Bill Barr Excises 'Attorney' From His Title As He Leads Our Nation's Police Soldiers Into The War At Home

Say That Again

from the looking-for-a-fist-to-put-his-face-in dept

It seems the only reason Attorney General Bill Barr opens his mouth is to apply more tongue-polish to the nearest policeman’s boot.

Echoing the pro-law enforcement rhetoric of his boss, Barr has expounded frequently on the rule of law, even as the administration he serves does everything it can to subvert it. It’s not really a high-wire act. No one expects anything less from Bill Barr. And certainly no one expects anything more from him either.

Barr has gone on the warpath against encryption, something that seemingly only stymies the Federal Bureau of Going Darkness and a few very confused law enforcement officials. He’s also gone on the warpath against the public in general, demoting them to servants of public employees, rather than recognizing it’s actually the other way around.

He has decided to amplify the divisiveness that already plagues police departments and the constituents they’re supposed to serve. He has done this by elevating cops to freedom fighters — soldiers in the war-torn country we call the US of A. As is befitting a public industry that has already decided to clad itself in camo and deliver warrants in repurposed military vehicles, Barr summons up heroic imagery that presents everyday cops as protectors of rights and freedoms, even though law enforcement officers rarely respect rights on their way to depriving people of their freedom.

Last year, Barr turned the United States into Iraq during a speech to a gathering of police union reps:

[W]hen police officers leave their precincts every morning, there are no crowds on the highway cheering you. And when you come home at the end of the day after a job well done, there are no ticker tape parades.

One reason for this is that law enforcement is fighting a different type of war. We are fighting an unrelenting, never-ending fight against criminal predators in our society. While there are battles won and lost each day, there is never a final resolution – a final victory is never in sight.

It takes a very special kind of courage to wage this kind of fight – a special kind of commitment; a special kind of self-sacrifice.

He may be right about the last part, but he’s wrong about everything else. You can’t serve a community well when you view its residents as enemy combatants and your police force as a conquering army. And, unlike the soldiers Barr idealizes them as, cops are far less likely to sacrifice themselves when the option to “sacrifice” a civilian is still on the table. Real soldiers aren’t nearly as self-absorbed. But our nation’s cops are and it has been drilled into their heads that every person presents a threat and their only obligation is to make it home alive.

Barr followed that up with another hyping of the War at Home during his speech at a law enforcement awards ceremony:

“I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr told the crowd. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves?and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

Barr believes police officers do not need to earn respect. He believes it’s owed to them. And if it isn’t given, the police will abdicate their obligations to the public. This is a man who apparently would rather see citizens killed or injured than see cops go without their unearned respect.

The Attorney General’s outlook remains unchanged in 2020. In his speech to a law enforcement “wellness” symposium, the AG once again pretended to be leading an army, rather than a group of narrowly-tasked public servants.

There were times in the past when we did not show enough respect for men and women who served in our armed forces. I remember those times, particularly during and after the Vietnam War. Today, thankfully, veterans and members of the military receive the respect they deserve for their sacrifice and heroism in defense of our nation.  

We should be showing our police officers the same gratitude we show our soldiers. Soldiers protect our people by fighting our enemies abroad, while the police protect our people by guarding them here at home. Foreign wars usually come to an end, but the battle that law enforcement fights never comes to an end. There is never a final victory, it is constant. That takes a special kind of courage and a special kind of sacrifice.  

While policing is demanding, it is also uniquely rewarding. It is one of our country’s highest callings, and we are blessed that there are men and women of character willing to serve selflessly so that their fellow citizens can live securely. We owe our officers the support and services they need to work their way through problems.

Everytown, USA is once again Vietnam. Except we can’t bring our boys back because they’re already here. If we can’t give these heroes a ticker tape parade every time they punch out then that’s on us. We don’t deserve them, says Barr, not if we don’t pay them the respect they’re “owed.”

What a crock of shit. What an asinine assertion. At least soldiers in foreign wars are tasked with winning hearts and minds as well as battles. Law enforcement can’t even be bothered to do that. They’ve done all they can to place themselves away and above those they serve for years. And just when it seemed like the public had had enough, an AG is sworn in who thinks this chasm the police have dug is more worthy of protection than the citizens who stand on the other side of it.

Filed Under: doj, law enforcement, respect, william barr

Clearview Is Handing Out Access To Dozens Of UK Entities, Setting Up Accounts For Congressional Reps

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the mass-marketing-privacy-violations dept

Clearview continues to make itself unpopular with the general public even as it increases its user base. Supposedly, it has worked with over 900 law enforcement agencies at this point, although it’s unclear how many are actually using the software and how many have just been given trial logins.

Internal documents given to BuzzFeed show a number of federal agencies (FBI, ATF, Secret Service, CBP) have performed tens of thousands of searches of Clearview’s scraped-together database. But it’s not just law enforcement agencies that are using Clearview’s facial recognition app. The documents showed a number of private companies have also at least test-driven the software, including Macy’s, Walmart, Kohl’s, and Albertsons.

The company continues to expand into other countries. The documents show Clearview has customers in 26 countries, including notorious human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Over in the UK, Clearview is being used by more public and private entities — another strange assortment of users that makes up a small part of the 2,900 institutions the company has handed its software to.

The National Crime Agency and Metropolitan Police are among a number of leading organisations across the UK that have registered users with controversial facial recognition technology firm Clearview AI, according to documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News.

The technology also had users at a number of other police forces, private investment firms, the Ministry of Defence, and a charity founded by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, the data shows.

The Met Police already has its own facial recognition tech — one that has consistently underperformed for years. According to a spokesperson, Clearview’s proprietary database of 3 billion photos scraped from the web isn’t being used in conjunction with the live tech already deployed by the agency. Other UK law enforcement agencies listed in the documents as having performed searches all stated they had used the software “on a trial basis” and are not currently using the tech to search for criminal suspects.

The same comments were made by some private financial firms, which claimed it was demoed for them by Clearview, but they weren’t currently using the software. A few refused to provide any comment at all, leaving that question open.

