temporary measure but are undergoing review to be finalized, have drawn an outcry from First Amendment defenders, especially in Western states with large areas of land protected by the Wilderness Act. The act limits recreational and commercial activities allowed on other public lands. First Amendment defenders are concerned that under the wording of the proposed rules, journalists could be treated the same as commercial photographers and videographers and required to apply for permits subject to government approval. That could limit journalists' ability to investigate abuses or report other stories seen as unfavorable. Adding to the confusion were conflicting statements about the rules this week by U.S. Forest Service officials. They first told news outlets that journalists would be required to pay up to $1,500 for the permits or face fines of up to $1,000, except when covering breaking news such as wildfires. The agency then backtracked and issued a statement saying the rules do not apply to journalists. "They're getting a lot of well-deserved grief," said Daniel Barr, a lawyer for the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona. In the statement, the Forest Service clarified that the policy does not apply to "news gathering or activities" and will not affect visitors on recreational trips. As a result of the confusion, the Forest Service has extended the comment period for the proposal from Nov. 3 to Dec. 3. Officials did not respond to a request for comment. In the statement, the Forest Service said the policy is intended only to protect wilderness areas when commercial enterprises are using models, actors or props, going where the public normally can't or increasing administrative costs. Permits in these instances could cost from $30 a day for a small project to $800 for a large production. The policy doesn't expressly exclude media, and interpretation could be up to the discretion of forestry officials, Barr said. "They can say what the intent is all they want, but it's not in the rule," he said. The proposed rule changes were prompted by an increase in permit requests and are intended to provide clearer guidance for Forest Service officials. The policy says permits for still photography and commercial video will be issued based on a variety of factors, including whether the project intends to promote "the use and enjoyment of wilderness or its ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value." Arizona has more than 4.5 million acres of wilderness managed by various federal agencies, ranking behind only Alaska, California and Idaho, according to Wilderness.net, a website managed by the University of Montana. The Forest Service manages more than 40 wilderness areas in the state, including the Superstition Wilderness Area and the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area. Garrett Bennett, owner of CenterFocus Experiences in Sedona, said he has Forest Service permits to lead excursions into such places as the Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area. While in wilderness areas, he takes photos for promotional purposes and works with television programs that apply for commercial permits to film. For him, the new rules still need more clarity. "(The Forest Service) will put out something in D.C. and you call someone locally and get their interpretation," Bennett said. "There can be deviation." http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/2014/09/26/forest-service-media-doesnt-need-permit/16257423/ Forest Service says media doesn't need permit AP 7:02 a.m. MST September 26, 2014 SEATTLE — Faced with increasing criticism of a proposal that would restrict media filming in wilderness areas, the head of the U.S. Forest Service said late Thursday that the rule is not intended to apply to news-gathering activities. The rule would apply to commercial filming, like a movie production, but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation's wilderness areas, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in a phone interview Thursday. "The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment," he said, adding: "It does not infringe in any way on First Amendment rights. It does not apply to news-gathering activities, and that includes any part of news." Forest Service officials had said earlier in the week that news organizations, except in breaking news situations, would be required to obtain a permit and follow a number of criteria if they wanted to film in designated wilderness areas. At least two public TV stations, in Idaho and Oregon, said they have been asked to obtain a permit before filming their programs in wilderness areas. Press advocates criticized the proposed rules as a violation of the First Amendment, saying it raises concerns about press freedom. "I understand what he's saying the intent is, but the language doesn't not reflect that intent," Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said Thursday in response to Tidwell's comments. "If they're serious about it, they need to craft unambiguous language that exempts news-gathering if that's their alleged intent, so there's no question that someone out on a news story wouldn't have a ranger or other employee saying 'You need a permit'," Osterreicher said. Osterreicher noted that the proposal clearly refers to permits for still photography, but Tidwell said Thursday that "the intent is not for it to apply to still photography." When this discrepancy was raised to him, Tidwell said: "This is an example of where we need to clarify." Tidwell said the agency wants feedback to help make sure the rules are clear and consistent. Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release. Tidwell acknowledged that fees are applied differently by the agency across the country. He said the goal is to have a consistent approach to permitting commercial filming activities. Commercial-filming permits currently run anywhere from $30 a day for up to three people to as much as $800 per day for production involving dozens of people. A separate proposal would charge as much as $1,500 for the bigger film productions involving dozens of people on federal lands. The plan "is a good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America's wild places" and has been in place for more than four years, Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said in a statement earlier Thursday. Tidwell, whose agency manages nearly 190 million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands, including 439 wilderness areas, said he welcomed feedback from the public at meetings to help craft clearer rules. The comment period has been extended through Dec. 3. Under the rules, permit applications for commercial filming would be evaluated based on several criteria, including whether it spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness.
Man framed by police, spends 10 years in prison. Gets a lousy a lousy $5.70 for each hour spent in prison. Sure when you look at the $500,000 award it sounds like a lot of money. That's $50,000 for each year he spent in prison. But if you divide that by 365 days and 24 hours it's a lousy $5.70 for each hour this poor guy spent in prison. Hell, if you look at the Federal minimum wage laws and assume the guy was working the whole time, that lousy $5.70 an hour doesn't even include the time and a half over time the Feds require businesses to pay people. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/26/wrongfully-imprisoned-man-awarded-nearly-500000/16292897/ Wrongfully imprisoned man awarded nearly $500,000 Associated Press 6:22 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 SEATTLE — A Seattle man who was wrongfully imprisoned for a decade was compensated with nearly $500,000 on Friday. King County Superior Court Judge Laura Middaugh signed the order awarding the money to Brandon Redtailhawk Olebar, closing another chapter of his exoneration. Olebar, 31, was imprisoned after a group of people broke into the home of his sister's boyfriend in 2003, pistol-whipped the man and left him unconscious. The victim said as many as eight attackers beat him for more than 10 minutes, and he recognized Olebar's sister as one of them. He told police the attackers had "feather" facial tattoos. The victim later identified a photo of Olebar. Despite the fact that he did not have a facial tattoo and had an alibi, Olebar was charged with burglary and robbery. His conviction was based solely on witness testimony. "The thought of spending 10 years in prison, 10 years in prison at a very young age, for a crime you didn't commit is unfathomable," said Todd Maybrown, the attorney representing Olebar in court Friday. "For many people, they would be broken. But for Mr. Olebar, he's the kindest, most peaceful person you can imagine." Olebar spent 3,626 days — virtually all of his 20s — in prison. "For me, it's not letting the system control my emotions," he said after the hearing. "With that in mind, I just needed to move on with my life. I couldn't be bitter. I can't be." Olebar's compensation of $496,712 stems from a new law approved last year that gives wrongfully imprisoned people $50,000 per year spent behind bars. His share is tax-free. "The state can never truly make up for the suffering they experience, but hopefully this compensation can help Brandon and his family, and others, move forward," said Rep. Tina Orwall, D-Des Moines, the law's sponsor. "I'm so proud." Before the measure was approved, lawsuits were the only option for people seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment. But they were required to sue on some basis other than the fact that they were wrongfully convicted, such as police or prosecutorial misconduct. Olebar's exoneration began with his wife approaching the Innocence Project Northwest, which is based at the University of Washington Law School. Two students from the project pulled together evidence that Olebar was not among the people who broke into the home of his sister's boyfriend and beat him unconscious. The students, Nikki Carsley and Kathleen Kline, tracked down and interviewed three of the assailants, who signed sworn statements admitting their involvement and denying that Olebar was present during the attack. The students and attorneys working with the Innocence Project approached the King County prosecutor's office, which then reviewed their evidence and moved to vacate Olebar's conviction. He was released in December. Olebar is a member of the Lummi tribe, said Lara Zarowsky, policy director for the Innocence Project Northwest. The small crowd applauded as Friday's hearing ended. Olebar was accompanied by his wife, Mely, and his new baby girl, Creation Redmoonhawk Olebar. "We've wanted a family for so long," Mely Olebar said. "We're finally starting our family."
