For filing a report on police brutality inside of a New Hampshire high school, investigative journalist and CopBlock.org founder Adam “Ademo” Mueller has been sentenced to three months in jail
A jury found Mueller guilty of illegal wiretapping, a charge that was introduced after he recorded conversations with Manchester, New Hampshire police Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, Manchester High School West Principal MaryEllen McGorry and school secretary Denise Michael, all allegedly without their consent. Mueller was putting together a report that centered on a video recorded at a local high school that showed a 17-year-old student being assaulted by a police officer. Mueller attempted to interview school officials and law enforcement officers while trying to get to the bottom of the case, and although he says he identified himself as a member of the media, his subjects filed a claim that he had recorded and published the conversations without authorization.
If convicted on all three charges of felony wiretapping, Mueller could have been sentenced to a maximum of seven years in prison. Authorities had offered him a plea deal, but he refused to take it.
"Here's how I see the offer: it's a stellar deal if I actually thought what I had done was wrong," Mueller wrote on CopBlock.org after first being charged. "First, I can't go against my principles and sign a deal that says I acknowledge my actions as wrong or illegal. Second, I'm not a hypocrite. How can I advocate refusing plea deals and sign one myself? I don't judge anyone who has taken pleas because each case/charge is different. Third, I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions…. Let the circus begin!"
Despite being convicted and sentenced, he tells reporters that he will continue his fight and will work further with CopBLock, a website that aims to "curtail the all-too-common rights-violations and unaccountability that today exists."
"I don't regret what I did," Mueller says of his crime, Huffington Post reports. "I don't think jails were built for people who make phone calls or chalk buildings."
Mueller’s conviction comes amid a nationwide fad that has focused on prosecuting Americans for exercising their First Amendment to free speech in instances where citizens have scribbled temporary messages in chalk on public sidewalks. Alex Schaefer, a Los Angeles-based artist arrested last month for chalking, has publically condemned the attack on constitutional rights.
"I hope people are shocked about the situation and my arrest," Schaefer tells LA Weekly. "I hope it creates a wave of publicity and gets people thinking about the situation — it’s fucked."
In response to the case against CopBLock’s Mueller, New Hampshire State Rep. Kevin Warden (R) tells the Associated Press that prosecuting him for recording and publishing the interviews is "a travesty and a total waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Get much more information by getting a lifetime membership to our website (click here)
Monday, August 20, 2012
NO MORE PRIVACY (with your cell phones)
Police allowed to track cell phones in US without court warrants
The US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when carrying cell phones, allowing police to track GPS signals without a warrant or probable cause.
The decision came the court ruled in United States v. Skinner that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) abided by the Constitution by using a drug runner’s cellphone data to track his location and determine his identity.
Melvin Skinner, also known by his false name as “Big Foot,” was a drug mule with more than 1,100 pounds of marijuana in his Texas motorhome.
The throwaway mobile phone he was using was registered under a false name, so agents did not know the identity of the drug trafficker.
By using GPS data from his disposable phone, police learned that “Big Foot” was planning to deliver a large shipment of marijuana from Arizona to Tennessee in his mobile home.
In 2006, agents obtained a court order – but not a warrant – to track the disposable phone’s location using its GPS.
After tracing the phone’s exact location, police dogs discovered the mobile home and indicated a presence of drugs. “Big Foot” was arrested and charged for drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
But on appeal, the defendant argued that his cell phone data could not be used because the DEA failed to obtain a warrant for it, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without the issuance of a warrant obtained due to probable cause.
The Court considers cell phone use to be a public – not private – action, thereby being ineligible for the protections of the Fourth Amendment. A court brief of the case states that “a suspect’s presence in a publicly observable place is not information subject to Fourth Amendment protection.”
Additionally, Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the majority, said Skinner “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.”
While any US cell phone can now be tracked by police without probable cause or a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that police must obtain a warrant before secretly attacking a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car.
That ruling is currently being contested, leaving the possibility for police to secretly track vehicles without permission. Without the requirement of a warrant to access cell phone data, US authorities are gaining increasing power over what some would consider “private” rights of individuals – but what the Courts call “public.”
Get much more information by getting a lifetime membership to our website (click here)
The US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when carrying cell phones, allowing police to track GPS signals without a warrant or probable cause.
The decision came the court ruled in United States v. Skinner that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) abided by the Constitution by using a drug runner’s cellphone data to track his location and determine his identity.
Melvin Skinner, also known by his false name as “Big Foot,” was a drug mule with more than 1,100 pounds of marijuana in his Texas motorhome.
The throwaway mobile phone he was using was registered under a false name, so agents did not know the identity of the drug trafficker.
By using GPS data from his disposable phone, police learned that “Big Foot” was planning to deliver a large shipment of marijuana from Arizona to Tennessee in his mobile home.
In 2006, agents obtained a court order – but not a warrant – to track the disposable phone’s location using its GPS.
After tracing the phone’s exact location, police dogs discovered the mobile home and indicated a presence of drugs. “Big Foot” was arrested and charged for drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
But on appeal, the defendant argued that his cell phone data could not be used because the DEA failed to obtain a warrant for it, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without the issuance of a warrant obtained due to probable cause.
The Court considers cell phone use to be a public – not private – action, thereby being ineligible for the protections of the Fourth Amendment. A court brief of the case states that “a suspect’s presence in a publicly observable place is not information subject to Fourth Amendment protection.”
Additionally, Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the majority, said Skinner “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.”
While any US cell phone can now be tracked by police without probable cause or a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that police must obtain a warrant before secretly attacking a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car.
That ruling is currently being contested, leaving the possibility for police to secretly track vehicles without permission. Without the requirement of a warrant to access cell phone data, US authorities are gaining increasing power over what some would consider “private” rights of individuals – but what the Courts call “public.”
Get much more information by getting a lifetime membership to our website (click here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)