The searches run by J.K. Rowling’s charity also appear to have been part of a demo.

The charity told BuzzFeed News that a staff member had tried out the software once at an event and Clearview was not being used by Lumos in its work.

A spokesperson for Lumos said: “A member of Lumos staff attended an anti-trafficking event last year to which a number of NGOs were invited as well as a representative from Clearview AI.

“During the event the representative from Clearview AI demonstrated the software which we understand was being used in the US by law enforcement to tackle child exploitation.

Back in the United States, Clearview continues its aggressive expansion, preemptively creating accounts for Congressional reps and administration officials.

Clearview AI, the secretive facial recognition company whose software has been used by more than 2,200 organizations around the world, created accounts for the offices of four members of Congress, including one whom President Donald Trump is nominating for director of national intelligence.

Clearview data reviewed by BuzzFeed News includes an unused account for Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Republican whose eventual nomination to DNI was announced by Trump on Friday via tweet. Trump has yet to formally send the nomination to the Senate.

In Clearview documents viewed by BuzzFeed News, the entry for “Congressman John Ratcliffe Staff” indicates that that user had performed zero log-ins and zero searches, meaning that Clearview had created an account that was never used. A spokesperson for Ratcliffe told BuzzFeed News that Clearview staff had met with Ratcliffe’s staff.

All of these appear to have been set up when staffers met with Clearview reps. Only one rep’s office — Mark Walker’s — appears to have run any searches.

In other news on the homefront, Apple has disabled Clearview’s iOS app for violating the company’s rules on distribution.

In distributing its app for Apple devices, Clearview, which BuzzFeed News reported earlier this week has been used by more than 2,200 public and private entities including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FBI, Macy’s, Walmart, and the NBA, has been sidestepping the Apple App Store, encouraging those who want to use the software to download its app through a program reserved exclusively for developers. In response to an inquiry from BuzzFeed News, Apple investigated and suspended the developer account associated with Clearview, effectively preventing the iOS app from operating.

The company’s CEO says it’s working with Apple to get the app reinstated, claiming Clearview did not actually violate the rules since the app cannot be used without “proper authorization.” But that doesn’t explain why Clearview is demoing its “internal use application” to hundreds of potential customers and facilitating that access by setting up accounts for anyone who wants to try the app out. Apple’s Enterprise Developer program forbids the distribution of internal apps to users outside of the developer’s company.

If Clearview stays ousted, it’s going to hurt its plans for expansion. One of the selling points of Clearview’s tech is that it’s available in app form — portable and usable by anyone who owns a smartphone. Linking the app to 3 billion face photos and other personal information scraped from the web makes it almost irresistible. Taking a sizable chunk of phone users out of the equation will slow the company’s roll. But I imagine it will find a way to get some version of its app back into the store — and into the hands of uncurated user base.  

Filed Under: facial recognition, uk
Companies: clearview, clearview ai

Sixth Circuit: Criticizing Refs Is Protected Speech, Even If Lots Of Sports Fans Are Assholes

Free Speech

from the toxic-fanhood dept

Sportsball fans are the worst.

That conclusion is immediately clear in this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals First Amendment decision [PDF]. It opens with the court commenting on the lifelong antagonism present in Fans v. Refs, which is pretty much what this case is about.

Devoted sports fans are not known for their evenhandedness in judging referees. The sign of a true fan, it might even be said, is the hopelessness of attaining such equanimity. Veteran referee John Higgins surely was no stranger to this phenomenon before March 26, 2017. But what he experienced after that day’s game was extraordinary all the same.

John Higgins had the unfortunate duty of presiding over a close Kentucky Wildcats loss. After the game, he was criticized by the team’s coach, who claimed the referee had pretty much single-handedly cost his team the game. The officiating was described as “putrid” by Matthew Jones on Kentucky Sports Radio. Jones also mentioned Coach Calipari had stated the team got “jobbed” by the officials, most prominently John Higgins.

Die-hard sports fans are unreasonable human beings. The ones that provided the impetus for Higgins’ lawsuit were some real fuckwits.

Soon after the game, fans discovered that Higgins owned a roofing business: Weatherguard Roofing. Its URL is www.rooferees.com, a portmanteau of “roof” and “referee.” A video posted by an anonymous user, titled “John Higgins[’] Sabotage of Kentucky,” depicted Higgins standing by a truck bearing the insignia of his business. In text at the bottom of the video, it suggested that viewers “[w]rite a review of him here[:] http://www.facebook.com/ rooferees.” Id. at 4.

This grabbing of pitchforks was not-so-mildly encouraged by Kentucky Sports Radio broadcasters, who claimed they didn’t condone what was happening even as they pointed listeners and website readers to the ongoing destruction of Higgins’ other livelihood by angry fans.

The day after the game, Jones devoted airtime to Higgins’ refereeing. He read one email from a listener who contemplated “leaving a bad review on John Higgins’ roofing Yelp page.” Jones responded that this would be a “bad thing to do” and would constitute “harassment.” Jones read another email from a listener who was “against trolling John Higgins” until he “saw the name of his roofing company.” Jones laughed that Higgins went with the name “rooferees.” Even so, he did not “think [the fans] should troll the guy.”

That same day, Drew Franklin, a writer for Kentucky Sports Radio’s website, published a series of articles criticizing Higgins’ calls. He followed up the next morning with an article commenting that Higgins’ roofing business was “getting CRUSHED on its Facebook page.” He stated that he wouldn’t “link the page” because he disagreed with “attacking [Higgins’] side hustle.” He nevertheless posted a link to the video for those who could “stand to watch it.” More uncharitable posts followed. In one, he described it as a “busy day on KSR” of “contin[uing] the hatred of John Higgins.” In another, he commented that “Kentucky fans are really lighting up John Higgins’ roofing business,” while reproducing some of the fake and abusive reviews that fans posted.

Franklin added that Kentucky Sports Radio “do[es] not condone the activity” occurring on Higgins’ pages. But at the same time, he and others reproduced at least a dozen comments posted there. One of those comments suggested Higgins’ roofing business “takes money under the table from the mafia in Vegas.” Another wondered if Higgins used “illegal labor, substandard materials, and shady accounting practices.” Yet another accused Higgins of “hit[ting] on [the commenter’s] 13[-]year[-]old son.”