Libertarian??? Barry Hess wants the government to build a monorail????? Libertarian??? Barry Hess wants the government to build an aqueduct????? "Hess suggested he could build a monorail from Flagstaff to Tucson and massive new aqueducts to bring more water into the state" What part of "that's the job of the private sector" doesn't Barry Hess understand??? http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/09/19/duval-ducey-show-sharp-differences-in-tucson-debate-a-557454.html#.VCbKbXY0_Fw DuVal, Ducey show sharp differences in Tucson debate By Joe Ferguson, The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson McClatchy-Tribune Information Services Sept. 19--Democrat candidate for governor Fred DuVal clashed with his Republican rival, Doug Ducey, on Thursday night on issues ranging from driver's licenses for illegal immigrants to education and taxes. But it might have been Libertarian Party candidate Barry Hess who stole the show at times. While sometimes short on specifics, Hess suggested he could build a monorail from Flagstaff to Tucson and massive new aqueducts to bring more water into the state and that adults might find a cheap alternative to the state's three universities by taking free classes online at some of the nations' top schools including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. More than 400 people attended the debate between the three gubernatorial candidates at the Tucson Jewish Community Center on East River Road. The candidates answered roughly a dozen questions coming from the sponsors of the event as well as from the audience. On issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: --Ducey said he'd continue to uphold Gov. Jan Brewer's executive order denying driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. He said one of his first priorities when elected would be securing the border. "Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws," Ducey told the audience. --DuVal said he'd repeal the executive order. "Let's stop demonizing the dreamers and let everyone succeed," DuVal told the crowd. --Hess said he wants to issue licenses for everyone, arguing at the very least more people would have insurance. On how to help small businesses: --Ducey told the crowd that small businesses are where the Arizona economy is growing. He said he will work to recruit businesses fleeing California and Illinois, noting the state is "already Chicago's favorite suburb." The state treasurer repeated his desire to eliminate income taxes but cautioned it could take years for the goal to be realized. Free Report: How to Earn $2k a Week --DuVal tied the state's economic recovery to education, saying the state has to put more money back into its schools. "We are losing too many jobs," DuVal said, noting there is "unquestionable correlation to cuts to education" and Arizona's economy. "We've got to stop these cuts." --Hess said to help the business community, he wants to eliminate income and personal taxes and slash regulations that are hurting businesses. All three candidates were asked about increasing funding for education: --Ducey said the state spends roughly $9 billion dollars to educate about 1 million children, and that he values more what kind of education is being offered in classrooms. He pledged to adopt strategies from three of the top schools in the entire country -- found here in Arizona -- and implement them statewide. "Spending is not the measure of success," Ducey said, noting the high amount money being spent in Washington, D.C., and Detroit inner city schools without positive results. --DuVal said public education was his No. 1 priority, discussing a plan to waive student loans for top students who agree to teach in Arizona schools for a certain number of years. DuVal also pledged to stop "devastating cuts" to Arizona schools. --Hess said he wanted to re-examine education in Arizona schools but said more funding wasn't the key to success. Asked about restoring cuts to child-care subsidies, temporary aid to needy families and reproductive health: --Ducey said the state can do much better to help struggling families, but the best way is increasing opportunities in the private marketplace for better-paying jobs. He also pledged to aggressively go after deadbeat dads, saying he will track down an estimated $1.7 billion in unpaid child care with wage garnishments. "If you're old enough to father a child, you're old enough to have your paycheck garnished for child support," he said. --DuVal agreed with Ducey on finding a way to get parents to pay their child care, noting he worked on a program while serving in the Clinton administration but said improving education is most important to helping Arizona's poorest families. He added the state needed to stop its war on women and the gay community, as well as on minorities, including so-called dreamers. There are No Baby Steps in Sales. --Hess said the state can't fix poverty, no matter how many laws are passed. "We're running for governor. We're not running for God," Hess said. By the end of the night, both the DuVal and Ducey campaigns sent out press releases claiming they won the debate before the Tucson crowd. Contact reporter Joe Ferguson at jferguson@tucson.com or 573-4346. Follow him on Twitter @JoeFerguson. ___ (c)2014 The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, Ariz.) Visit The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, Ariz.) at www.azstarnet.com Distributed by MCT Information Services Wordcount: 759
Cracking crime: DPS adopts rapid DNA testing Did you know that when the cops started taking the fingerprints of everybody they arrested many legal scholars said that it was unconstitutional and a violation of the 5th Amendment? Sadly the Supreme Court didn't agree with them. Now many legal scholars also say that when the cops force everybody they arrest to give a DNA sample that it is also unconstitutional and violated the 5th Amendment. I agree with them, but sadly I suspect the Supreme Court will rule that the 5th Amendment is null and void when it comes to fighting crime. Of course that's why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment. This article didn't mention it but DNA testing has a good side. DNA tests have released 300+ people from death row that the cops framed for murder. I think that number has pass 400. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/09/26/cracking-crimein-minutes/16299325/ Cracking crime: DPS adopts rapid DNA testing Cracking crime in 90 minutes Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:08 p.m. MST September 26, 2014 The intruder took nothing from the home he broke into but left plenty behind. On July 11, a 28-year-old Goodyear woman stepped out of the shower to find a stranger in her bedroom. The man had climbed in through a living-room window and appeared to be in a trance, she would later tell police — he stood staring at her, shorts partially pulled down as he exposed and fondled himself. The woman backed up as the man walked toward her, masturbating. She screamed for him to get out. Fearing a sexual assault, the woman attacked, striking the man in the chest and groin. He fled out the back door. Police had their work cut out for them by the time they arrived. Fingerprints stained the windowsill, and the man's seminal fluid remained unwashed from the woman's hand. After weeks of dead ends, it would ultimately take fewer than two hours to break the case: A Goodyear police detective learned of a new rapid DNA-testing instrument at the Department of Public Safety crime lab, where he brought two swabs of evidence to be run against 350,000 Arizona profiles. It produced a hit. Christian Morgan, 21, who lived less than a quarter of a mile from the woman's home, was booked on suspicion of voyeurism and indecent exposure. Morgan had prior juvenile convictions and fit the description of a man involved in similar, pending cases, said Goodyear Detective Jeff Streeter. The woman confirmed the machine's results by picking Morgan out of a photo lineup. Morgan is awaiting trial. The swift timeline is a familiar template for prime-time dramas and increasingly a reality for Arizona investigators. Instead of waiting weeks or months for the state crime lab, new, automated machines allow officers to test DNA evidence in 90 minutes — a hustle that police say is a boon for investigative leads and, ultimately, public safety. "It's going to change the face of law enforcement, at least in terms of how DNA technology is leveraged," said Chris Asplen, executive director of the Global Alliance for Rapid DNA Testing. Although technicians at the Pentagon and the Department of Justice have been testing these devices, experts say it's state and local police that are forging the frontier. State regulations might allow more latitude in the types of DNA samples they can process, however, federal guidelines limit what can be entered into CODIS, or Combined DNA Index System, the national crime database. As such, the technology is buoyed by localized DNA databases. While technological advancements march forward, privacy experts are raising concerns about the implications of under-regulated DNA-collection guidelines, sprawling databases and the potential for civil-liberty abuses. • • • PNI abrk DPS DNA training 2 Officer Carrick Cook of Arizona Department of Public Safety, puts mock evidence through a machine that analyzes DNA profiles, during a training for police officers and detectives from throughout Arizona on how they can test DNA themselves very quickly and get results back quickly, at DPS headquarters in Phoenix on Wednesday, September 17, 2014. The training lead by DPS used mock scenarios and mock evidence.(Photo: David Wallace, David Wallace/The Republic) Last week, about 20 officers from Phoenix, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Tucson and other agencies gathered in an unassuming classroom at DPS' Phoenix headquarters. After 36 hours of training, they became certified to swab, clip and run their investigations' own DNA samples without the crime technician serving as a middleman. "If there is blood on an item — if you can cut it, cut it out. If you can swab it, swab it," DNA technician and trainer Kathy Press told her students. "We've had entire chunks of concrete come in." Press produced two boxes and split the room into two teams of students to pick the items inside. A handgun, machete, a hunting knife, various T-shirts and Q-tips were doled out. Arizona's DPS is one of only a handful of agencies in the country to have purchased the machines. And DPS is perhaps the only agency to date that has trained field investigators on how to use the equipment. Outfitted in surgical gloves and masks, officers swabbed the items for blood and semen and placed the evidence in a five-slot cartridge. The cartridge then slides into a machine with roughly the same dimensions as an office copy machine. The Rapid Hit 200 quickly analyzes the DNA, but the results don't come cheaply. Each of DPS' three machines cost $250,000. Plus, it costs $1,700 to $1,800 each time the start button is pushed. The instrument can analyze up to five samples at a time. As technology progresses, these costs are expected to diminish. But any cost-benefit analysis must include investigative man-hours, said DPS Crime Lab Superintendent Vince Figarelli. "What time would you save if you can identify somebody with DNA within two hours?" he said. The true value of the technology lies in early apprehension, Figarelli said, particularly for dangerous offenders. Studies have shown that the average perpetrator will continue committing crimes or escalate, he said. "So if you apprehend them early, you have essentially prevented crimes," he said. The technology is especially amenable to property crimes, whose priority status often falls behind violent-crime cases on the state crime lab's waiting list. The machine currently only tests single-source DNA — evidence from one person — which is often found at property crime scenes. Figarelli said the machine and the additional trained personnel will help cut into the state backlog of more than 3,400 cases waiting to be tested, the vast majority of which are property crimes. Rapid DNA testing is suitable for about 40 percent of those cases. Currently, rapid DNA testing is used primarily for two law-enforcement functions: matching or ruling out a known suspect and running the DNA from a crime scene against the local database. In these scenarios, the system will yield the same results as a traditional lab, with the same impressive billions-to-1 odds that juries expect. The machine has its limitations, both legal and technological, however. The results cannot yet stand alone in a courtroom and must be cross-referenced with a traditional lab's results. And unlike other equipment that can extract multiple profiles from one sample, the DNA evidence to run through the rapid device must come from a single source, meaning that it may not yet be suitable for many sex-assault or