http://www.nj.com/…

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether to change the circumstances under which police may search cars on Garden State roadways.

State prosecutors argue the current method needs a tune-up because it creates real-world problems for police trying to make decisions in the field. Under current rules, if police want to search a car without first getting a judge’s approval, they must determine that there is probable cause, whether the evidence might disappear and if the safety of the officer or public is at risk.

Instead, the state want to see the state’s high court adopt the method used by the federal courts, which lets police search a car on the belief there is contraband inside.

“It’s a rule that makes sense and is by no means a radical departure of the last 30 or 40 years,” said assistant Attorney General Ronald Susswein.

But criminal defense lawyers say the current system helps preserve important constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“There is not a crisis with regard to automobile searches. The sky is not falling,” said assistant deputy state public defender, Stephen Kirsch.

And former Attorney General John Farmer Jr., who represents the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — New Jersey , argued the advances in technology have so changed the landscape that there are fewer instances in which a warrantless search is necessary.

During arguments in Trenton, the justices peppered lawyers with questions about the law, such as what circumstances dictate when a vehicle might be impounded in connection with a stop and how the courts have defined the situations in which a warrantless search was okay.

“We’re defining it differently in difference circumstances,” said Justice Barry Albin.

If they really want to search your vehicle they will find a way to justify it. Rarely are you going to get the search found illegitimate by the courts. As with all other situations with police and the threat of a search: Just say no. Then say nothing. Anything, and I mean anything, can and will be used against you. If you are stopped by cops refuse to search you query whether you are being detained, if not ask to leave. Continue with the same questions until allowed to leave.

http://thinkprogress.org/…

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the National Urban League, a group “devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.” When an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime, McCain praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts in New York Cirty before invoking the military’s tactics in Iraq as the model for crime-fighting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

What was it I heard last week about McCain? “I hate war” I believe it was. Just like he loves the 1st and 4th Amendment right?

http://www.syracuse.com/…

The city of Syracuse has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman whose 303 Gere Ave. apartment was gassed last year during a police standoff with her neighbor.

The motion to dismiss, filed this week in U.S. District Court, responded for the first time to Eileen Malay’s allegations that police violated her constitutional rights March 17, 2007, during a 29-hour standoff with her landlord, Thach Ros, 62.

Ros, who lived in an attached house, fatally shot his son and wounded his wife before eventually killing himself.

While arguing Malay, 59, has no grounds to sue the city, the motion did not dispute Malay’s account of the gassing. She fled the apartment that day and hasn’t been back.

In the motion, the city argues police officers were confronted with a deadly situation and didn’t know whether Malay was in her apartment.

“A reasonable police officer would not believe that deploying gas to diffuse a lethal situation could (violate) Plantiff’s civil rights, particularly if they were not even aware that she was inside the apartment,” wrote Jennifer Savion, assistant corporation counsel.

Also, the city argued, police didn’t violate Malay’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure because of the imminent danger the gunman posed.

“There can be no doubt that there were exigent circumstances sufficient to allow police action to try and diffuse the situation,” Savion wrote. “That meant using CS gas inside the property to try to disarm Ros.”

CS gas is a type of tear gas that the U.S. military has agreed under international treaty not to use in warfare.

How does the fact that the gunman posed an “imminent danger” negate the fact that they ruined her property with a chemical that even the military has agreed not to use? They harmed this woman and she should be paid restitution. Period. If anyone other then government thugs tried to use this excuse the public would be outraged. Collateral damage is still damage and those officers are still responsible. The gang of which they are a member of and the colors they were do not put them above to fundamental societal concepts.

5PM, 3 NYPD officers to the left of the turnstiles at the South Ferry 1 train station. None of them I recall seeing before. Two notice me and let me go by without harassment.

Not very consistent. I’m a threat on Thuesdays but not Wednesdays?

I think I’m going to send the NYPD some questions regarding the inconsistancy, walking to another station, etc.

Today, at about 5PM I was asked to have my effects searched by a man in a dark blue uniform who was armed and perceived dangerous.

But like last time I screwed up. My plans have been to say no, ask or say innocently something regarding the yellow line station across the street and go from there. In the least I want to take down the thug’s identification information, snap a few photos and hand out fliers I have printed out from FlexYourRights.org. Maybe walk up to the next 1 station and take it downtown over and over till he threatens to arrest me or actually does.

Sounds easy until you are actually standing there with 3 blue light gangsters staring at you with their hands on their belts… awfully close to pepper spray, a telescoping beating club and a handgun. While at the same time you have dozens upon dozens of people streaming into the station behind you.

This was the first time I’ve seen them setup behind the turnstiles. Normally the are just around the corner, just to the left side or across from them near the help booth and side entrance. So if it wasn’t for the fact that I have an unlimited rides card I would have been out $2.50. Perhaps I need to add that to my script. Asking for my money back.

So in any case all I accomplished was saying no, obviously annoying the thug and having him, after a few seconds of silent contemplation, telling me I had to leave. I said “fine” or maybe nothing at all and proceeded toward the yellow line station across the street. I doubled back in order to take some photos but I couldn’t get a shot through the windows because of the glare and I was not sure I wanted to push it by walking back in and snapping some pics. So I went to the yellow line. Hopped onto the W and went home. The suspected terrorist got away.

It takes most people a reasonable amount of mental perpareness to do what I’m trying to do. Hopefully next time I will be calmer and able to focus on what I need to do.

http://www.antiwar.com/…

Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

He missed the vote because he was speaking at the Montana state GOP convention.