Yep. Some real garbage people being egged on by other garbage people trying to claim the high ground while swimming around in the internet sewer. This was the end result.

The trolling campaign took a toll on Higgins’ business. It received over 3,000 phone calls in the two days after the game, with some numbers calling 40 or 50 times a day. The calls crashed the voicemail system and made it hard for customers to get through. Higgins received many false requests for service. Reputational harm followed. Weatherguard Roofing went from being the top-rated roofing business in Omaha, Nebraska (with 4.8 stars out of 5 on Google), to the worst-rated (with 1.2 stars out of 5) based on the 181 false reviews placed. (The North Carolina fans apparently did not respond by improving Higgins’ ratings.) Higgins closed his Facebook page to stem the bleeding. Threats also came to Higgins and his family. The business received over 800 threatening calls, and Higgins’ home phone received over 30 calls. At least a dozen provided the basis for a criminal investigation. When Higgins refereed a Final Four game that year, a bodyguard accompanied him.

Higgins sued Kentucky Sports Radio and its two commentators, alleging a number of things, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with his roofing business. His amended complaint added more allegations, including negligence, harassment, and engaging in harassing communications.

Unfortunately for Higgins, the First Amendment protects the speech the sportscasters engaged in. Sports is a matter of public concern, right up there with politics. Limiting speech about refereeing would violate the First Amendment.

Public commentary about sports, some have said, is no less protected than commentary about “economics [or] politics.” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 678 (1984) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Marshall, J.). That sports coverage implicates public concerns is “amply demonstrated by the elaborate sports section in every daily newspaper published in this nation” and by the “numerous periodicals . . . exclusively devoted to sports.” Time, Inc. v. Johnson, 448 F.2d 378, 383 (4th Cir 1971).

That doesn’t mean all the criticism is correct and even-handed. Far from it. But as biased and subjective as it is, it is still protected. The court throws a bit of shade at every fan who blames the refs for their team’s loss.

Criticizing umpires serves other purposes, perhaps even healthy ones. It allows fans to suppress two unwelcome thoughts: that their team deserved to lose or that a lot of chance drives the fortunes of a team in a single-elimination tournament. How much better, after a dispiriting end-of-season loss, to be consoled by the thought that your team was robbed.

The court points out hating on the refs is a time-honored tradition, dating back to the phrase “Kill the Umpire!” in 1888’s chart-topping Casey at the Bat. And General Douglas MacArthur once stated our boys fought and died to protect the “freedom to boo the umpire.”

As the court notes, this protected booing can get out of hand, as it did here. That doesn’t mean the broadcasters are any less protected by the First Amendment. Even when they pull their waders up and hike into the raw sewage generated by toxic fans.

Just as commentators must be able to discuss the quality of the officiating, they must be free to comment on the fans’ reaction to the officiating. That means Kentucky Sports Radio could fairly discuss the game—and could freely criticize those who participated in it, including the referees, the coaches, the players, the fans, and for that matter the commentators. For Kentucky sportscasters, Higgins’ calls and the public’s reactions to them may have been the biggest story of the news cycle. Sure, some Kentucky fans likely tuned in to Kentucky Sports Radio’s coverage of Higgins solely for the schadenfreude. But even if its discussion served only that purpose, the discussion’s “inappropriate or controversial character” would not influence our analysis as to “whether it deals with a matter of public concern.”

Higgins argued that even if that commentary was protected, it was legally wrong for the commentators to bring up his roofing business. The court points out the broadcasters did not attack the business on their own. They only commented on fans’ actions and statements. It also points out Higgins’ ref work and his roofing business were not inseparable, as evidenced by Higgins’ decision to name his business “Rooferees.” This is a pretty pointed rebuttal of this argument:

[Higgins] cannot seek damages from pundits who called attention to the existence of a business that he promoted with his status as a referee before that became a liability.

The court further points out the malicious Kentucky fans began targeting Higgins’ business before the radio station got involved. Even if the commentators arguably made things worse by reporting on the actions of these fans, that reporting is protected by the First Amendment. While the commentators did almost nothing to douse the flames of referee resentment, they did not unlawfully encourage unlawful behavior.

Kentucky Sports Radio did not advocate for Higgins’ harassment. Nor did its disavowal of the fans’ conduct smack of irony—usually. Yes, it did a poor job dissuading listeners from mischief. But a party cannot be sued for incitement merely because it failed to condemn the behavior of others with sufficient firmness or clarity.

The court has sympathy for Higgins. But it does not have a ruling in his favor. The First Amendment protects the broadcasters, who did not actually engage in the attacks on his business. Kentucky Sports Radio was the biggest target, but it is not the correct target for Higgins’ allegations.

Perceived missteps in the public eye these days all too often unleash torrents of anonymous online hate. One can hardly blame the victim of such onslaughts for wanting redress. Or blame him for taking aim at the only members of the mob with faces: pundits like Jones and like Franklin who at times took too much glee in reporting on the misery of others. But a gulf lies between commenting on harassment and causing it. And in that respect, the First Amendment protects the rights of sports radio talk show hosts just as it protects the rights of presidents. Those who step into the public limelight, even temporarily, must face the hazard that sometimes comes with it.

There’s no line that can be drawn that will give Higgins what he wants. That sucks but the other options are what? Exempting referees from criticism? Exempting referees with sideline businesses from criticism? None of those fly. If Higgins wants to make someone pay for the damage done to his business, he’ll have to start tracking down some of the Kentucky fans who said something actionable. And there won’t be many of those.