homicide cases. It also cannot yet analyze profiles against that of a suspect's family member. Such links have broken major cases, such as Kansas' "BTK" killer Dennis Rader, who was identified after nearly two decades when his daughter's pap smear was compared to the killer's DNA from crime scenes. While rapid DNA's limitations will likely dissolve as the technology becomes more advanced, Asplen says there is value in stately progression. "One of the reasons that we've been so successful with DNA in the U.S. is we've moved steadily forward but not too quickly forward," he said. "We have to approach rapid DNA technology in a way that ensures its reliability and that it continues to maintain its space as the gold standard of forensic technology." • • • PNI abrk DPS DNA training 3 Samples of mock evidence are laid out during the training session. The rapid-testing technology isn’t cheap. In addition to the $250,000 cost of a machine, each test can cost $1,700 to $1,800. (Photo: David Wallace, David Wallace/The Republic) The reliance on forensic DNA evidence has exploded since 1987, when Tommie Lee Andrews became the first U.S. citizen to be convicted at least partially on the basis of such evidence. In 1994, the DNA Identification Act authorized CODIS and NDIS — National DNA Index System — that catalog criminal DNA profiles on a national scale. Stringent federal guidelines dictate what type of DNA profiles can be entered into CODIS — the profiles must be approved by an FBI-accredited lab — but state laws are typically more lenient or silent on the issue. Accordingly, throughout the past few years many states and municipalities have begun compiling their own databases governed by their own rules, a trend that Asplen said is arguably more invaluable for local crime solving. Arizona investigators employ a database called SmallPond. "Every now and then you hear about a case you solve across the country, but local databases are also really important in that 95 percent of crime is local," he said. "Burglars, for example, they don't go from state to state, they go from house to house, from neighborhood to neighborhood." Arizona is among at least 28 states that allow DNA collection upon some arrests, a practice that is expected to expand since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year upheld the law. The case, King vs. Maryland, pitted privacy against public safety, with a 5-4 majority decision ultimately concluding that taking and analyzing a suspect's cheek swab was akin to fingerprinting, "a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Asplen said federal, rather than local, DNA regulations need to evolve. Language needs to be amended that allows CODIS to link to a booking station, where many of the rapid DNA devices will be located, he said, instead of current CODIS regulations that permit testing only from an accredited lab. "Quite frankly, if we can get somebody who's arrested, we should be able to treat that like every other piece of evidence," he said. "Right now, (local databases) are much more efficient and denser. They are really able to solve a lot more crimes quickly." While few would discount the significance DNA has played in forensic science — both for netting guilty criminals and exonerating the innocent — civil liberties and privacy experts are raising concerns about the implications of quick, cheap DNA matching and its limitless storage. In his dissent, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that although King vs. Maryland would have a beneficial effect on crime solving, so would taking DNA samples from anyone who flew on an airplane, applied for a driver's license or attended a public school. "But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection," he wrote. "I therefore dissent, and hope that today's incursion upon the Fourth Amendment ... will some day be repudiated." Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, who studies privacy, technology and civil liberties, worries that the increasing use of DNA profiles might lead to more pretextual arrests and warrantless searches. "If your DNA is run the same way your license is run, you can imagine a much more unsettling system, where people are trackable by every cell they set, everywhere they go," he said. Phoenix defense attorney Russ Richelsoph said additional safeguards should be put in place to prevent DNA usage to be allowed to slip outside the scope of criminal justice. "We don't want the data to be sold to private companies for marketing ... or ... commercial purposes," he said. "We want ... to limit the purpose of this database solely for law-enforcement identification." Q&A Jeff Heimburger, vice president of marketing at IntegenX, a company producing rapid-DNA technology, explained some of the issues surrounding the use of these devices. Question: What is the difference between rapid DNA and traditional testing devices? A:The traditional approach involves multiple instruments — typically seven to eight different instruments — and a highly skilled technician. It takes quite a long time to go through that process, in addition to the logistics of sending to a centralized lab, which extends the process even further. Rapid DNA allows testing to be done close to where the results are required, in a rapid manner, such that the results can be used to affect law-enforcement quickly." Q:How many agencies have purchased one of these machines? A: IntegenX has manufactured and shipped more than 100 of these instruments now in more than a dozen countries. Q: Where has it been used so far? A:Palm Bay, Fla., Richland County, S.C., and Arizona DPS have all been utilizing the instrument in real-world applications. Q: What are potential applications, other than forensics? A:There are people investigating a number of applications, (including) kinship software to identify families of unaccompanied minors, testing green-card applicants and disaster recovery for identifying remains. Q: How will these devices evolve? A:We're going to continue to make it smaller, faster, cheaper and easier to use and more accessible. I think one day it will be come as ubiquitous as fingerprints. Cases cracked Since the machines went live in late April, certified DPS and other Arizona law-enforcement officers have been able to generate investigative criminal leads based on DNA evidence in 90 minutes. The product is in its infancy but has already yielded impressive results, said DPS Crime Lab Superintendent Vince Figarelli. Several of the cases have not yet been adjudicated, so identifying details were not released. • Investigators from the Pima County Sheriff's Department found a spot of blood after a burglary case in which the suspect likely cut himself on the window. The sample was run through the state database and produced a hit. • Pima County investigators were able to identify a burn victim who later died of her injuries. Detectives had an idea of her identity and were able to confirm it through DNA from her toothbrush. • In a single-vehicle crash on Interstate 10, investigators were able to link the victim to blood he left on the vehicle's airbag.
Some logic to the insanity of the War on Drugs at the Federal level???Some logic to the insanity of the War on Drugs at the Federal level??? An interesting article that points out the insanity of the "War on Drugs"Read this article to get a good feel for the insanity that drives the "War on Drugs" at the Federal level. When you read it, it makes you feel that you are listening to a bunch of superstitious people all arguing how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. And of course it's impossible to convince these people that fairies don't exist. Eric Holder questions marijuana's legal status as he prepares to leave Justice Department Updated by German Lopez on September 25, 2014, 11:17 a.m. ET @germanrlopez german@vox.com US Attorney General Eric Holder is ready to reconsider marijuana's schedule. Chip Somodevilla Don't miss stories. Follow Vox! On the eve of his reported resignation, US Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview with Yahoo News that it's time to reconsider marijuana's legal classification in the federal government's scheduling system. Under the current classification, marijuana is placed in the same category as heroin, which severely limits how researchers and doctors can use the drug. A reclassification could dramatically shift how the federal government handles marijuana in the war on drugs and provide some legal legitimacy to medical marijuana at the federal level. "I think it's certainly a question that we need to ask ourselves — whether or not marijuana is as serious a drug as is heroin," Holder said. "[T]he question of whether or not they should be in the same category is something that I think we need to ask ourselves, and use science as the basis for making that determination." The question, which goes at the heart of US drug policy, enshrines Holder's openness to drawing down the war on drugs. Holder's office had already allowed Colorado and Washington to carry out their own experiments in legalization without federal interference — arguably the most significant steps in dismantling the war on drugs since its beginnings in the 1970. Holder also supported reforms that will pull back prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Holder clarified that he's still unsure about where he stands on the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, but he said legalization efforts at the state level should provide a lesson for federal policymakers. While decriminalization and legalization are largely up to an act of Congress, the US attorney general holds a lot of power in deciding when to review a drug's schedule, as I explained before. But the process also involves significant scientific and bureaucratic processes, some of which are already underway for marijuana. How does the US classify controlled substances? Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the US Department of Justice, which has largely relegated the regulation of drugs to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), puts each drug into a classification, known as a schedule, based on its medical value and potential for abuse. To initiate a schedule, the DEA first asks if a drug can be abused. If the answer is yes, then it's put on a schedule. If no, the drug is left out. After that, the drug's relative potential for abuse and medical value are evaluated to decide where on the scale it lands. "Congress did not clearly define abuse under the Controlled Substances Act" The two big issues, then, are a drug's potential for abuse and medical value. Congress did not clearly define abuse under the Controlled Substances Act. But for federal agencies responsible for classifying drugs, abuse is when individuals take a substance on their own initiative and develop personal health hazards or pose other risks to society as a whole. To find medical value, a drug must have large-scale clinical trials to back it up — similar to what the Food and Drug Administration would expect from any other drug entering the market. There are five schedules: schedule 1 drugs are determined to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, while schedule 5 drugs are considered to have low potential for abuse and some medical value. Some examples of the drugs that are on each schedule: Schedule 1: marijuana, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and magic mushrooms.In general, schedule 1 and 2 drugs have the most regulatory restrictions and schedule 5 drugs have the least. Does the federal government really consider marijuana more dangerous than cocaine? The DEA says schedule 1 substances, such as heroin and marijuana, "are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence." Schedule 2 substances, such as cocaine and meth, are considered less dangerous, defined as "drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule [1] drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence." That doesn't necessarily mean the federal government views marijuana and heroin as equally deadly drugs, or that it considers marijuana to be deadlier than meth or cocaine. The war on drugs was initiated at a time when much of the nation was in hysterics about what drugs like marijuana and LSD would do to the moral fabric of the country. Marijuana was seen as dangerous not necessarily because of its direct health effects, but because of the perception — some of it rooted in racial prejudices — that pot makes people immoral, lazy, crazy, and even violent. This perception persists among many supporters of the war on drugs to this day, and it's still reflected in America's drug scheduling. "President Obama previously said marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol" Beyond that, the largest distinction between schedule 1 and 2 substances is whether the federal government thinks a drug has medical value. The DEA says schedule 2 substances have some medical value and schedule 1 