Tag: hit&run

Domestic drone surveillance is an
inevitability, and while certain uses of the machines are unlikely
to cause any significant issues, there’s still the matter of what
law enforcement will (and does) do with them. One senator wants to

establish some rules. Courtesy of the National
Journal:

As the Federal Aviation Administration assesses whether
commercial skies are ready for commercial, nonmilitary drones in
the near future, some lawmakers are attempting to capitalize on the
data-surveillance debate by pushing for preemptive privacy
regulations on the still-grounded industry.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced a bill this week that
would require law-enforcement agencies to earn a warrant before
conducting any surveillance via any unmanned aircraft. The bill
would also make drone applications include statements detailing the
purpose and location of any drone and how any data collected is
intended to be used; it would also require the FAA to maintain a
website listing licenses issued and other information about
approved drones.

“Before countless commercial drones begin to fly overhead, we
must ground their operation in strong rules to protect privacy and
promote transparency,” Markey said in a statement. “This
legislation requires transparency on the domestic use of drones and
adds privacy protections that ensure this technology cannot and
will not be used to spy on Americans.”

Drone lobbyists worry that they’re going to be singled out and
want the rules to be “technology-neutral,” which, you know, might
not be a bad idea.

Read the full story
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

Two LAPD officers, Luis Valenzuela and James Nichols, are under
investigation for reportedly
using the threat of arrest to rape at least four women over the
course of several years. Two of the women reported working for the
officers as confidential informants, while one says she was
detained for prostitution and another was allegedly stopped while
she was simply out walking.

In a
search warrant affidavit released yesterday, an LAPD Internal
Affairs officer outlined the allegations against the officers.

According to the affidavit, the department was first made aware
of the officers’ alleged behavior in January 2010 when a woman who

worked as an informant for Valenzuela and Nichols reported
being detained by the plain clothes officers while she was out
walking; she was then forced to perform sex acts on one of the men.
The investigation was eventually dropped. 

A year later, another woman filed a complaint with LAPD
supervisors, alleging that Valenzuela raped her under almost
identical circumstances. While she was walking down the street in
Hollywood, Valenzuela ordered her into his undercover police
vehicle or be arrested. Once inside, Valenzuela allegedly told her,
“If you don’t suck my dick, you’re going to jail.” He then “grabbed
her by the back of her head and forced her to perform oral
copulation on him,” while Nichols sat in the front seat.

A sex worker also came forward, following an anonymous complaint
filed with the department that “unknown LAPD officers were
exchanging sexual favors from prostitutes in lieu of arrest.” The
woman claimed that Nichols raped her twice. Both times he detained
and handcuffed her, drove to a secluded area, and pulled out his
erect penis. At one point, Nichols allegedly asked the woman, “You
don’t want to go to jail today, do you?”

Additionally, a second confidential informant who worked with
Valenzuela and Nichols for over a year claimed that the men
insisted on using sex as a bargaining tool as she worked off her
arrest.

According to the
LA Times:

Sources familiar with the case…said police officials determined
from the investigation that there was enough evidence of misconduct
to have Nichols and Valenzuela fired.

Under city rules, the chief of police does not have the
authority to fire an officer outright. Instead, Chief Charlie Beck
ordered discipline hearing panels that will decide if the officers
are guilty of the allegations and, if so, whether they should be
fired or given a lesser punishment.

Valenzuela, a 16-year department veteran, and Nichols, who has
been an officer for nearly 13 years, were suspended with pay during
the investigation. They are no longer being paid as they await the
disciplinary hearing.

As the officers prepare for the hearing, Nichols’ attorney

claimed the women “have no credibility.”

The Lyndhurst school district in New
Jersey voted in a special meeting 7 to 2 in favor of a policy
banning students in Kindergarten through 8^th grade from
bringing any peanuts or peanut-containing foods onto school
grounds. High school students are now allowed to eat peanuts only
in the cafeteria. The district already had a restrictive peanut
policy, allowing the consumption of food containing peanut only in
designated classrooms by students in 4^th through
8^th grade, which came about  The anti-peanut policy
was first implemented after one child had an “apparent reaction.”
The parent of that child is a member of the school board. The local
Observer reports:

BOE member Jim Hooper told The Observer last week that
it was one of his sons who was stricken at the time. He elaborated:
“I have two sons who have peanut allergies. We don’t have
cafeterias in our elementary schools and sometime during the
2004-2005 school year, one of them who was attending Roosevelt
School where, at the time, the kids ate lunch in the gym, had a
reaction to something while he was in his gym class.”