As has been pointed out frequently, speech has consequences. Normally, this means someone saying stupid things should expect criticism for saying these things. But it also has consequences for those on the receiving end of things like this. Speech can damage people and their reputations without wandering out of the First Amendment’s protections. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. These garbage fans should have limited themselves to directing their anger at the (subjectively) blown calls, not the man’s outside business. But they’re not smart people or wise people. They’re spiteful people who are unable to exercise restraint. They’re the kind of people that make other people say stupid stuff about regulating speech. Let’s not encourage assholes. They’re going to cost us our freedoms.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 6th circuit, fans, free speech, john higgns, referees, reviews
Companies: weatherground roofing

Cop Shops Around The Nation Think It's Hilarious To Crack Jokes About Coronavirus-Contaminated Drugs

News

from the shitposting-away-your-credibility dept

At a time when people are getting hit with a lot of misinformation, and trust in law enforcement is at an all-time low, why in world would you do something like this?

Two dozen police departments, 10 journalists and radio stations, one Army substance abuse program, and a candidate for local sheriff have spread a claim on Facebook about meth possibly being contaminated with the novel coronavirus.

Some spread the false claim in an attempt at humor or to trick people into turning in their drugs, while others appear to have believed it was real.

“P.S.A WARNING: If you have recently purchased Meth, it may be contaminated with the Corona Virus. Please take it to the Merrill Police Department and we will test it for free,” said the most popular post from the Merrill Police Department in Wisconsin, which has been shared over 6,500 times and further spread through screenshots.

The Merrill Police Department updated its post 24 hours later with a non-apology and a “we’re just concerned about the well being of the people we lied to” statement.

It’s been 24 hrs so let’s bring this full circle. That last post really made the rounds and it sparked a lot of opinions, emotions, and touched some tender spots. Unfortunately it spawned some rather personal commentary too.

Just to give you some history, we have actually experienced people report their illegal drugs being stolen, being ripped off in a drug deal, being sold a look-a-like illegal substance, etc. We have even experienced drunk drivers coming to pick up arrested drunk drivers as their “sober responsible party”. So this attempt, although a long shot, still had some possibility behind it. We will take those easy grabs at removing poison from our community whenever we can. That is our role which we un-apologetically must fulfill.

I’m sure it’s the “personal commentary” that hurt the most, as commenters showed up to tell the Merrill PD just how stupid and wrong its original post was. The tone deafness continues throughout the update, culminating in the ridiculous assertion that the best thing that could happen to someone struggling with addiction is some time in jail and an arrest on their record.

It is our hope that an arrest would be the positive catalyst someone may need to start recovery.

This wasn’t the only police department to capitalize on coronavirus fears in hopes of making some easy arrests. While some of these posts may have been poor attempts at humor, local reporters made things worse by covering these announcements as though they were factual. Here’s a Texas ABC affiliate acting as a stenographer for pure bullshit:

Police in central Texas say they have reason to believe methamphetamine in Blanco County may be contaminated with the coronavirus and should be checked.

The offer comes in a public service announcement posted by the Johnson City Police Department to Facebook.

And, as if to demonstrate law enforcement’s lack of originality, here’s coverage of an Arkansas police department’s version of the coronavirus/meth hoax, although this one does at least points out the post was not well-received by residents.

St. Francis County Sheriff’s Office in Arkansas shared a post on their Facebook page saying any recently purchased methamphetamine could be contaminated with coronavirus.

The department is offering to test the meth for free in the privacy of your home, if you’re uncomfortable with bringing drugs to a police department.

The sheriff’s Office posted the announcement to its official Facebook page Wednesday morning and it’s causing a lot of backlash.

Here’s an NBC affiliate with some straightforward reporting that inadvertently highlights everything that’s wrong with these “jokes.”

Bennington Police tap into coronavirus fears to catch meth users

Those who think — as these law enforcement agencies clearly do — that this is all harmless fun need to recalibrate their definitions of “harmless” and “fun.” It is not harmless when government agencies lie about health concerns. It makes them yet another untrustworthy source. The next time they need to insert themselves into the discussion about health — say, during a quarantine — people will be less likely to believe them and will have every reason to doubt their motives.

The same goes for the journalists who delivered uncritical reporting of these bogus PD statements. When your credibility is undermined, it’s hard to win that trust back. In the case of coronavirus, lives will be on the line and sources of life-saving info will be viewed skeptically. That hurts everyone. And all for a couple of cheap law enforcement laughs.

Filed Under: coronavirus, covid19, meth, police

Senate May Try To Sneak A Clean Reauth Of Surveillance Powers Into A Must-Pass Coronovirus Bill

Legal Issues

from the conspiracy-theorists-v.-surveillance-apologists dept

The USA Freedom Act is up for renewal, bringing with it the usual arguments for preserving the surveillance status quo. But this administration is a little bit different. President Trump remains convinced a Deep State conspiracy exists that is actively trying to unseat him. The FBI added some fuel to the conspiratorial fire by intentionally misleading the FISA court during its investigation of former Trump adviser, Carter Page. The FBI’s omission of evidence it had indicating Page wasn’t acting as an agent of a foreign power allowed it to continue its surveillance without legal justification.

This has made Trump wary of writing a blank surveillance check. Pervasive surveillance is fine, as long as it doesn’t target Trump or his staff. But Trump also firmly believes in sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of national security, so there’s a new tension on display here.

Attorney General Bill Barr is telling Republicans to listen to Barr’s heart and just shove this thing through, no matter what Trump’s personal preferences might be.

Attorney General William Barr urged Senate Republicans on Tuesday to renew expiring provisions of a controversial surveillance law that has come under fire from President Donald Trump after its use in investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

And it appears senators are listening… or at least their frontmouth is. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says it’s too important to let expire, much less discuss.

“These tools have been overwhelmingly useful, according to our intelligence advisers, and I hope that when the Senate deals with these expiring provisions in a couple weeks, we’ll be able to continue to have them in law, which will of course provide maximum protection for the American people,” McConnell said.

Maybe some of the tools have been “overwhelmingly useful.” But one definitely hasn’t. The remodeled Section 215 program — operating under alterations codified with the USA Freedom Act — has been a bust. When the NSA wasn’t overcollecting records (despite having to request them from telcos specifically and directly), it wasn’t doing anything useful with the records it did have. The five years under the USA Freedom Act produced a total of two leads, of which only one led to an actual investigation.