substances do not, so the latter is considered more dangerous by the agency. Not everyone within the federal government is on-board with the idea that marijuana, a schedule 1 drug, is more dangerous than schedule 2 drugs like cocaine. President Barack Obama, for instance, previously said marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, an unscheduled substance. Beyond the scheduling system, the federal government imposes criminal trafficking penalties for different drugs that don't always align with their scheduling. For instance, marijuana trafficking is generally punished less severely than cocaine. Why does a drug's schedule matter? A drug's schedule sets the groundwork for the federal regulation of a controlled substance. Schedule 1 and 2 drugs face the strictest regulations. Schedule 1 drugs are effectively illegal for anything outside of research, and schedule 2 drugs can be used for some medical purposes under the DEA's watch. The DEA even sets strict limits on the production of schedule 1 and 2 drugs, although the limits vary from drug to drug. Only one place in the US — a University of Mississippi farm — is allowed to grow marijuana (up to 650 kilograms in 2014) under federal regulations, and the pot is limited to research purposes. In comparison, several private companies produce oxycodone, a schedule 2 substance, and use the drug for prescription painkillers. A drug's schedule can interfere with state laws. Marijuana's schedule 1 status is one reason banks are reluctant to open accounts for pot shops and growers in Colorado and Washington, even though the businesses are legal under state law. "A drug's schedule can interfere with state laws" Federal tax law also prohibits businesses from deducting the production of schedule 1 and 2 drugs as a business expense, which can cause state-legal marijuana businesses' effective income tax rates to soar as high as 70 percent. The DEA sometimes uses marijuana's classification to pressure physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies into not working with medical marijuana operations that are compliant with state law. If these medical providers don't comply, the DEA threatens to take back licensing that lets doctors prescribe drugs, such as prescription painkillers with oxycodone, that contain scheduled substances. A drug's schedule isn't the only justification and mechanism for controlling a drug. The federal government also enforces different criminal trafficking limits on drugs, based on which drugs are perceived as the most dangerous when the criminal law is established. What does it take to reschedule a drug? Congress could pass a law that changes or restricts a drug's schedule. But Congress mostly leaves scheduling to federal agencies like the DEA. One exception: Congress previously passed the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Act of 2000 and added gamma hydroxybutyric acid, a date rape drug, to the scheduling system. The White House can also initiate a review process that would look at the available evidence and potentially change a drug's schedule. The review includes several steps: The DEA, US Department of Health and Human Services, or a public petition initiate a review.Although very rigorous, this process has been successfully carried out in the past. For example, the DEA on August 21 announced it rescheduled hydrocodone combination products, or opioid-based prescription painkillers, from schedule 3 to schedule 2. "Almost 7 million Americans abuse controlled-substance prescription medications, including opioid painkillers, resulting in more deaths from prescription drug overdoses than auto accidents," DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart said in a statement. "Today's action recognizes that these products are some of the most addictive and potentially dangerous prescription medications available." Can a drug be unscheduled? It's possible, but it's much more difficult than simply rescheduling a drug. The big hurdle is international treaties. The US is party to international agreements that effectively require some drugs, including marijuana, to remain within the scheduling system. Proving that a drug has no potential for abuse is also very difficult, if not impossible. An American Scientist analysis, for instance, found even relatively safe marijuana has some potential for dependence; it's less addictive than heroin, meth, cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol, but more addictive than hallucinogens such as LSD, which doesn't cause much, if any, dependence. The two drugs not on the scheduling system — alcohol and tobacco — required a specific exemption in the Controlled Substances Act. Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA, argues both would be marked schedule 1 if they were evaluated today, since they're highly abused, addictive, detrimental to one's health and society, and even deadly. Why is marijuana still schedule 1? When marijuana's classification comes under review, its schedule 1 status is consistently maintained due to insufficient scientific evidence of its medical value. Specifically, the scientific evidence available for marijuana doesn't pass the threshold required by federal agencies to acknowledge a drug's potential as medicine. HHS's 2006 review of marijuana's schedule found several problems: no studies proved the drug's medical efficacy in controlled, large-scale clinical environments, no studies established adequate safety protocols for marijuana, and marijuana's full chemical structure has never been characterized and analyzed. But one reason there isn't enough scientific evidence to change marijuana's schedule 1 status might be, in fact, the drug's schedule 1 status. The DEA restricts how much marijuana can go to research. To obtain legal marijuana supplies for studies, researchers must get their studies approved by HHS, the FDA, and DEA. (This process didn't even exist until the late 1990s. Before then, it was nearly impossible to obtain marijuana for medical research.) "Changing marijuana's schedule is a bit of a CAtch-22" Changing marijuana's schedule, in other words, is a bit of a Catch-22. There needs to be a certain level of scientific research proving marijuana has medical value, but the federal government's restrictions make it difficult to conduct that research. The insufficient evidence even includes a federally commissioned study. In the 1990s, the federal government tasked the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study pot's medical use. IOM's in-depth report, released in 1999, concluded marijuana is "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting." The report also found that the drug is not particularly addictive and not a gateway drug. The only downside uncovered by researchers was that marijuana is usually smoked — researchers feared that could cause health problems in the long-term, but that issue can now be overcome through vaporization pens and edibles. More studies came out in support of medical marijuana after IOM's review, but the IOM study gets a lot of attention since it was commissioned by the federal government. HHS's 2006 review argued the IOM study merely supported further research into marijuana's medical potential, since the study's findings weren't based on large-scale clinical trials. The review cites the IOM study: "If there is any future for marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives. Isolated cannabinoids will provide more reliable effects than crude plant mixtures. Therefore, the purpose of clinical trials of smoked marijuana would not be to develop marijuana as a licensed drug but rather to serve as a first step toward the development of nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid delivery systems." Some of the researchers involved in the IOM study take issue with the federal government's interpretation. John Benson, one of the authors of the IOM report, previously told the New York Times that the federal government's 2006 review was wrong. The federal government "loves to ignore our report," Benson said. "They would rather it never happened." "The government "loves to ignore our report. They would rather it never happened."" HHS is currently reviewing marijuana's schedule once again, although it's not clear when the review will be completed. It's possible the federal government might acknowledge marijuana has some medical value and move it down to a schedule 2 classification. It's also possible the federal government won't change the schedule at all. While the reclassification would be a symbolic win for legalization advocates, Kleiman of UCLA says it wouldn't have much practical effect. Schedule 2 substances typically require a prescription to be distributed, and neither recreational or medical marijuana dispensaries work through prescriptions. Kevin Sabet, co-founder of the anti-legalization Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a supporter of marijuana's schedule 1 status, told me in August that federal agencies can and should allow more research into marijuana and its various cannabinoids, such as CBD and THC, without reducing marijuana's schedule. "We have advocated that the FDA start a compassionate research program now for components or different parts of marijuana, including the whole plant," Sabet said in August. Still, moving marijuana down to a schedule 3 substance could help in a few significant ways. It could, for example, allow marijuana businesses to deduct the cost of growing pot from their taxes. It would also loosen restrictions on producing and selling the plant for medical and research purposes. But, at least for now, such a drastic down-scheduling is not very likely. To learn more, read the full explainers on the war on drugs and marijuana legalization and watch the video below:
TSA and Homeland Security fail to stop airport criminals. Looks like the Patriot Act which has turned America into the worlds larges police state is a dismal failure at protecting us from criminals. If you ask me it's time to repeal the Patriot Act and fire all the Federal cops that terrorize us when we go to the airport to fly. http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-81498845/ Police: Fire at FAA radar center deliberately set but 'no terrorist act' By Peter Nickeas, Jon Hilkevitch and Tony Briscoe 9:33 am, September 26, 2014 Some flights are arriving and departing from Chicago "at a reduced rate" after a fire deliberately set at an FAA radar center grounded more than a thousand planes in Chicago and across the country, police and FAA officials said. “Flights that were already in the air destined to the Chicago area were allowed to continue at a reduced rate or proceed to an alternate destination,’’ the FAA said at 10:30 a.m. “Flights have begun arriving and departing to and from the Chicago area at a reduced rate." The small fire in the basement of the Aurora facility was apparently set by a man who was found with self-inflicted wounds by emergency crews who responded around 5:40 a.m., police said. The man suffered burns and had cuts on his hands and arms, according to Tom Ahern, spokesman for the Chicago office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Ahern said the man apparently used gasoline to start the fire. While a motive was still not clear, he said early indications were that he was “possibly a disgruntled employee." "Whatever his motivations were is yet to be determined," Ahern said. "We just don’t know at this point why he may have done this” The man was taken to a hospital, and the center was closed and 15-30 people were evacuated. One employee, a man about 50 years old, was treated at the scene for smoke inhalation. "There was no explosion and, like any similar scene, first responders are being cautious as they clear the building and continue to make it safe," Aurora police said in a statement at 11 a.m. "This apparently is an isolated incident and there are no indications of terrorism at this time." Police said the man is a contractor, not an air traffic controller or FAA manager. "We understand that this is a local issue with a contract employee and nothing else," Aurora Police Chief Gregory Thomas told reporters. "There is no terrorist act." A controller who was working in the facility said the radio frequencies went dead, apparently due to the fire, and that the air traffic control system was immediately shifted to back-up equipment. The controller said air traffic operations continued for a short time using the back-up system until the evacuation order was issued. "The (radio) frequency failed,'' the controller said. "Depending on how bad the fire was, it could be a real mess getting things back to normal.'' A groundstop was ordered halting all flights in and out of O'Hare and Midway airports. As of noon, more than 1,300 flights were canceled at the airports and nearly 700 were delayed. Southwest Airlines said it has canceled all flights at Midway, as well as General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee, until