The boy was taken to an area hospital and recovered, Hooper
said.

“If we had a new middle school and new cafeteria – which we’ve
tried to get [through a public referendum that failed] – where we
could come up with something that would allow non-allergic kids to
eat peanuts, then maybe we could control things better,” Hooper
said. “But we don’t. Some kids can go into anaphylactic shock from
being exposed to peanuts. So, it’s a safety issue. “I’m not
normally a guy who restricts things,” Hooper said, “but we’re
trying to protect the kids.”

The policy change came about after a “concerned parent” thought
the peanut policy wasn’t strict enough, says the school
superintendent. In a letter to parents she warned:

“Nut allergies can be life threatening. It takes only
the slightest smell, touch, or ingestion of peanuts, peanut butter,
peanut oil, a product that may contain trace amounts of peanuts or
a product that has been processed in a plant that also manufactures
peanut products, to cause a potential anaphylactic
reaction.

A few
years ago, a Harvard professor of medical sociology, Nicholas
Christakis, suggested that the increased worry over peanut
allergies resembled mass psychogenic illness, better known as
epidemic hysteria. Only about 150 people a year die from all food
allergies combined, he noted, similar to the number of people who
die from lightning strikes and earthquakes combined.

We’ll finally get a look at
some official enrollment numbers for Obamacare’s federal exchanges
next week. To the surprise of almost no one, Health and Human
Services Secretary said today that the actual enrollment totals
won’t be very high. Sebelius testified on the botched rollout of
Obamacare’s online insurance portals today. A few details,
via Politico:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today
acknowledged that long-awaited enrollment figures for the rocky
first month of Obamacare will be “very low.”

“We intend to give you as much information as we can validate,”
Sebelius told a Senate Finance Committee hearing where lawmakers
from both parties harshly criticized the rollout and her agency’s
lack of foresight about the massive problems. She said the initial
batch of enrollment figures being released next week cover “the
first month of enrollment” and will include both Medicaid and
health plan numbers in the new insurance exchanges.

So far, the administration, which is directly running
Obamacare’s insurance exchanges in 36 states, has released some web
traffic numbers, the number of applications submitted across all
federal and state exchanges, and the number of subsidy calculations
performed by the IRS. Federal officials have suggested that the
numbers they have released prove there’s strong interest in the
law. But the administration declined to given any official
enrollment totals. 

Both Sebelius and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
previously refused to discuss enrollment figures on the grounds
that they didn’t have the numbers. Notes from daily meetings in the
administration’s daily Obamacare “war room” meetings
later revealed that senior administration officials had exact
numbers for the first few days—with just six individuals
successfully enrolling on day one, and a total of 248 enrollments
on day two. 

We’ll finally get a look at
some official enrollment numbers for Obamacare’s federal exchanges
next week. To the surprise of almost no one, Health and Human
Services Secretary said today that the actual enrollment totals
won’t be very high. Sebelius testified on the botched rollout of
Obamacare’s online insurance portals today. A few details,
via Politico:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today
acknowledged that long-awaited enrollment figures for the rocky
first month of Obamacare will be “very low.”

“We intend to give you as much information as we can validate,”
Sebelius told a Senate Finance Committee hearing where lawmakers
from both parties harshly criticized the rollout and her agency’s
lack of foresight about the massive problems. She said the initial
batch of enrollment figures being released next week cover “the
first month of enrollment” and will include both Medicaid and
health plan numbers in the new insurance exchanges.

So far, the administration, which is directly running
Obamacare’s insurance exchanges in 36 states, has released some web
traffic numbers, the number of applications submitted across all
federal and state exchanges, and the number of subsidy calculations
performed by the IRS. Federal officials have suggested that the
numbers they have released prove there’s strong interest in the
law. But the administration declined to given any official
enrollment totals. 

Both Sebelius and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
previously refused to discuss enrollment figures on the grounds
that they didn’t have the numbers. Notes from daily meetings in the
administration’s daily Obamacare “war room” meetings
later revealed that senior administration officials had exact
numbers for the first few days—with just six individuals
successfully enrolling on day one, and a total of 248 enrollments
on day two. 