Other Republicans seem willing to push the re-up through with little discussion, promising to fix it in post. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to reauthorize it completely, despite being concerned about the issues raised in the Inspector General’s report. Procrastinating on fixing problems first observed more than two decades ago is a pretty lazy take from a party that claims intelligence agencies illegally targeted their president.

A few Republicans are leaning the other way, though, suggesting some more reform of surveillance programs could be on the way.

Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rand Paul have both signaled a desire for some type of reform, with Paul tweeting that he “spoke with Trump,” and that the FISA Court — the secret court which approves certain types of surveillance requests from the intelligence community — should be “forbidden from ever spying on or investigating Americans.”

That’s a nice thought, but there’s no way the FBI (or DOJ, or any of the other fifteen Intelligence Community components) will agree to stop spying on or investigating Americans. The NSA collections are their goldmine of domestic data/communications that can be searched through handy backdoors marked “foreign surveillance only.” Cutting them out of this surreptitious intel supply just isn’t going to fly, no matter how many legislators back this curtailment of their surveillance powers.

More tension. With the Coronavirus almost literally hanging over the proceedings, there’s a chance a clear reauthorization will be tacked onto legislation addressing this issue to ensure it passes without amendments to the USA Freedom Act or the IC’s surveillance powers.

The Trump administration’s request for $2.5 billion to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic is likely to become an unstoppable legislative vehicle — as must-pass legislation that congressional leaders of both parties could use to ram through a reauthorization of the FBI’s call detail records program. Such a move would sidestep the House’s reform effort and instead push through a clean reauthorization of the program.

The Senate, said a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is “threatening to put that clean reauthorization into something like coronavirus funding which would make it impossible to defeat if we don’t come up with a bill here. Pelosi and Schiff will never allow it to expire.”

Some Republican senators want to do some editing of the reauth, mainly for political reasons. Others want zero discussion on the reauthorization and likely would do exactly this to bypass surveillance opponents. It all depends on who gets there first and how much they can add to the Trojan bill before it lands on the president’s desk. Given the urgent need to pass a bill to address the spread of the virus, those wanting zero discussion will probably prevail and it will be five more years of business as usual before the next conversation about surveillance programs and powers.

The good news is there seems to be enough people on both sides of the aisle who want to see some reforms enacted so this may end up being one of those rare “must-pass” bills that doesn’t have a lot of self-serving garbage attached. We won’t know until it’s all hashed out, but this is already an anomaly: a bi-partisan agreement that surveillance powers are being abused and some actual oversight should be done by the surveillance state’s overseers.

Filed Under: congress, coronavirus, covid19, fbi, mass surveillance, mitch mcconnell, nsa, section 215, surveillance, usa freedom, william barr

Documents Show Clearview Is Selling Facial Recognition Tech To Retailers, Fitness Centers, And Human Rights Violators

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the should-just-be-honest-since-it's-all-going-to-come-out-anyway dept

Clearview — the latest (and most troubling) entrant into the facial recognition tech sweepstakes — says it’s product is just for law enforcement. And law enforcement has seemingly welcomed the web-scraped facial recognition database with open arms. Clearview’s marketing documents claim the company works with over 900 law enforcement agencies in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Clearview’s app puts the agencies a few clicks away from over three billion images scraped from sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Those being scraped aren’t happy about it but there’s little they can do but engage in some cease-and-desist shouting.

But Clearview’s claim that it’s only making this available to law enforcement agencies is false. New documents, obtained by BuzzFeed, show the company is selling its product to a number of other entities, both public and private.

The internal documents, which were uncovered by a source who declined to be named for fear of retribution from the company or the government agencies named in them, detail just how far Clearview has been able to distribute its technology, providing it to people everywhere, from college security departments to attorneys general offices, and in countries from Australia to Saudi Arabia.

That’s the public sector buy-in. Here’s the private sector’s investment.

More than 200 companies have Clearview accounts, according to the documents, including major stores like Kohl’s and Walmart and banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America. While some of these entities have formal contracts with Clearview, the majority — as with public sector entities — appear to have only used the facial recognition software on free trials.

This list also includes a number of entertainment venues, casinos, fitness centers, and, oddly enough, the NBA.

So, it’s not just for cops. That might explain the company’s hands-off attitude towards the entities it has publicly acknowledged it works with. Cops are encouraged to test-drive the software by searching friends and family members. Nothing like encouraging misuse right off the bat to dissuade law enforcement officers from using this tool for personal evil.

As BuzzFeed notes, most of these appear to be limited trials of Clearview’s software. But a few private entities are apparently paying for the privilege of running security camera footage against Clearview’s scraped-together database.

Company logs reviewed by BuzzFeed News include Walmart (nearly 300 searches), Best Buy (more than 200 searches), grocer Albertsons (more than 40 searches), and Rite Aid (about 35 searches). Kohl’s, which has run more than 2,000 searches across 11 different accounts, and Macy’s, a paying customer that has completed more than 6,000, are among the private companies with the most searches.

Meanwhile, US agencies are enthusiastically participating in the exploitation of this crowdsourced (so to speak…) database. BuzzFeed notes the CBP has already registered 280 accounts and run almost 7,500 searches. The Secret Service isn’t far behind, having run 5,600 searches. Other federal customers include the DEA, ATF, and FBI.

Clearview has also stated its plan for international expansion begins and ends with Canada. This has already been exposed as untrue, but information in these documents shows how aggressively Clearview is pursuing customers around the world.

It shows that Clearview AI has expanded to at least 26 countries outside the US, engaging national law enforcement agencies, government bodies, and police forces in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, India, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

And while Clearview’s CEO has promised not to sell to “adverse” countries like North Korea, China, and Iran, this is the only line it appears to have drawn. The documents show Clearview has offered its software to agencies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — both notorious violators of human rights.

Clearview clearly can’t be trusted. It has spent its limited time in the public eye lying about what it does and who it does it with. Hopefully, the endless negative press will deter its growth. Unfortunately, there’s an undeniable market for unregulated facial recognition tech and Clearview’s promise of billions of photos to match faces against beats everything else offered by anyone else. As long as the market exists, Clearview will fill it.