at least 7 p.m. Flights already in the air were handed off to other air traffic control centers. "Airspace management has been transferred to adjacent air traffic facilities," said FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory. Across the country, the Federal Aviation Administration said no planes destined to cross the Midwest would be allowed to depart until at least 11 a.m. When the groundstop is lifted, it will take a long time for the airlines to catch up. Passengers whose flights were canceled will be put on wait lists for later flights, but with the mostly full planes that the airlines are operating it will be difficult to accommodate the overflow. The Aurora radar facility, called Chicago Center, is an en route air-traffic facility that handles high-altitude traffic across parts of the Midwest. Controllers at the center direct planes through the airspace and either hand off the air traffic to other similar facilities handling high-altitude traffic in the U.S., or direct the planes to terminal radar facilities, including one in Elgin, which in turn direct planes to and from airport towers. Several hundred people waited hours in lines to check in or reschedule their flights at O'Hare International Airport while airline employees passed out water to accommodate travelers. Air National Guard members Jeff Boyden and Rob Combs, who were in Chicago for training, were to return to Omaha, Neb., this morning but learned on their way from their hotel that they might have trouble getting there. "I was in the lobby at about 6:30 a.m. when I first heard about the fire and some flights were cancelled," Boyden said. "When we got there and checked in, our flight was still on time, then everything went red: cancelled, cancelled, cancelled." The two were uncertain about their chances of making a flight Friday, so they decided to hitch a ride with friends who were driving back to Omaha from Chicago instead. "We were on standby for one and that got canceled and there was another at 7:45 p.m., but we said 'No, let's just get a ride home.'" First, they had to wait with dozens of people to get their luggage. "I guess what I'm more amazed by is, you shut down one center and this is what happens," Boyden said. "It concerns me because what type of message does that send for someone who might want to shut down two airports?" Elena Doyle, 44, of Oak Park was expecting to leave O'Hare with her husband and two children on her way to San Francisco for a relative's wedding Saturday morning. Instead, she found herself in line this morning with hundreds of people, hoping to reschedule after their morning flight was canceled. "I'm going to be really disappointed if we missed the wedding tomorrow," Doyle said "My thought is we'll try to get away from Chicago and then we'll try to hook back to San Francisco." Doyle, however, said she understands the airports' concern after the incident at the Aurora traffic control station. While in line, Doyle tried to dial the toll free number for the airline, but the wait for the next representative was estimated at 2 hours. Roger Richards of Chicago anxiously stood at the arrivals and departure board outside the Blue Line terminal this morning. He thought his flight to Seattle might be in jeopardy but it was still listed as on time. "I'm one of the lucky ones," Richards said. "As I was on the Blue Line, I was concerned. I was checking CNN, NBC. All the news reports said flights were being canceled or held up." Cassandra Dump, a 30-year-old publicist, was headed for a Central Park concert in New York featuring Jay Z, Sting and No Doubt when she got stranded at Midway. She boarded the first plane she could get, only to be told by the flight crew that all planes had been grounded. "Fifteen minutes later, they let us know we could get off the plane if we wanted. You could take your ID with you, grab coffee but stay near the gate area," she said. "Then about 10 minutes later, by 6:30, 6:45, we're completely off the plane, deplaned, because they didn't know what happened to the flight." She paused while a message played over the airport PA system saying all planes out of the Southwest terminal had been canceled until at least noon. She said there weren't too many irate people. "No one's too pissed, everyone's been up since 3 a.m. I think everyone's just tired." Hundreds of people were in the terminal near her, she said, everyone waiting for announcements from the airlines. Some websites haven't been able to keep up and still listed some flights as on time, she said. Her plan was to find another way to New York. "I'm going to go online and see if I can re-book," she said. "I'm not going to miss (the concert). I'll walk to New York." Jason Meisner contributed to this report
Cop arrested in prostitution sting is set to get $10,579 a month in paid leave Cops are public servants??? Nope, they are some form of government royalty!!!! http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-81500700/ Cop arrested in prostitution sting is set to get $10,579 a month in paid leave By Arin Mikailian September 26, 2014, 10:04 a.m. A Glendale police sergeant arrested last month for allegedly soliciting a prostitute will make more than $10,000 a month on paid leave until he retires at the end of 2015, records show. The arrangement was reached months before Vahak Mardikian’s arrest in a Nevada prostitution ring. The police sergeant was one of five officers who filed a lawsuit in 2010 against the Glendale Police Department alleging discrimination, retaliation and harassment because they're Armenian. He was demoted in early 2012 following claims he was pressuring fellow officers to join the lawsuit but successfully appealed, and he was reinstated last year. Under the settlement deal, Mardikian will receive $10,579 a month in paid leave through Dec. 29, 2015, after which he will be required to retire from the police department, according to settlement documents. "There is always a risk of a bigger payout if a case proceeds to trial," Glendale City Atty. Mike Garcia said in an email. "In this case, there was also a risk of attorney's fees if Mardikian recovered any amount of money." The 49-year-old will be eligible for his retirement through the California Public Employees' Retirement System. The city will also pay Mardikian an additional $24,792 to be distributed evenly during a one-year period while the city's insurance company, AIG, will pay $250,000 to his attorneys, according to the settlement. Meanwhile, Mardikian is due in a Nevada courtroom on Oct. 22 after he was booked in the Clark County jail for allegedly offering an undercover vice detective $250 -- plus $25 in gas money -- for sex. Garcia would not comment on whether Mardikian's arrest would have any effect on his settlement, saying it was a personnel matter. Glendale Police Chief Rob Castro said once Mardikian's misdemeanor case in Nevada was over, there would be an internal police department investigation, but he did not say what sanctions Mardikian might face, if any. Arin Mikailian writes for Times Community News. The writer can be reached at arin.mikailian@latimes.com
The archbishop of Canterbury admits to having occasional uncertainties about belief. When it comes to debunking religion former ministers and priests are best at it because they know the Bible inside and out and can point out all the conflicting statements and absurdities. One good book on this is "The Bible Handbook" published by the American Atheist Association. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/opinion/julia-baird-doubt-as-a-sign-of-faith.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0 Doubt as a Sign of Faith SEPT. 25, 2014 Certainty is so often overrated. This is especially the case when it comes to faith, or other imponderables. When the Most Rev. Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, said recently that at times he questioned if God was really there, much of the reaction was predictably juvenile: Even God’s earthly emissary isn’t sure if the whole thing is made up! The International Business Times called it “the doubt of the century.” Archbishop Welby’s admission had not just “raised a few eyebrows,” it declared, but “sparked concerns if the leader of the Church of England would one day renounce Christianity or spirituality as a whole.” Another journalist wrote excitedly, “Atheism is on the rise and it appears as though even those at the top of the church are beginning to have doubts.” Despite the alarm, the archbishop’s remarks were rather tame. He told an audience at Bristol Cathedral that there were moments where he wondered, “Is there a God? Where is God?” Then, asked specifically if he harbored doubts, he responded, “It is a really good question. ... The other day I was praying over something as I was running, and I ended up saying to God, ‘Look, this is all very well, but isn’t it about time you did something, if you’re there?’ Which is probably not what the archbishop of Canterbury should say.” The London-based Muslim scholar Mufti Abdur-Rahman went straight to Twitter: “I cannot believe this.” The Australian atheist columnist Peter FitzSimons tweeted, “VICTORY!” The “Daily Show” account joked, “Archbishop of Canterbury admits doubts about existence of God. Adds: ‘But atheism doesn’t pay them bills, sooo ...”’ But Archbishop Welby’s candor only makes him human. He may lead 80 million Anglicans worldwide, but he is also a man who knows anguish, rage, incomprehension and the cold bareness of grief. He lost his firstborn child, Johanna, a 7-month-old baby girl, in a car accident in 1983, a period he has described as “utter agony.” As a teenager he cared for an alcoholic father. When explaining his thoughts on doubt, he referred to the mournful Psalm 88, which describes the despair of a man who has lost all of his friends and cries out, “Why, Lord, do you reject me and hide your face from me?” The psalm reads bleakly: “Darkness is my closest friend.” Faith cannot block out darkness, or doubt. When on the cross, Jesus did not cry out “Here I come!” but “My God, why have you forsaken me?” His disciples brimmed with doubts and misgivings. Just as courage is persisting in the face of fear, so faith is persisting in the presence of doubt. Faith becomes then a commitment, a practice and a pact that is usually sustained by belief. But doubt is not just a roiling, or a vulnerability; it can also be a strength. Doubt acknowledges our own limitations and confirms — or challenges — fundamental beliefs, and is not a detractor of belief but a crucial part of it. As Christopher Lane argued in “The Age of Doubt,” the explosion of questioning among Christian thinkers in the Victorian era transformed the idea of doubt from a sin or lapse to necessary exploration. Many influential Christian writers, like Calvin and C.S. Lewis, have acknowledged times of uncertainty. The Southern writer Flannery O’Connor said there was “no suffering greater than what is caused by the doubts of those who want to believe,” but for her, these torments were “the process by which faith is deepened.” Mother Teresa, too, startled the world when her posthumous diaries revealed that she was tormented by a continual gloom and aching to see, or sense, God. In 1953 she wrote, “Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started ‘the work.”’ And yet by this work, she helped many thousands of people. And it’s not always torment. Some live quite contentedly with a patchwork of doubt. Who can possibly hope to understand everything, and to have exhaustively researched all areas of uncertainty? How can we jam the infinite and contain it in our tiny brains? This is why there is so much comfort in mystery. Just over a month before he died, Benjamin Franklin wrote that he thought the “System of morals” and the religion of Jesus of Nazareth were the “best the World ever saw,” though Franklin said he had, along “with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” A logical pragmatism. My local pastor, Tim Giovanelli, a Baptist whose ocean-swimming prowess has lassoed scores of surfers and swimmers into his church, puts it simply: “For Welby, myself and many others, it is not that we have certainty but have seen the plausibility of faith and positive impact it can make. In a broken world, that can be enough.” If we don’t accept both the commonality and importance of doubt, we don’t allow for the possibility of mistakes or misjudgments. While certainty frequently calcifies into rigidity, intolerance and self-righteousness, doubt can deepen, clarify and explain. This is, of course, a subject far broader than belief in God. The philosopher Bertrand Russell put it best. The whole problem with the world, he wrote, is that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” Of that at least we can be certain. I’m pretty sure, anyway. Julia Baird is an author, a journalist and a television presenter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. She is working on a biography of Queen Victoria.
