In
June 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that police
officers who search the cell phones of arrested individuals without
first obtaining a search warrant are in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. “Our answer to the question of what police must do
before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is
accordingly simple,” declared Chief Justice John Roberts in Riley v. California:
“get a warrant.”
The Canadian Supreme Court, by contrast, has decided to give its
country’s police officers much more room to maneuver. In a decision
handed down this week, Canada’s high court ruled that a warrantless
cell phone search incident to arrest is perfectly legitimate under
Canadian law. Sean Fine of Toronto’s Globe and Mail
has the story:
In a crime ruling that earned it rare praise from the federal
government, the Supreme Court of Canada said police may search
cellphones without a warrant when they make an arrest.
Cellphones are the bread and butter of the drug trade, the
majority said in a 4-3 ruling. It said police have been given the
“extraordinary power” to do warrantless searches during an arrest,
under common-law rules developed by judges over centuries, because
of the importance of prompt police investigations. Until now, those
searches typically included purses and briefcases….
“Prompt access by law enforcement to the contents of a cellphone
may serve the purpose of identifying accomplices or locating and
preserving evidence that might otherwise be lost or destroyed,”
Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the majority, joined by Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justices Richard Wagner and Michael
Moldaver.
The omnibus spending bill making its way through
Congress includes a provision that aims to keep marijuana illegal
in Washington, D.C., contrary to the wishes of the District’s
residents. In my latest Forbes column, I argue that
what looks like a victory for pot prohibitionists is actually a
sign of their weakness. Here is how the piece starts:
The omnibus spending bill that Congress is expected to
approve this week includes a rider aimed at blocking marijuana
legalization in Washington, D.C. Whether it actually will do that
is a matter of debate, and the way this provision was passed
suggests that pot prohibitionists are in a weaker position than
ever before.
The rider, introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), says
“none of the funds contained in this Act may be used to enact any
law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties
associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any
schedule I substance.” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal
Rogers (R-Ky.), another ardent drug warrior, claims this
spending restriction “prohibits both federal and local funds
from being used to implement a referendum legalizing recreational
marijuana use in the District.” But that is not quite
accurate, since the rider refers to enactment, not
implementation.
By contrast, an earlier version of the Harris rider dealt with
spending to “enact or carry out” decriminalization or legalization
of any Schedule I drug. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of
Columbia’s congressional delegate, says that difference
could prove crucial, because Initiative 71, the D.C. ballot
measure legalizing marijuana possession, home cultivation, and
sharing, “was enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters
in November.” The initiative’s elimination of penalties for
specified marijuana-related activities is “self-executing,” Norton
says, requiring no additional legislation by the D.C. Council or by
Congress. In other words, the event Harris seeks to prevent has
already happened.
Lima, Peru – Secretary of State
John Kerry jetted down today for the 20th Conference of
the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). In his climate change pep talk, Kerry
warned that unmitigated man-made global warming will lead to
“tragedy.” But looking on the bright side, the Secretary claimed
that “climate change presents one of the greatest economic
opportunities of all time on earth.” Kerry added that the trillion
dollar infotech boom of 1990s will pale in comparison with the six
trillion dollar cleantech boom that an ambitious climate agreement
in Paris would spark. If climate change is such a great investment
opportunity, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey
wonders why a vast complicated global treaty is necessary to force
people to participate?
Earlier this week, I blogged about an event taking place in London today to protest
the U.K.’s new regulations for online porn. The censorship-happy
British government is attempting to ban a range of erotic acts from
web porn depiction, including bondage, strangulation, female
ejaculation, “water sports,” and face-sitting. For more on the new regs, see here. For a glimpse of the scene
in front of Parliament today, scroll on…
Do yourself a favor and watch this one with the sound
on:
No matter how often it’s brought up, it can’t be
stressed enough how toxic police unions are to the arduous task of
rooting out misconduct in any given police department.
The New York Police Department (NYPD) probably hasn’t seen this
much sustained critical press since Giuliani was in charge in the
1990s—though the relative absence of coverage of the Akai Gurley
shooting shows just how lacking “sustained” coverage can be.