Filed Under: customers, facial recognition, law enforcement
Companies: clearview, clearview ai

FBI And DOJ Personnel Confirm Agents Frequently Fudge Facts When Seeking FISA Warrants

Legal Issues

from the respecting-the-fuck-out-of-the-rule-of-law dept

The fallout from the FBI’s highly-questionable Carter Page investigation continues. The problems first came to light in an Inspector General’s report which found the FBI did a lot of creative writing to continue its surveillance of Page, even after information came to light indicating the former Trump adviser was not operating on behalf of a foreign power.

The IG pointed out the FBI warrants relied on statements that were “inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation.” If the FBI did this in the Page investigation, it could easily be assumed the FBI had done it in other cases utilizing the FISA court. The protections erected to protect American citizens from surveillance by their own government were rendered useless by FBI statements the Inspector General was too kind to call lies.

The FBI has been ordered to overhaul its FISA warrant process by the FISA court. The FBI has agreed to do so, while still trying to downplay its serious violations as a long string of one-offs that apparently dates back at least 30 years. A new report from Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman for the New York Times opens with the recounting of the same sort of material omissions by the FBI during its hunt for an alleged Russian mole in the CIA. In that case, agents did the same thing, adding and subtracting evidence to continue unjustified surveillance.

This is, apparently, how the FBI performs its FISA business — something acknowledged by the many agents and DOJ officials the reporters spoke to about the latest FBI/FISA fiasco.

The problems may be part of a broader pattern in other applications that never receive the same intense scrutiny, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former F.B.I. agents and Justice Department officials who have worked with national security wiretaps. The system is vulnerable, they said, to lower-level agents suppressing or overlooking evidence that weakens their case when they seek permission to conduct surveillance.

The FBI is a law enforcement bureaucracy. Results are expected and no one gets participation trophies for investigations that go nowhere. To justify expenditures already on the books (and with an eye on funds not yet spoken for), agents have been adjusting narratives to ensure investigations keep running, even when the evidence appears to show there’s nothing worth investigating.

The time limits on FISA warrants add to the problem.

F.B.I. agents are also racing against a clock with FISA wiretaps — good for 90 days — which can also leave them open to confirmation bias, former officials said.

Once a wiretap is in place, Justice Department lawyers charged with seeking its renewal begin nagging F.B.I. agents to identify new facts gleaned from the wiretap that could help justify continuing it. But the lawyers are less insistent on finding facts that might instead undercut their suspicion, former officials said.

These all-too-human weaknesses haven’t been tempered by DOJ oversight or the FISA court. Since the court isn’t adversarial, it’s the FBI’s word against the FISA court’s judgment — and the Court is often flying blind, cut out of the loop by national security concerns even as it attempts to regulate the business of national security.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the FBI didn’t feel its evidentiary cherry-picking was worthy of discipline. Fortunately, the Inspector General — who has long complained about the lack of cooperation from the DOJ components he oversees — referred one FBI official involved in the Carter Page surveillance efforts for criminal investigation.

The problems uncovered in the Page case aren’t just an FBI problem. They’re a law enforcement problem. Warrants are 90% boiler plate and 10% cherry picking, even during legitimate investigations. When investigations fail to uncover criminal activity, they can be artificially extended by omitting anything that might suggest the target isn’t the criminal law enforcement thinks they are. Unlike other criminal cases, FISA evidence is tough to challenge. Whatever isn’t obscured by parallel construction is hidden from the defendant (and possibly the judge) as being too “sensitive” to be discussed in open court.

The FBI’s habit of abusing its powers isn’t going to be reversed just because some of it has been made public. It takes meaningful oversight to make any changes stick. The current Inspector General takes his job seriously, but those above him in Congress often seem more concerned with political point-scoring than actually addressing the root cause of this abuse.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, warrants

Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico

Legal Issues

from the precedent-controls-bullets-right-up-until-they-cross-an-imaginary-line dept

Border Patrol agents kill a lot of people, most of them citizens of another country. For years, agents have been able to open fire on people in moving vehicles and [checks Congressional report] people throwing rocks at them. New guidelines were handed down by the agency in 2014 following an outside investigation of the Border Patrol’s use of force. The investigation contained many recommendations that could have resulted in fewer killings, but the Border Patrol rejected the conclusions and the suggested fixes.

So, the killings continue. And not much is being done to stop them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stripped qualified immunity from a Border Patrol agent who fired at leaast 16 bullets across the border at a 16-year-old resident who was allegedly throwing rocks at him. Ten of them hit the teen, killing him. The court ruled this was basically murder, something clearly not covered by qualified immunity. The Fourth Amendment governs what US government employees do. It makes no difference that the victim was not a US citizen.

That finding is likely to be struck down if it makes its way to the Supreme Court. A similar case involving the killing of Mexican resident by a Border Patrol agent standing on US soil has just received the Supreme Court stamp of approval.

Fifteen-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca was shot and killed by Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. as he played with friends in a culvert along the US-Mexico border. According to Hernandez’s survivors, he and his friends were running back and forth across the culvert to touch the US border fence before running back to the Mexican side of the culvert. Agent Mesa claimed the teen was “involved in an illegal border crossing attempt” and “pelting” him with rocks.

The shooting resulted in an international incident. The Mexican government wanted the agent extradited to face murder charges in Mexico, the country where the murder occurred, even if the bullets originated on the US side of the border. The US government, on the other hand, decided Agent Mesa had done nothing wrong – that his deadly actions were clearly justified by the presence of rocks and/or border-crossing attempts.

Hernandez’s parents sued. The Fifth Circuit took two swings at the case (once at the Supreme Court’s request) and both times refused to extend the scope of Bivens to cover an incident where a government agent on the US side of the border shot and killed someone on the other side.