Love to watch porn at work??? Get a Federal job, they don't seem to care if you do nothing and look at porn all day. On the other hand maybe this idea isn't that good. If we could let the folks at the DEA watch porn all day, instead of arresting people for victimless drug war crimes, the number of people rotting in Federal prisons for victimless drug war crimes would be greatly reduced. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/09/24/congressman-seeks-ban-to-stop-federal-employees-from-watching-porn-all-day/?tid=hpModule_308f7142-9199-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239&hpid=z15 Congressman seeks ban to stop federal employees from watching porn all day By Colby Itkowitz September 24 In May, the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general disclosed that a senior-level employee was caught spending as much as six hours of his day looking at porn. The IG found that the employee had downloaded and viewed more than 7,000 pornographic files. The Justice Department is investigating further for possible prosecution. Four months later, the employee has not been fired and is still collecting government pay, Environment & Energy Publishing reported last week. That prompted Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) to introduce a bill the day Congress left town to make it a uniform federal government law that employees cannot look at porn at work. Many agencies, including the EPA, have such rules, but Meadows says they are not enforced. EPA’s spokeswoman Liz Purchia confirmed that the porn-watching employee is still employed but on leave, but could not comment further because of the ongoing investigation. The agency’s overall policy, which has not been updated since the incident, is vague and doesn’t say anything about porn watching: Unauthorized or inappropriate use of Government office equipment may result in the loss or limitation of your privilege to use Government office equipment. You may also face administrative disciplinary action ranging from closer supervision to removal from the Agency, as well as any criminal penalties or financial liability, depending on the severity and nature of the misuse. Meadows notes this problem isn’t limited to the EPA. Several agencies over the years have dealt with employees’ using government computers for activities that are, well, outside the scope of government work. “It’s not just casual porn viewing, but hours and hours of unproductive time doing things we shouldn’t be condoning. There seems to be a need to reinforce agency rules that might be in place, but not enforced,” Meadows said. His bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidelines to prohibit porn watching on federal computers. An OMB spokeswoman was not aware if any specific porn policy was already in place. An Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman clarified that watching porn falls under general rules against misusing government property. (They likely assumed there was no need to spell it out.) During an Oversight Committee hearing in May, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was incensed that, at least at the EPA, the mechanisms that are supposed to be in place didn’t block the employee from surfing his apparent favorites, “Sadism is Beautiful” and “Bare So Horny.” Darrell Issa
Mail and milk: Struggling Postal Service wants to deliver groceries Under current Federal law private companies are only allowed to deliver mail if they either 1) deliver it for FREE, or 2) charge 3 times what the US Post office charges. If the US Post Office starts delivering groceries will that silly Federal law and the cost of delivering groceries sky rocket because you will have to have your groceries delivered by some over paid, under worked union post office employee??? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/09/25/mail-and-milk-struggling-postal-service-wants-to-deliver-groceries/?tid=hpModule_308f7142-9199-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239&hpid=z15 Mail and milk: Struggling Postal Service wants to deliver groceries By Josh Hicks September 25 at 3:53 PM After nearly six years of multibillion-dollar losses, the U.S. Postal Service has developed a new plan to help turn its finances around: Daily grocery deliveries. The Postal Service sent its proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission on Tuesday, seeking approval from the panel. The agency wants to begin testing on Oct. 24, with the process lasting up to two years, although it could choose to make the program permanent at a sooner date. Under the plan, USPS would work with retail partners to deliver “groceries and other prepackaged goods” to homes between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m. at locations designated by consumers. Participating grocery stores would have to drop off their orders at post offices between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. If the Postal Service has its way, trucks like these will haul groceries in addition to the usual packages and letters. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters) “Ultimately, the Postal Service expects this will generate more package deliveries that do not currently move within the postal system,” the agency said in its proposal. “Grocery deliveries are expanding across the nation, with several different types of companies beginning to offer this service in recent months.” USPS has not specified what its delivery prices would be, or which cities and retailers would be involved in the program. The Postal Service has already tested the program, toting groceries for Amazon.com in the San Francisco area. According to the proposal, USPS averaged 160 deliveries per day in 38 Zip codes. USPS has partnered with several retailers over the past year in an effort to generate new revenue for the cash-strapped agency. In November, the Postal Service agreed to a partnership with Amazon that allows the online retailer to ship packages on Sundays at regular rates. Previously, the agency charged an extra fee for delivering on Sundays. Also in November, USPS announced that it would team up with the Staples office-supply chain to open postal centers at 82 of its stores nationwide.
I suspect that if you asked the police, they would demand that everybody leave the keys to their home at the police station, just in case the cops get a search warrant and need to search their home. Which is what this article seems to say is how police free about people's cell phones. That cell phone vendors should make it easy for the police to bust into people's cell phones. The cops say this will help them catch dangerous criminals. That's a big lie!!! Currently at the Federal level according to the US Bureau of Prisons over 51% of the people in Federal prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. According to Reason Magazine at the state and federal levels two thirds or 66% of the people in prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbi-blasts-apple-google-for-locking-police-out-of-phones/2014/09/25/68c4e08e-4344-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html?hpid=z14 FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones FBI Director James B. Comey sharply criticized Apple and Google on Thursday for developing forms of smartphone encryption so secure that law enforcement officials cannot easily gain access to information stored on the devices — even when they have valid search warrants. His comments were the most forceful yet from a top government official but echo a chorus of denunciation from law enforcement officials nationwide. Police have said that the ability to search photos, messages and Web histories on smartphones is essential to solving a range of serious crimes, including murder, child pornography and attempted terrorist attacks. “There will come a day when it will matter a great deal to the lives of people . . . that we will be able to gain access” to such devices, Comey told reporters in a briefing. “I want to have that conversation [with companies responsible] before that day comes.” Comey added that FBI officials already have made initial contact with the two companies, which announced their new smartphone encryption initiatives last week. He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” Comey’s remarks followed news last week that Apple’s latest mobile operating system, iOS 8, is so thoroughly encrypted that the company is unable to unlock iPhones or iPads for police. Google, meanwhile, is moving to an automatic form of encryption for its newest version of Android operating system that the company also will not be able to unlock, though it will take longer for that new feature to reach most consumers. Both companies declined to comment on Comey’s remarks. Apple has said that its new encryption is not intended to specifically hinder law enforcement but to improve device security against any potential intruder. For detectives working a tough case, few types of evidence are more revealing than a smartphone. Call logs, instant messages and location records can link a suspect to a crime precisely when and where it occurred. And a surprising number of criminals, police say, like to take selfies posing with accomplices — and often the loot they stole together. But the era of easy law enforcement access to smartphones may be drawing to a close as courts and tech companies erect new barriers to police searches of popular electronic devices. The result, say law enforcement officials, legal experts and forensic analysts, is that more and more seized smartphones will end up as little more than shiny paperweights, with potentially incriminating secrets locked inside forever. The irony, some say, is that while the legal and technical changes are fueled by anger over reports of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, the consequences are being felt most heavily by police detectives, often armed with warrants certifying that a judge has found probable cause that a search of a smartphone will reveal evidence of a crime. “The outrage is directed at warrantless mass surveillance, and this is a very different context. It’s searching a device with a warrant,” said Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department computer crimes lawyer who is now a professor at George Washington University. Not all of the high-tech tools favored by police are in peril. They can still seek records of calls or texts from cellular carriers, eavesdrop on conversations and, based on the cell towers used, determine the general locations of suspects. Police can seek data backed up on remote cloud services, which increasingly keep copies of the data collected by smartphones. And the most sophisticated law enforcement agencies can deliver malicious software to phones capable of making them spy on users. Yet the devices themselves are gradually moving beyond the reach of police in a range of circumstances, prompting ire from investigators. Frustration is running particularly high at Apple, which made the first announcement about new encryption and is moving much more swiftly than Google to get it into the hands of consumers. “Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile,” said John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for Chicago’s police department. “The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone.” The rising use of encryption is already taking a toll on the ability of law enforcement officials to collect evidence from smartphones. Apple in particular has been introducing tough new security measures for more than two years that have made it difficult for police armed with cracking software to break in. The new encryption is significantly tougher, experts say. “There are some things you can do. There are some things the NSA can do. For the average mortal, I’d say they’re probably out of luck,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, a forensics researcher based in New Hampshire. Los Angeles police Detective Brian Collins, who does forensics analysis for anti-gang and narcotics investigations, says he works on about 30 smartphones a month. And while he still can successfully crack into most of them, the percentage has been gradually shrinking — a trend he fears will only accelerate. “I’ve been an investigator for almost 27 years,” Collins said, “It’s concerning that we’re beginning to go backwards with this technology.” The new encryption initiatives by Apple and Google come after June’s Supreme Court ruling requiring police, in most circumstances, to get a search warrant before gathering data from a cellphone. The magistrate courts that typically issue search warrants, meanwhile, are more carefully scrutinizing requests amid the heightened privacy concerns that followed the NSA disclosures that began last year. Civil liberties activists call this shift a necessary correction to the deterioration of personal privacy in the digital era — and especially since Apple’s introduction of the iPhone in 2007 inaugurated an era in which smartphones became remarkably intimate companions of people everywhere. “Law enforcement has an enormous range of technical and old-fashioned methods to go after the perpetrators of real crime, and no amount of security effort at Silicon Valley tech companies is going to change that fact,” said Peter Eckersley, director of technology projects at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group based in San Francisco. “The reality is that if the FBI really wants to investigate someone, they have a spectacular arsenal of weapons.” Sometimes, police say, that’s not enough. Escalante, the Chicago chief of detectives, pointed to a case in which several men forced their way into the home of a retired officer in March and shot him in the face as his wife lay helplessly nearby. When the victim, Elmer Brown, 73, died two weeks later, city detectives working the case already were running low on useful leads. But police got a break during a routine traffic stop in June, confiscating a Colt revolver that once belonged to Brown, police say. That led investigators to a Facebook post, made two days after the homicide, in which another man posed in a cellphone selfie with the same gun. When police found the smartphone used for that picture, the case broke open, investigators say. Though the Android device was locked with a swipe code, a police forensics lab was able to defeat it to collect evidence; the underlying data was not encrypted. Three males, one of whom was a juvenile, eventually were arrested. “You present them with a picture of themselves, taken with the gun, and it’s hard to deny it,” said Sgt. Richard Wiser, head of the Chicago violent crimes unit that investigated the case. “It played a huge role in this whole thing. As it was, it took six months to get them. Who knows how long it would have taken without this.” Follow The Post’s tech blog, The Switch, where technology and policy connect. Craig Timberg is a national technology reporter for The Post. Greg Miller covers the intelligence beat for The Washington Post.