• It turns out unions might get
  Obamacare subsidies after all.
• Israeli President
  Shimon Peres has asked Secretary of State John Kerry not to
  screw-up Israel-Palestine peace negotiations.
• Two Los Angeles lawmakers want to ease
  restrictions on street vendors.
• 
  Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has claimed
  responsibility for the killing of two French journalists in
  Mali.
• 
  Silk Road is reportedly back online.
• 
  Another man was anally
  probed by police after a traffic stop.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—sign
up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Last week, European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso expressed concern over the rise of
nationalist, xenophobic, and protectionist rhetoric in Europe and
the possibility that populist parties could gain seats in next
year’s European Parliament elections.

Barroso’s concerns are well founded. Across
Europe, Eurosceptic and nationalist parties
have increased in popularity. Unfortunately for Barroso and
many of his fellow European lawmakers, the rise of ignorant,
populist, and sometimes violent xenophobic parties and movements in
Europe is to a large degree a consequence of government policies,
which, Matthew Feeney argues, do little to help promote social
cohesion and actually restrict the economic potential
offered by immigrants.  

View this article.

The Washington Free
Beacon notes
several cases in which gun owners were arrested for violating New
York’s new limit on the number of rounds you can put in a magazine.
Last May state police pulled over Gregory Dean, a 31-year-old
resident of Hopewell Junction, in New Lebanon because his license
plate was not illuminated. According to a statement from state Sen.
Greg Ball (R-Patterson), “Troopers found Dean with a legally
registered pistol with a magazine that contained nine bullets, two
more than the recently passed ‘SAFE Act’ allows.” It’s a bit
mysterious how the troopers knew the magazine contained more than
seven rounds. According to a
state police guide issued last September, “Unless there is
probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no
justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not
it contains more than 7 rounds….Absent some indication of
criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a
magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe
Act.” That may explain why Columbia County District Attorney Paul
Czajka
decided not to prosecute Dean for this offense, which is a
Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a
$200 fine.  

Last month’s
arrest of Paul Wojdan in Buffalo seems similarly suspect.
Wojdan was legally carrying a pistol in a car driven by his
girlfriend, who was pulled over for speeding. While the officers
were justified in checking that Wojdan had a permit, it’s not clear
how they determined that his magazine contained 10 rounds instead
of seven. Here is what the state police guide says about a
situation like this:

If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will
be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person
lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot
be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing
the firearm and conducting an inventory of its contents. In
this case, the inventory would include checking the
magazine in order to account for each round. However, if the
person produces a permit and there are no indications of
unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would
be unnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured
temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the
duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at
the conclusion of the encounter. 

Another arrest cited by the Beacon involved a
man whom Utica police also charged
with illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In such cases,
according to the state police, seizing the firearm and inspecting
the magazine would be legally justified.

So of these three arrests, two involved otherwise law-abiding
people whose only crime was exceeding an arbitrary ammunition
limit, while the other one involved someone who would have been
arrested anyway but now faces an additional, relatively minor
charge. Either way, it is hard to see any potential public safety
benefit from this silly rule.

The Washington Free
Beacon notes
several cases in which gun owners were arrested for violating New
York’s new limit on the number of rounds you can put in a magazine.
Last May state police pulled over Gregory Dean, a 31-year-old
resident of Hopewell Junction, in New Lebanon because his license
plate was not illuminated. According to a statement from state Sen.
Greg Ball (R-Patterson), “Troopers found Dean with a legally
registered pistol with a magazine that contained nine bullets, two
more than the recently passed ‘SAFE Act’ allows.” It’s a bit
mysterious how the troopers knew the magazine contained more than
seven rounds. According to a
state police guide issued last September, “Unless there is
probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no
justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not
it contains more than 7 rounds….Absent some indication of
criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a
magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe
Act.” That may explain why Columbia County District Attorney Paul
Czajka
decided not to prosecute Dean for this offense, which is a
Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a
$200 fine.  