The Supreme Court likewise has refused to read Bivens as supporting a lawsuit against US government employees on behalf of a citizen of a foreign country. The Supreme Court believes doing so would upset the delicate balance currently preserved by Mexican outrage and US government indifference. From the ruling [PDF]:

Both the United States and Mexico have legitimate and important interests that may be affected by the way in which this matter is handled. The United States has an interest in ensuring that agents assigned the difficult and important task of policing the border are held to standards and judged by procedures that satisfy United States law and do not undermine the agents’ effectiveness and morale. Mexico has an interest in exercising sovereignty over its territory and in protecting and obtaining justice for its nationals. It is not our task to arbitrate between them.

This sounds positively Solomonic until you read the next paragraph of the ruling, along with some context that isn’t discussed in the ruling.

In the absence of judicial intervention, the United States and Mexico would attempt to reconcile their interests through diplomacy––and that has occurred. The broad issue of violence along the border, the occurrence of cross-border shootings, and this particular matter have been addressed through diplomatic channels. In 2014, Mexico and the United States established a joint Border Violence Prevention Council, and the two countries have addressed cross-border shootings through the United States-Mexico bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Following the Justice Department investigation in the present case, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to “work with the Mexican government within existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future incidents.”

That 2014 date is key. That’s the same year the Border Patrol was given new use-of-force guidelines while simultaneously rejecting the findings of an outside investigation that said agents used their weapons far too often in situations that either didn’t require deadly force (rock throwing) or created new dangers (shooting at moving vehicles). The US government also cleared Agent Mesa of any wrongdoing, which suggests it has zero desire to hold its own people accountable for extrajudicial killings of foreign citizens — something that can be easily accomplished by firing bullets from the US side of the border into Mexico.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court recommends trying not to get shot on the wrong side of the border.

Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside U. S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is available only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Congress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch officials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either.

The 5-4 majority says too much is at stake in terms of border security and international relations to come to any other conclusion. Since it’s not going to legislate from the bench, US government employees can kill people in other countries without fear of being held personally responsible for their rights violations until Congress steps in — something it’s obviously in no hurry to do.

The concurrence, written by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, is mainly annoyed the Court wasted time discussing a Congressionally-created escape hatch for federal officers and suggests tossing the Bivens doctrine altogether, further limiting lawsuits brought against federal officers/agents for Constitutional violations.

The dissent, however, points out this isn’t an extension of Bivens across the border. While Hernandez may have died in Mexico, the bullets were fired by an officer on United States soil.

Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plaintiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. foreign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the application of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders.

Even the government concurred a Bivens action could be brought against Agent Mesa if one key element had been satisfied.

The complaint states that Mesa engaged in that very conduct; it alleged, specifically, that Hernández was unarmed and posed no threat to Mesa or others. For these reasons, as Mesa acknowledged at oral argument, Hernández’s parents could have maintained a Bivens action had the bullet hit Hernández while he was running up or down the United States side of the embankment.

“Wrong place, wrong time” shouldn’t be the determining factor.

The only salient difference here: the fortuity that the bullet happened to strike Hernández on the Mexican side of the embankment. But Hernández’s location at the precise moment the bullet landed should not matter one whit.

[…]

Mesa’s allegedly unwarranted deployment of deadly force occurred on United States soil. It scarcely makes sense for a remedy trained on deterring rogue officer conduct to turn upon a happenstance subsequent to the conduct—a bullet landing in one half of a culvert, not the other.

If Bivens is neutered, there’s nothing left for plaintiffs. And the agency benefitting from this already does next to nothing to deter misconduct by its agents.

Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated incident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing individuals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal decisions, no action was taken.

Zero accountability, blessed by two government branches. Here’s the third branch doing the same thing. The message it sends is this: if you’re going to kill a Mexican citizen, make sure they’re still in Mexico. And that message means the case coming up from the Ninth Circuit is going to give another Border Patrol agent a free pass on taking a foreigner’s life.

Filed Under: bivens, borders, cbp, jurisdiction, mexico, shooting, sovereignty, supreme court, us

State Actors Are Increasingly Targeting Journalists With Surveillance Malware

Journalism

from the more-bad-news-on-the-press-freedom-front dept

Columbia Journalism Review is reporting it has witnessed more malware attacks targeting journalists. An article by Financial Times cyber security head Ahana Datta details attempts to compromise a Middle East correspondent’s phone via WhatsApp.

The correspondent, who I will not name for reasons that will soon become clear, mentioned that in recent weeks they had been receiving mysterious WhatsApp calls. The numbers were unrecognized. Afterward, their phone battery had drained quickly. And they were sometimes unable to end other calls, because the screen seemed to freeze.

They had been working on an investigation into surveillance on journalists and human rights activists in a particular Middle Eastern nation, and had been in contact with sources the government was hostile to. We decided the reporter was safer with a separate device for this story.

This unnamed reporter wasn’t the only one targeted. Datta asked other journalists if they’d experienced similar issues. Four reporters also had noticed unusual performance issues and reported they had received fake SMS authentication codes for secure messaging apps — codes that were sent unprompted. A few had been duped into downloading unknown software. Others reported their phones behaving strangely after their devices had been in the hands of others, like personnel at border checkpoints.

Touring other Financial Times branches, Datta found more of the same, even if the deployment methods varied a bit.

In parts of Eastern Europe, the flavor seems to be plausible deniability: threats commonly manifest in the form of creative phishing attacks, such as imposters trying to connect on LinkedIn or impersonating emails from known contacts.

[…]

In Asia, journalists are more often targeted by people on the ground. State agents often inexplicably show up where correspondents and their sources are scheduled to meet. Some countries have a centralized database of residents’ IDs, including facial recognition, so the federal police and regional police are largely in sync. In some areas, messaging apps can be disabled based on where you’re located.

In one Asian office, state officials called to question wording in articles that had yet to be published, indicating journalists’ devices had been compromised by state actors.

Unfortunately, this isn’t news in the normal sense of the word. It’s mainly just the continuation of distressing developments around the world. Governments are increasingly targeting journalists, especially those they might want to deter from publishing unflattering reports about government activities. Equally as unfortunate is these tools are being sold to them by a number of companies that insist they’re in the national security/law enforcement business but are more than willing to sell malware to countries known for their stifling of dissent, targeting of journalists, and long histories of human rights violations.