I wonder if Andrew Myers who runs the Arizona Dispensary Association has read the book "How To Lie with Statistics"??? Andrew Myers said at the July 2014 Phoenix NORML meeting that he was going to get some statistics to figure out if people support legalizing marijuana and letting the man on the street grow marijuana plants. Since Andrew Myers and the folks in his Arizona Dispensary Association have a financial interest in keeping it illegal for the man on the street to grow marijuana and giving the members of his Arizona Dispensary Association a government an exclusive monopoly on growing and selling recreational marijuana, I suspect that ANY survey Andrew Myers comes up with will show that the public only supports making it legal to grow marijuana for the current marijuana dispensaries. Let's hope I am wrong on this, but sadly money talks and there is millions of dollars on the line if the Arizona Dispensary Association can get a monopoly for it's members to be the only people allowed to grow and sell recreational marijuana in Arizona. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/09/26/old-book-teaching-va-new-statistical-tricks/16249649/ Old book teaching VA new statistical tricks? Michelle Ye Hee Lee, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:22 p.m. MST September 25, 2014 As the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs struggles to redeem its reputation after a data-manipulation scandal, it faces new scrutiny over a book used to train up to 500 employees a year: "How To Lie with Statistics." The popular statistics book, published in 1954, was penned by Darrell Huff, an author of several other "how to" books who later worked to debunk the surgeon general's statistical links between cigarettes and cancer. "This book is a sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive," Huff writes in his introduction. "It may seem altogether too much like a manual for swindlers." Despite Huff's opening, the book does not explicitly encourage readers to lie. The title is intended to be ironic and reflects the cheeky, almost farcical, tone Huff carries through the book to show readers the many ways statistics are manipulated. But the book, used as recently as August to train VA employees, and its misplaced irony came under scrutiny during last week's contentious congressional hearing over the validity of the VA Office of Inspector General's investigative report into the Phoenix VA Health Care System. A House Committee on Veterans' Affairs member grilled a senior Phoenix VA official over the use of the book and questioned a graph submitted by the Phoenix VA that he said employed one of the misleading techniques discussed in the book. It's a volatile time at the VA in the aftermath of the scandal. New VA Secretary Robert McDonald has promised a change in the institution's culture, and House VA Committee members have shown him support. Against that backdrop, the use of Huff's book in VA-sponsored data-analysis training found a natural place in the ongoing debate over the integrity of VA data and the agency's credibility. It looked bad for the VA. McDonald acknowledged the negative perception and ordered employees late last week to discontinue using the training material. "I have not read and am not commenting on the merits of the book. The implication was that some VA employees may be using this book to mislead the public," McDonald wrote in a memo to employees. "Let me be clear — anything that is contrary to our mission of serving veterans, in perception or practice, or which does not align with our I-CARE core values — Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence — will not be tolerated in the open and accountable culture we want in this new VA," McDonald wrote. The book is one of the materials used in the first course of the Healthcare Analytics Certificate Program developed by the VA and the Nebraska Methodist College in 2010. "The book is an entertaining series of examples. ... It's not any kind of statistical manual. It's a book that people give to students to read to serve as an entertaining example of how to be careful when you're presenting data," said Andrew Gelman, a Columbia University professor of statistics and political science. The VA course is held three to four times a year, with about 150 employees in each session. Sixteen employees from the VA Southwest Health Care Network, which includes Phoenix, attended the course this fiscal year. The VA pays $1,000 per employee for the program. The training began because VA facilities wanted to learn how to better translate data into actions, regional VA spokeswoman Jean Schaefer said. The voluntary program is intended for managers, analysts, nurses and other staff members who want to learn how to effectively analyze health-care data, Schaefer said. The book was removed from the course syllabus per McDonald's order. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., a former statistical analyst, drew a connection between the book's titular dogma and the committee's continued frustration with conflicting VA data and investigators' findings that the agency repeatedly manipulated statistics. He drew attention to a graph that compared the growth of outpatient visits with the number of full-time employees at the VA. It was submitted by the Phoenix VA in a July congressional briefing. At a glance, the graph appears to show that growth in outpatient visits far exceeded the increase in number of employees from fiscal 2010 to 2014. But a closer look shows the two measures in the graph were created on far different scales, inaccurately comparing the growth in outpatient visits with the growth in employees. In an interview with The Arizona Republic, Huelskamp said he "thumbed through" the book and looked at examples in the book that showed ways to mislead people with data. The book created a bad perception and underscored his frustration with information the VA has been providing the committee, he said, including the graph submitted in July. "We've received misleading, misleading numbers again and again," Huelskamp said. McDonald's order was the correct move, Huelskamp said: "If we're going to get the VA fixed, we need a good, open relationship and good, accurate, real numbers from the VA. And the secretary, I think, is going to provide those and move forward and work together." Nebraska Methodist College Vice President for Academic Affairs Paul Savory said he was not surprised by the committee's suspicions with the book, given its title. He said the book was used to caution the reader about misleading data and was integrated into data-analysis projects in the class. "We've never focused on any aspect of that (lying) in terms of what we've been doing," Savory said. "It has a controversial title, but it's been around for 60 years. It's the most widely sold statistics textbook out there. ... But I understand from the VA's perspective that it's a perception issue." ON THE BEAT Michelle Ye Hee Lee is a government accountability reporter and is one of the reporters covering the VA scandal. How to reach her michelle.lee@arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-8290 Twitter: @myhlee
Why the f*ck are Federal cops being used to provide security at the Super Bowl. I was kind of angry last night when I got off the light rail at the ASU/UCLA football game and again I saw HOMELAND SECURITY goons providing security at a college football game. Also I suspect that US TAXPAYERS, not the NFL or the football teams involved will be paying these cops probably $50 and hr to provide security for the NFL at the Super Bowl. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/09/25/phoenix-super-bowl-xlix-security-glendale-scottsdale/16210865/ Super Bowl security to span Glendale, Scottsdale, Phoenix Matthew Casey, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:54 a.m. MST September 25, 2014 If everything goes right, no one will remember security measures taken during eight days of Valley-wide NFL events in early 2015, beginning with the Pro Bowl and ending with Super Bowl XLIX at University of Phoenix Stadium. And that is exactly what the league and authorities charged with keeping a mobile melting pot of fans, players, league officials, corporate executives and foreign VIPs want. The NFL season is underway, and 32 teams are battling to make it to Glendale. But public-safety officials have been planning security since 2011, when the NFL announced the Super Bowl would return to the Valley. There are roughly 50 local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies in 24 specialized work groups to protect team hotels, Super Bowl parties in Scottsdale, the throngs expected to attend the NFL Experience in downtown Phoenix and the games in Glendale, according to Sgt. Trent Crump, chairman of the public safety information work group. "Not only are we going to have a large visual presence at all of these events, we'll have undercover officers and executives," Crump said. "If the numbers of attendees are going to be extraordinarily high, or we believe they are an assessment risk, we can also supply off-duty officers." The work groups include teams prepared to, among other things, remove hazardous materials, conduct air surveillance, respond to public-health issues, detect and dispose of explosives, monitor protests and protect dignitaries. Similar public-safety preparations were made when the Valley hosted Super Bowl XLII in 2008. But this time, law enforcement will use an increased number of cameras for monitoring crowds, cyber intelligence — including close monitoring of social media — and investigative efforts to identify ticket counterfeiting, Crump said. Each city is responsible for events within its boundaries and will have incident-management teams on-site that can immediately respond to an emergency, Crump said. But all public-safety efforts will flow into and out of a Multi-Agency Coordination Center, which will serve as a base of operations and information sharing hub. "Our hope, in the end, is that this group is sitting together and we're bored," Crump said. The biggest challenge is striking a balance between effective security and making sure events are open, accessible and fun, Crump said. He compared efforts to securing airports post 9-11 while creating the least amount of inconvenience to travelers. To that end, Crump said police need the public's help in keeping people safe and events secure. "If you see something, say something," Crump said. "We need everybody's eyes and ears listening and watching for what's out of place, what's not normal, what looks suspicious." Crump declined to reveal how many law-enforcement officers will be deployed to the events and sites, saying much of that is still in the planning phase and doing so could give those who wish to target them a partial blueprint to penetrate security. Regular patrol operations will continue in Valley cities during all Super Bowl-related events, he said. Crump also declined to estimate the total cost for keeping everyone safe, saying an accurate number would most likely not be available until after everything is tallied after the big game. Phoenix has allocated roughly $1 million in this year's budget for Super Bowl event security and there are efforts to use on-duty public-safety personnel as much as possible during events to help keep the cost down, Crump said. Last spring, Glendale asked the state Legislature to kick in $2 million to help cover public-safety costs, but that request was denied. Glendale alone spent roughly $2.2 million on public safety to host the Super Bowl in 2008.