Last month’s
arrest of Paul Wojdan in Buffalo seems similarly suspect.
Wojdan was legally carrying a pistol in a car driven by his
girlfriend, who was pulled over for speeding. While the officers
were justified in checking that Wojdan had a permit, it’s not clear
how they determined that his magazine contained 10 rounds instead
of seven. Here is what the state police guide says about a
situation like this:

If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will
be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person
lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot
be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing
the firearm and conducting an inventory of its contents. In
this case, the inventory would include checking the
magazine in order to account for each round. However, if the
person produces a permit and there are no indications of
unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would
be unnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured
temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the
duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at
the conclusion of the encounter. 

Another arrest cited by the Beacon involved a
man whom Utica police also charged
with illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In such cases,
according to the state police, seizing the firearm and inspecting
the magazine would be legally justified.

So of these three arrests, two involved otherwise law-abiding
people whose only crime was exceeding an arbitrary ammunition
limit, while the other one involved someone who would have been
arrested anyway but now faces an additional, relatively minor
charge. Either way, it is hard to see any potential public safety
benefit from this silly rule.

The Virginia Governors race between Dem. Terry McAuliffe, Rep.
Ken Cuccinelli, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis demonstrates,
frankly, the best way to get politicians to listen to you is to
significantly impact an election. While Sarvis did not impact the
outcome of the election, he likely narrowed the Democrat’s
margin of victory. In the case of the Virginia Governors
race, the lesson may be for Democrats, not just Republicans, to pay
closer attention to moderate voters who value both economic and
personal freedom.

Despite McAuliffe
leading by 7 points in the polls leading up to the election, he
only won by 2.5 percent. A surprise to many is that Sarvis, the
libertarian candidate hurt McAuliffe the Democrat more than
Cuccinelli, the Republican. Sarvis turned out not to be the
Republican
spoiler conservatives had predicted. Exit polls reveal that
twice as many Sarvis voters would have otherwise voted for
McAuliffe over Cuccinelli. (ABC
reports a third would have gone for McAuliffe, more than twice
as many as for Cuccinelli)

Pundits had assumed the relatively popular libertarian
candidate, Sarvis, garnering
roughly 10 percent in the polls was a boon to Democratic
candidate Terry McAuliffe, at the expense of Ken Cuccinelli the
Republican. (And yes, 10 percent in public opinion polls for a
libertarian is high). However, Sarvis proved himself a serious
candidate and deserving of attention—not just of Republicans but
Democrats too. He’s a graduate of Harvard, Cambridge, George Mason,
and NYU, pushes market based solutions for health care, and
advocates for less government intervention in the economy, but also
supports same-sex marriage. He also favors eliminating certain
taxes and regulations that give preferential treatment to some
industries, and strengthening liability laws to empower property
owners to hold businesses accountable for environmental damage.
Perhaps the fact he was even willing to discuss environmental
protection and closing tax loopholes earned him credibility among
Democratic voters.

Exit polls
reveal that Sarvis voters were slightly more likely to be found
among moderates, liberals, those with higher educational
attainment, among those who think abortion should be legal in most
or all cases, and non-tea party supporters. Moreover, what is even
clearer is they were not overwhelmingly found among
conservatives, those who disapprove of the president, or disapprove
of the health care law.

These data provide some preliminary evidence to suggest how
pragmatic libertarian candidates can appeal not only to
Republicans, but Democrats too. Political candidates who believe
markets generally solve problems better than government bureaucrats
but also publicly demonstrate a sincere concern for the
environment, and the power of the wealthy and politically connected
to take advantage of government at the expense of everyone else can
perhaps prove to Democratic voters they are not a shill for
“powerful others” like corporations.

The lesson for libertarians is an unfortunate truth: the best
way to get the political apparatus to care about you is to win an
election, or at least significantly impact it. In fact, this is how
evangelical Christians made their way into the Republican Party in
the 1980s and 1990s. The tea party movement really only garnered
significant national attention when tea party backed candidates
beat out establishment backed Republicans in the primaries (i.e.
Sen. Rand Paul beating Trey Grayson in Kentucky, Sharon Angle
beating Sue Lowden in Nevada, Sen. Mike Lee replacing Bob Bennett
in Utah, etc.)

Pragmatic libertarian candidates may be painful for the
political parties in the short run, but may also demonstrate the
importance of appealing to voters in the middle who want both
parties to lean toward greater economic and social freedom.