Israeli tech company NSO Group is one of the worst offenders. It has sold malware and spyware to blacklisted countries and seems unconcerned that it’s providing nearby enemies with the tools to target the residents of its home country.

Making matters worse are law enforcement agencies in countries where human rights are considered to be respected. Many have already expressed their displeasure that Facebook is adding end-to-end encryption to Messenger. But they’re also upset Facebook is warning WhatsApp users when it detects abnormal activity that could indicate they’ve been targeted by state actors or malicious hackers. These agencies would apparently rather see journalists and activists harmed than watch a single suspected criminal avoid being compromised by law enforcement-deployed malware.

So, what can journalists do to protect themselves? Datta suggests the same things that have worked for years. Use encrypted communications methods. Turn on two-factor authentication. Encrypt devices and their content. Toss devices in a Faraday bag if traveling in high-risk locations.

Most importantly, though, is that journalists never give up. If a state-sponsored hacker wants to compromise a device, there’s a good chance it will eventually be compromised. But that’s no reason for journalists to sit back and allow it to happen. Why make it easy on them? Be a frustrating target — one that makes it as difficult as possible for those seeking to do harm to journalists and their sources.

Filed Under: journalism, journalists, malware, surveillance

State Court Says It Isn't Theft To Remove An Unmarked Law Enforcement Tracking Device From Your Car

Legal Issues

from the hey-guys-you-left-this-thing-on-my-car? dept

If you’ve ever wondered how far the government will go to justify its illegal actions, here’s one for you.

In July 2018, the Warrick County Sheriff’s Office obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on Derek Heuring’s car under the theory Heuring was selling meth from his vehicle. Heuring discovered the tracking device and removed it. Rather than chalk this up as a failure, the Sheriff’s Office decided to get some more warrants.

After waiting another 10 days to see if it would start working again, detectives applied for a warrant to search Heuring’s home and a nearby property belonging to Heuring’s parents. US law requires law enforcement to show probable cause that a crime had been committed before engaging in a search. In this case, police said they suspected that Heuring had committed the crime of theft by taking the GPS device.

Police did find the tracking device. They also found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia—evidence that police say show that Heuring had been dealing drugs.

So Heuring was charged both with drug dealing and with theft of the GPS device.

But was this theft? That’s what the detective swore it was in the affidavit. Heuring’s lawyers pointed out there could have been any number of reasons the Sheriff’s Office stopped receiving a signal from the tracking device. It could have broken or fallen off. And even if Heuring did remove the device, he couldn’t be sure who it belonged to. (It wasn’t labeled “IF FOUND, PLEASE RETURN TO THE WARRICK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.) With this much in question, it was a stretch for the officer to assert Heuring had “stolen” the device and use this assertion to justify a search of his house for “stolen property.”

The state’s top court agrees with Heuring. This isn’t theft, as Timothy B. Lee reports for Ars Technica.

Last Thursday, Indiana’s highest court made it official, ruling that the search warrant that allowed police to recover Heuring’s meth was illegal. The police had no more than a hunch that Heuring had removed the device, the court said, and that wasn’t enough to get a search warrant.

Even if the police could have proved that Heuring had removed the device, that wouldn’t prove he stole it, the high court said. It’s hard to “steal” something if you have no idea to whom it belongs. Classifying his action as theft would lead to absurd results, the court noted.

“To find a fair probability of unauthorized control here, we would need to conclude the Hoosiers don’t have the authority to remove unknown, unmarked objects from their personal vehicles,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for a unanimous court.

The ruling [PDF] notes the GPS device had no markings and the officer who obtained the warrants was aware other GPS devices deployed by agencies had fallen off vehicles in the past. Despite this, he sought the warrants anyway, alleging the device had been stolen by Heuring. The assertions in the affidavits don’t add up to sufficient probable cause a crime was committed — especially when all the officer had to work with was the fact that he was no longer receiving a signal from the tracking device.

Putting this together, the affidavits needed to establish probable cause that someone—aware of a high probability that they were doing so—took the GPS device from Heuring’s vehicle without proper consent from the sheriff’s department. The affidavits, however, are devoid of the necessary information to make such a showing. Instead, they support a fair probability only that Heuring—or someone—found a small, unmarked black box attached to the vehicle, did not know what (or whose) the box was, and then took it off the car.

In the affidavits, Officer Busing notes that the GPS device “placed on the subject vehicle” was “black in color [and] approximately” six inches by four inches. The affidavits also include facts tending to show that, at some unknown time over a ten-day period, the device was removed. That’s all. There is no evidence of who might have removed it. And there is nothing about markings or other identifying features on the device from which someone could determine either what it was or whose it was. In other words, what the affidavits show, at most, is that Heuring may have been the one who removed the device, knowing it was not his—not that he knew it belonged to law enforcement.

The court goes on to say the affidavits were so lacking in “indicia of probable cause” it cannot possibly consider extending the good faith exception to the detective who wrote them.

Though Officer Busing obtained the warrants to search for evidence of theft, the affidavits did not include facts supporting essential elements of the alleged crime. Rather, they were based on noncriminal behavior, a hunch, and a conclusory statement. Thus, a reasonably well-trained officer, in reviewing these affidavits, would have known that they failed to establish probable cause and, without more, would not have applied for the warrants.

Then it goes further, stating that the warrants were so bad nothing obtained in the searches is salvageable.

[T]he exclusionary rule requires suppression of all evidence seized from Heuring’s home and his father’s barn. The evidence found during the initial search of each location must be excluded because those searches were illegal. And it was “by exploitation of that illegality” that law enforcement secured warrants to search each location a second time.

I know it sucks when your surreptitious tracking device suddenly becomes less surreptitious. But the correct response isn’t a stack of Constitutional violations. Take the loss and move on. Suspects get spooked. It happens. But patience is a virtue. Impatience is whatever this was. And this inability to let bygone tracking devices be bygone means the detective is now saying goodbye to a drug bust and a possible conviction.

Filed Under: derek heuring, gps devices, theft, tracking, warrant, warrick county