ASU President Michael Crow gets his pay raised to $900,000???? Hey, he is a royal government ruler and deserves a lot more money. A $900,000 salary is just chump change and he needs more. Well as least that how the government tyrants on the Arizona Board of Regents feel. All I can say is F*** Michael Crow!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/09/26/regents-vote-pay-increase-asu-president-crow/16247969/ Regents to vote on pay increase for ASU President Crow The Arizona Board of Regents will vote today on a 20 percent raise in base pay for ASU President Michael Crow that could push his total annual compensation to nearly $900,000. Anne Ryman, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:59 a.m. MST September 26, 2014 The Arizona Board of Regents will vote today on a 20 percent raise in base pay for ASU President Michael Crow that could push his total annual compensation to nearly $900,000. The $95,000 raise would be his first increase in base pay since 2007, before the recession, and could be enough to place him back among the top 20 earners for public-college presidents. "It's no secret that a lot of major institutions would like to steal him away from us," Regents Chairman Mark Killian said. "We think he's doing a wonderful job, and we'd like him to stay around." ASU is the largest public university in the country, with 82,000 students this fall. Crow has been at ASU since 2002 and was once among the top 10 earners for public-college presidents, according to annual surveys by the Chronicle of Higher Education. But he has since fallen from the magazine's list of top earners. He was ranked No. 31 in the Chronicle's most recent survey for the 2012-13 year. The typical public-college president earned $478,896 in total compensation in 2012-13, the most recent year available. The survey takes into account base pay as well as benefits such as car and housing allowances and retirement. The top 10 earners made more than $857,000 a year in total compensation, with nine making more than $1 million in 2012-13. The top earner was E. Gordon Gee, former president of Ohio State University, who earned $6 million. Most of that package was due to deferred compensation when he retired. The No. 2 earner on the list was R. Bowen Loftin, former president of Texas A&M University, who earned $1.6 million. The regents also will vote today on incentive packages for Crow and University of Arizona President Ann Weaver Hart. They could each get up to $40,000 for meeting certain goals during the past school year. They both have the potential to earn far more in 2015, up to $180,000 for Crow and $170,000 for Hart. The incentives mirror the private sector, where merit pay has been common for years. "We're not in the old system, where you give a president a job and they stay there until they die or a controversy," Killian said. "We like to think we're holding our presidents accountable for their work, and we're measuring it." To get the six-figure incentives, the presidents will need to meet a series of aggressive goals. These include sharply increasing student-retention rates, the number of bachelor's degrees and research funding. The goals are in line with the regents' 2020 Vision plan, which is designed to increase the percentage of adults with college degrees and bring more research funding to the state. Each goal has a cash incentive tied to it. Crow's target for bachelor's degrees, for instance, is 14,900 a year in 2015, up from 13,200 in 2012. If the university meets or exceeds the number, he gets $10,000. If ASU falls short, he gets nothing. The regents also want Crow to close a deal to acquire the prestigious Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale. That deal is worth a $15,000 incentive to Crow. Crow, 58, came to ASU from Columbia University in New York, where he was executive vice provost. He has raised ASU's research profile and added millions of square feet of laboratory space. He started the nation's first school of sustainability and oversaw the opening of a downtown Phoenix campus with a $223 million bond passed by Phoenix voters. During Crow's tenure, enrollment has jumped from about 55,500 students to 82,000. The percentage of minority and lower-income students has increased. Tuition also has risen sharply since Crow arrived. The regents have said the tuition hikes were necessary because of steep state funding cuts during the recession. Reach the reporter at 602-444-8072 or anne.ryman@arizonarepublic.com. ASU President Michael Crow's annual salary and benefits now: Total compensation: $802,500. Base salary: $475,000. Housing allowance: $70,000. Car allowance: $10,000. Additional compensation from ASU Foundation: $100,000. Pension: $85,500. Retirement: $22,000. 2013 incentive: $40,000. Future incentives 2014: Up to $40,000. 2015: Up to $180,000 for meeting goals in several categories, including freshman retention, research revenue, bachelor's degrees and number of transfer students coming to ASU. Source: Arizona Republic research based on documents from Arizona Board of Regents and ASU.
I got a gun and a badge and that means I am above the law!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/26/aclu-sues-pinal-county-sheriffs-deputies-sb/16249965/ ACLU sues Pinal County sheriff's deputies over SB 1070 Michael Kiefer, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:49 a.m. MST September 26, 2014 A federal lawsuit filed Thursday by the ACLU accuses Pinal County sheriff's deputies of improperly using the state's immigration law, SB 1070, to detain an immigrant awaiting a visa and turn her over to the Border Patrol. The lawsuit claims deputies violated the woman's constitutional rights by arresting and holding her even though there was no probable cause that she had committed a crime. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeusaid deputies had complied with the law. "Our deputies took the exact actions as what is required by law," he said in a statement. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the only major provision of the law that remains in effect. Known as Section 2B, the provision requires officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. RELATED: U.S. Supreme Court denies review of SB 1070 statute Most other provisions of SB 1070, signed into law in 2010, have been blocked by federal appeals courts. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the injunction on Section 2B after ruling it did not automatically violate constitutional rights and was not necessarily pre-empted by federal immigration law. But the justices suggested the matter could be reconsidered if evidence of violations surfaced after the law went into effect. The ACLU and other advocacy groups have been looking for examples of abuse of discretion by law enforcement officials to further challenge Section 2B. On Sept. 29, 2012, according to the lawsuit, Maria Cortes was pulled over by Pinal County deputies for driving with a cracked windshield. She told the deputies she did not have a driver's license and that she did not have legal immigration status, but that she did have an application for a U-visa, which is granted to immigrants who have been the victims of crimes. The deputies did not look at the application, the lawsuit says. Instead, they arrested and handcuffed Cortes, and then took her to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection outpost where she was detained for five days, the lawsuit said. The visa was subsequently granted and Cortes now has legal status in the U.S. The lawsuit alleges that Cortes' constitutional protection from "unreasonable search and seizures" and unlawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment were violated because she had not committed a crime. Being in the country illegally is a civil infraction. The lawsuit asks for compensatory and punitive damages. "Our deputies complied with the SB1070 law and the later rulings by the United States Supreme Court," Babeu said in the statement. Cortes was stopped for a civil traffic stop and did not possess a driver's license or insurance as required by Arizona law, Babeu said. Cortes admitted she was not a legal U.S. citizen and had a pending U-Visa application, he said. She was cited for the traffic violations and in compliance with SB1070 she was transported within 16 minutes to the nearest U.S. Border Patrol Station so that the U.S. Border Patrol could determine her immigration status, he said. Dan Pochoda, legal director for ACLU of Arizona, said challenging Section 2B through lawsuits is "the only route available" to overturn the provision. But he admitted that so far, the ACLU has not uncovered many cases. "The reality is, there are not now and will not likely be a sufficient number of these cases so that the court will say, 'Yes, you have shown that it is abused as applied,' " Pochoda said. He said he hoped the legal challenges would help prevent law-enforcement officers from abusing the law. |