Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Another Police Raid; More Dead Dogs

Just north of D.C., in the small suburb of Berwyn Heights, a county SWAT team raided a house last week after a shipping service delivered a large quantity of illegal drugs to the front door.

Good police work in the war on drugs? Probably not.

The house is home to Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife Trinity Tomsic, and their two black Labs (pictured left). Though the package containing more than 30 lbs. of marijuana was addressed to Tomsic, the couple may have had nothing to do with the drugs. In recent months there have been incidents in which large quantities of drugs were shipped to homes in the D.C. area, where they were then supposed to be intercepted by drug dealers — all without the package addressees’ knowledge or involvement. Calvo and Tomsic may have been caught up in just such a scheme.

This would make Calvo and Tomsic the unfortunate victims of an understandable error by the police SWAT team, except…

The police action was yet another guns-ablazin’, no-knock raid, in which the officers (in what seems like SOP) shot the couple’s dogs, even as one of the pups tried to run away. The cops then handcuffed Calvo and his mother-in-law and interrogated them for hours, while the dogs’ bodies laid in pools of blood nearby. The cops later found the package of drugs — unopened, as if it were an unexpected package. No arrests were made.

“My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs,” Calvo told the Washington Post. “They thought we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don’t think they really ever considered that we weren’t.”

Of course, it may end up that Calvo and his wife are part of a drug distribution ring, and the police have gotten their man. But even if that’s true, was a no-knock, shoot-the-dogs raid an appropriate police action for a lousy shipment of pot?

And what if the current, emerging picture is correct, and this is yet another botched police raid and cops-gone-wild? If that’s the case (and I emphazie the “if”), the Prince George’s County SWAT team and its superiors need to be held accountable.

Law enforcement officers have a difficult and dangerous job, and I do not make light of that. But their sworn duty is to protect and serve the public, not blast their way into innocent people’s houses and shoot their dogs. If they cannot fulfill that duty, then they cannot be law enforcement officers.

UPDATE (8/6): It turns out that the Prince George’s County police who no-knock raided Calvo and Tomsic’s home did not have a no-knock warrant. The police did have a standard search warrant (which they apparently failed to show to Calvo, as they are supposed to). If that warrant had been executed properly, it is unlikely that Calvo and Tomsic’s dogs would have been killed or their house damaged. Add one more to the long list of botched police raids.

This also raises an interesting question: If this illegal raid had been visited on someone other than a white mayor, would it be receiving the scrutiny it deserves?

A SECOND, MORE TROUBLING UPDATE (8/7) is here.

Steve Chapman on Consent Searches

Steve Chapman takes a look at the problem of ‘voluntary’ roadside searches.  Excerpt:

If I approach as you pull into a parking space and ask if you’d mind my rummaging through your car, the chances are at least 90 percent that you’d decline. But if a police officer stops you with the same request, the chances are higher than 90 percent that you’d agree. Something about that badge makes citizens eager to be helpful.

Or maybe not. In civics class and 4th of July speeches, we are told that American democracy rests on the consent of the governed. But interactions with the police serve as a useful reminder that government rests less on voluntary cooperation than on fear and force. A nation is free to the extent it prevents the rulers from bullying and coercing the ruled. By that standard, American society still has a way to go.

Read the whole thing

Learn what your rights are.  Get the Busted dvd.  Related Cato work, here.

It’s Midnight in America

You could be excused for getting that vibe from this McCain campaign video, what with its vaguely X-Files-esque theme music and apocalyptic imagery (am I the only one who finds the little girl picking flowers reminiscent of “Daisy” the famous anti-Goldwater ad from the ‘64 campaign?). The Teddy Roosevelt tape is from TR’s unhinged speech to the 1912 Progressive Party convention, a speech that ends “we stand at Armageddon–and we battle for the Lord!”

Election 2008: the Messiah vs. the Prophet of Doom. Sigh. Whatever happened to normalcy? Where have you gone Warren Harding? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

The Stevens Scandal

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University sent out the following missive about Ted Stevens’s indictment. I don’t see it posted at Cafe Hayek, though it might yet be. But since I can’t improve on his pithy commentary, I offer it here:

I’m delighted to see Sen. Ted Stevens face jail time for his crimes while in office. To charge him with concealing gifts totaling $250,000, however, is the equivalent of charging a confessed mass murderer with jaywalking. If that’s the only way to bring the criminal to justice, fine. But Sen. Stevens’s most significant misdeeds - ones of which he boasts! - are his decades-long success at directing billions of taxpayer dollars to special-interest groups for no reason other than the fact that he possessed the power and position to buy himself even greater security in office by doing so.

Of course, punishing all the criminals guilty of THAT offense would depopulate Capitol Hill.