Gurley’s killer, for example, contacted his union rep before
bothering to call for medical assistance but this horrific detail
is nary mentioned in the press or by your garden variety liberal
protesters who have so attached themselves to the issue of police
violence in the last few months.
Some of the leadership at the NYPD understand that they need to
at least make an effort at improving their image. The chair
of the NYPD’s civilian review board, for example,
wants cops to avoid foul language. He’s not going to like
the latest video from
M. Logic, a New York City resident who films cops, as is his
right and a service to all New Yorkers. Logic was documenting two
cops who were patrolling the Bronx on foot to hand out parking
tickets and decided to talk to some of the police’s sources of
revenue that night.
Watch below, the video is queued to the start of the
incident:
It ought to be unbelievable that a cop in New York City, with
anti-police violence protests ongoing, would have no problem making
an implicit threat to shoot someone on camera. Given the very
generous job protections offered cops by their contracts this kind
of behavior isn’t surprising. There’s literally no substantive
consequences for this kind of behavior, caught on camera or
not.
I like to consider myself an optimist but I just see a lot of
posturing, signaling and agenda-hijacking, demands for the
conversation to be about race to the exclusion of everything else.
The protests may be useful for the protesters’ sense of self-worth
of duty but they’re not doing anything to stop the system from
producing bodies and not much in the way of slowing that system
down either. Body cams and more independent investigations are
important components to reducing police violence. But without a
disciplinary regime that offers serious consequences for all
misconduct (a broken windows approach to policing the police, so to
speak), and police unions thwart just those kinds of regimes from
being imposed, other solutions are largely reactive and not
actually preventative.
Hopefully I’m wrong. At the moment, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo
(D) is
deciding whether to sign a bill that hands more of the power to
discipline cops to police union, a bill that passed overwhelmingly
in the Democrat-controlled state legislature. Cuomo’s ultimate
decision (don’t hold your breath and him making the right one) will
be a good indicator of the shape of police reform efforts to
come.
Ridley Scott has been getting a lot of stick
lately for his ethnically incorrect casting of Exodus:
Gods and Kings. But that’s not the movie’s real problem,
writes Kurt Loder.
The story is so familiar that cynics might wonder why a pressing
need was felt to retell it. It’s set in 1300 BC, in the Egyptian
capital of Memphis, and recounts the life of Moses (Christian
Bale), a Hebrew foundling unwittingly adopted as a baby by the
Pharaoh Seti (John Turturro), who raises him alongside his
biological son, Ramses (Joel Edgerton).
The actors are famously talented, and they engage with their
characters as best they can. But their performance styles are at
odds throughout, and the story’s overtones of Sunday-school
pageantry are hard to dispel (at some points, everyone seems to be
playing dress-up).
Police in
Hong Kong cleared the last of the camp sites being used by
pro-democracy protesters, who nevertheless promised to come
back.
Former Republican presidential candidate
Mitt Romney is reportedly now interested in running again. He
probably has a better chance of winning the Democratic
nomination.
Snow, rain, and wind is hitting
California in the worst storm the drought-stricken state’s seen
in years.
Mark Zuckerberg says he’s considering something like a
“dislike” button for
Facebook, but not to disagree with what people have to say
because, he says, that would be bad.
Scientists have identified signals from the
Andromeda Galaxy that may be evidence for the existence of dark
matter.
Delayed since November, the trial of Ross Ulbricht, the former
Eagle Scout who stands accused of running the “dark Web” site Silk
Road, is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2015.
You remember Silk Road, right, which seemed like something out
of a William Gibson or Neal Stephenson novel? Operated by the
pseudonymous “Dread
Pirate Roberts,” it was the “Amazon.com for drugs” and other
illegal substances and activities, a Bitcoin-driven den of thieves,
murderers, and worse. Or maybe not;
read Brian Doherty’s recent Reason mag feature on it.
Whatever you think about all that, Ulbricht’s
trial is about more than the feds shutting down a site that allowed
people to buy and sell drugs. It intersects with all sorts of
issues related to state surveillance, burden of proof, and whether
ISPs and marketplace sites can be held liable for the actions of
users. Watch the interview above with Ulbricht’s mother, Lynn, who
is a powerful explicator of the larger issues at stake in this
case. Full disclosure: I’ve given $100 to Ulbricht’s defense fund
because I want to see a full airing of those issues. We live in an
age where government surveillance is, in my opinion, largely out of
control and unchecked. For all the good they do, federal law
enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, and
the NSA have proven track records of vastly exceeding the scope of
their powers and the executive branch often seems to be egging them
on. Let’s get as much of this out in the open as we possibly
can.
For more information on the case and Ulbricht, go to Free Ross Ulbricht. From its
pages:
By its own admission, the FBI has no documentation of how they
found the Silk Road server, which comprises the bulk of their
evidence. Without forensic documentation there is no
guarantee that the evidence is valid or even that it wasn’t
fabricated. The explanation of how the FBI found the server has
been widely criticized by technical and security experts,
one calling it “inconsistent with reality”; another “impossible“; and another a lie and gibberish.
Ross has been arraigned in New York on a superseding indictment.
He is pleading not guilty to all charges: narcotics trafficking;
computer hacking; money laundering; engaging in a criminal
enterprise; and conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent IDs. Ross’
family and friends believe he is falsely accused and innocent of the charges.
The case is scheduled to be tried beginning January 5,
2015 in Judge Katherine Forrest’s courtroom, #15A,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY.
Although initially alleged to have planned six murders, Ross was
never indicted in New York for any.
That last point is kind of amazing, since you’d think alleged
hits would play a starring role in the federal prosecution.
Certainly, it’s the murder-for-hire charges that have driven the
press attention, from The New York Times Magazine’s blockbuster
story on the case from January 2014 (“Eagle
Scout. Idealist. Drug Trafficker?“) to stories about the
upcoming trial. Consider this lede from
a Bloomberg news piece:
Ross Ulbricht, the alleged mastermind of the $1.2 billion online
“black-market bazaar” known as Silk Road, attempted to arrange the
murders of at least six people including a worker he believed had
stolen $350,000 in bitcoins from him, the U.S. said.
While the murder-for-hire plots aren’t part of the government’s
indictment of Ulbricht, federal prosecutors in New York are
seeking to use them as evidence against him at his trial set to
begin Jan. 5. The alleged schemes support the government’s argument
that Ulbricht conspired to protect the criminal enterprise,
prosecutors said yesterday in a court filing.
So the feds want people to know that Ulbricht is a deranged
would-be murderer as his trial begins. They just don’t want to, you
know, substantiate the charges. It’s a classic legal ploy and it
was the murder charges more than anything else that kept Ulbricht
behind bars while awaiting trial.
Police in Bangkok are ramping up their harassment
of tourists, demanding identification, performing strip searches,
taking urine samples, and, naturally, collecting fines, according
to anecdotes from tourists and locals showing up in the
English-language press in Thailand.
Asian Correspondent
reports that fines levied include $152 for failure to produce
identification and $61 for smoking in most public areas or dropping
your butt on the ground, all payable on the spot in cash.
What might be the cause of this frenzy of action? Asian
Correspondent speculates:
The jurisdiction of the Thong Lor police department includes
many of the venues that formerly opened until the early hours.
Since the coup these
venues have been closing at their legally required time, and this
presumably means less kickbacks to the police. Could these
shakedowns be a way to make up the deficit? Could they be a way to
build up a kitty for the Thong Lor police department’s New Year
party by targeting foreigners who do not have the contact
networking to oppose them? Could they have something to do with the
recent police
purge? Or could this just be rogue officers besmirching the
good name of the Thong Lor police department?
It’s always possible it’s just a few bad apples isn’t it?
Asian Correspondent suggests tourists contact their
local embassies after being targeted by police, and reports that
the British ambassador says he
brought the issue up with the Minister of Tourism but that the
minister denied any “campaign” by police.