E-Verify: More Study Needed

Though reauthorization of E-Verify was briefly in doubt, it appears now that congressional authorizers have agreed on a way forward, and that the program needs a lot more study.

A bill on the House floor today would extend E-Verify as a “voluntary” program for 5 years and require much more study of the system and its problems. The consensus at the beginning of the year was that Congress would require every employer in the country to use it by the end of the year.

Since then, flaws in the E-Verify database and tracking system have come to light and it has become more clear that “internal enforcement” of immigration law means tracking and databasing all Americans. My paper on the subject is called “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration.”

E-Verify is losing its luster. In the reauthorization bill, Congress has tasked the Government Accountability Office with conducting two studies to explore problems with the system and the policy. One will look into the large number of erroneous “tentative nonconfirmations,” their causes, and potential remedies. DHS sought to glide past these issues in its advocacy for E-Verify this year. The other will look at how E-Verify would effect small businesses (and also small non-profits and municipalities). Current users of E-Verify tend to be large employers that are motivated (by threat of enforcement or past enforcements) to comply scrupulously with the law. The already low quality of the E-Verify system’s results will drop when other employers not so motivated begin to use it.

If E-Verify goes forward another five years, technical and programmatic problems will become more clear. But we shouldn’t take our eye off the ball. A national E-Verify system would be used to give the federal government direct regulatory control over law-abiding Americans. Federal authorities would use it to control not just work, but housing, financial services, health care, and access to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms — and these are just the obvious things.

Pots, Kettles, and Sen. Brownback

Via Yglesias, Sam Brownback is outraged that the Chinese government would spy on foreigners on its soil without a warrant. When it was pointed out to him that the United States government is now authorized to conduct warrantless spying in the United States, he had this to say:

We don’t put the hardware and software on hotels. If there is a targeted individual that seems to be a likely prospect of terrorists, they must go through the FISA court and ask for a court to determine that there is probable cause to be able to listen in on that information.

This is a blanket requirement of a hotel to operate a license in China. It is non-specific to anybody. It can be used on journalists. It can be used on athletes – or, excuse me, they’re at the Olympic village – but on their families. It can be used on democracy advocates, human rights advocates, none of which is prohibited. It is real time.

I think there is a huge difference between these two that are taking place.

Well, except there isn’t. All that’s required under the FISA Amendments that the Senate passed a couple of weeks ago is that the government “certify” that the “target” of the surveillance is located overseas. There’s no requirement that the government identify specific targets, and there’s no “probable cause” requirement at all — not even the permissive “agent of a foreign power” standard that had previously governed FISA intercepts.

This means that if the Olympics were held in the United States, the US government could “target,” say, a foreign newspaper such as the Guardian. And as a means of “targeting” the Guardian, it could tap the hotel rooms of all Guardian reporters in the United States.

Now, under the FISA Amendments Act, the government would have to submit a “certification” to a judge describing the eavesdropping plan. And the judge is required to verify that the interceptions are not “targeting” persons located within the United States. But, the government could argue with some plausibility, the “target” of the acquisition is the Guardian, which is located overseas, not the particular reporters who are in the United States. It would be a close legal question. And anyway, the government “is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property” in the certification it submits to the judge, so the judge might not even realize that the government is bugging every reporter.

Worst of all, even if the judge rejected the “certification,” the government would have 30 days to continue eavesdropping before it was required to comply with a judge’s order. Since the Olympics are only about 3 weeks long, that means the government could intercept every single call from every single foreign reporter throughout the entire Olympics regardless of what the judge nominally overseeing the eavesdropping said.

Finally, lest we think the United States government would never do such a thing, the FBI repeatedly spied on “democracy advocates” and “human rights advocates” during the Cold War. For example, between 1954 and 1973, the FBI’s New York office alone conducted 433 break-ins of organizations J. Edgar Hoover didn’t like. Targets included the National Lawyers Guild, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights, the American Youth Congress, Vietnam Veterans against the War, Students for a Democratic Society, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, the League of American Writers, the National Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam, the Jewish Cultural Society, the Civil Rights Congress, and dozens of other organizations. And we only know about those break-ins because the head of the FBI field office failed to destroy his records as he had been ordered to do by Hoover. The records of other field offices were destroyed, but there is every reason to think that a similar number of organizations were spied upon in other cities.

Now, I have no evidence that anything of the sort is going on today. But this is precisely why there needs to be judicial supervision of eavesdropping efforts. Because we know from history that without external oversight, power will inevitably be abused. And unfortunately, Sen. Brownback voted for legislation that significantly reduced judicial oversight of wiretapping activities. Brownback is absolutely right to say that domestic eavesdropping shouldn’t occur until the government has demonstrated probable cause to a judge. Too bad he didn’t vote that way.