Remember the film “Minority Report” with Tom Cruise? Cruise worked for the Department of Pre-Crime. Pre-Crime was able to determine who was going to commit crimes in advance, so they were able to send Cruise out to arrest and lock up people before they had done anything wrong.

This is called preventive detention. It is unconstitutional; and is a mark of a totalitarian state. The US has been doing it for years. President Obama recently announced that–while George Bush had gone about it in a haphazard way–Obama would formalize the practice through a new “legal” framework.

This prolonged imprisonment of suspects in the “war on terror” goes on even though the government cannot prove that the prisoners have committed any crime.  [Note: as a point of reference, keep in mind that in the State of Missouri, no one can be held without formal criminal charges for more than 24 hours--even if the person is suspected of murder]

The Associated press is reporting that the city of Moberly will pay millions to the family of a young man tasered to death after he resisted arest by arguing with Moberly police officers. Police had suspected him of driving while intoxicated. Story is here: Moberly to pay $2.4 million in Taser lawsuit settlement.

As I predicted back at the time of the incident–see Missouri man dies after Taser fired during traffic stop–the police tasering was found to be justified. Even though no criminal charges were filed, the city has suspended police use of tasers in addtion to paying the $2.4 million settlement.

I often complain that the Misssouri legislature tinkers too much; always trying to fix everything and make everybody be nice to everybody and especially keeping people from drinking cold beverages when canoeing. But a new study informs us that Missouri is actually ranked number six in the U.S. for being the the MOST FREE.

The study is Freedom in the 50 states. An index of personal and economic freedom by William P. Ruger & Jason Sorens. The researchers collected data on economic and personal freedom, including:

• taxes and spending policy, state labor regulations, health insurance mandates, occupational licensing, eminent domain, the tort system, land and environmental regulation, and utilities.
• the right of parents to educate their own children, to own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure
  
• paternalistic additions to the criminal law designed to make people behave more responsibly, i.e., wear a helmet/seat belt, do not drink, smoke, drive with a cell phone, gamble or stick your arms out of a roller coaster, and so on.

Here are the best and the worst states:

Overall Freedom Ranking

1. New Hampshire (most free)
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas
6. Missouri

. . . .

46. Maryland
47. California
48. Rhode Island
49. New Jersey
50. New York  (least free)

One interesting aspect of the study shows that politically liberal states are the least free, but the most free states tended more toward a moderate conservatism.

Here is the study summary on Missouri:

One might be forgiven for expressing surprise at Missouri’s ranking in this dataset, given the way the media have covered political misdeeds in St. Louis so extensively. Apparently, St. Louis politicians do not run Missouri; otherwise, the state would probably not rank so highly! Missouri is ninth best on economic freedom and sixth best on personal freedom. Adjusted government spending and tax revenues are both nearly a full standard deviation below the national average.

The alcohol regime is one of the least restrictive in the United States, with no blue laws and taxes well below average. Gun control is very limited. Unfortunately, marijuana sentencing is extremely harsh. Several types of gambling are allowed, but oddly there is no social gambling exception.

Other than recordkeeping requirements, private and home schools are almost unregulated. Land-use planning is decentralized. Labor laws are generally market-friendly, but right-to-work and allowing workers’ compensation self-insurance would improve Missouri’s score here. Occupational licensing is less extensive than average. Asset forfeiture has been reformed, but eminent domain really has not. Cigarette taxes are low.

All in all, I still think we can do better, but apparently we we could do a lot worse.

For those who were concerned that the legislature would be putting a crimp on Missouri river partying, it seems that the bullet may have been (mostly) dodged. The original Senate Bill 2 would have outlawed all plastic or styofoam coolers, beer bongs, alcohol in containers larger than a gallon, jello shots, and the distribution of mardi gras beads on a river. See my earlier post for more.

The bill was amended & passed and awaits the governor’s signature as part of House bill 62. In passing the bill, the legislature removed the prohibition on mardi gras beads and jello shots, but still makes it a crime to have beer bongs and alcohol in containers larger than 4 gallons.

Interestingly, the part of the bill that would effect most river recreation is the wording of the prohibition on coolers.

The original bill pretty much banned coolers with this language: “No person shall possess foam or Styrofoam, polypropylene, expanded polypropylene or polystyrene coolers on or within fifty feet of any river . . .”

As passed, House bill 62 says “No person shall possess expanded polypropylene coolers on or within fifty feet of any river . . .” (note: would not include Mississippi, Missouri or Osage rivers)

I am not a chemist, but I do not think most picnic coolers are made from “expanded polypropylene” (plain polypropylene, yes, expanded, no).

Perhaps the bill was meant to outlaw coolers made from “expanded polystyrene,” which we generically call styrofoam, as in coffee cups, coolers and packing peanuts.

Of course it does not matter what the bill was meant to outlaw. It only matters what it says.

If it outlaws “expanded polypropylene” then one could not be arrested for possession of a styrofoam cooler made from polystyrene. (This assumes that the deputy arresting you knows more about plastics than the legislator who wrote the amended bill).

Since this bill is supposedly for the benefit of everyone, maybe it is best if our legislature goofed this time. After all, it’s not just drunks that take a cooler with them on the river. Everyone does.

Like I said, I am not a chemist, but I know the governor has a few of them working for him. Maybe he could ask one of them about this before he signs HB62.

I know this is an old case, but it never hurts to review. This is a Westlaw headnote of the day:

268k189 Rights, Duties, and Liabilities of Policemen

Police officers must obey the law while enforcing the law.

Spano v. New York, 79 S.Ct. 1202 (1959)

An interesting “criminal” case is brewing in a small New Hampshire town. The city of Keene, NH has a substantial number of libertarian activists who have cultivated the habit of carrying video cameras around whenever they have protests or other events involving the government (which they would like to see strictly limited or–depending on who you ask–eliminated altogether). One of those video activists will soon complete his first full month behind bars for not turning off his video camera after the local judge banned recording in the public lobby of the Municipal building.

Sam Dodson runs a YouTube channel for his videos called the Obscured Truth Network.  On April 13, 2009, he brought his camera to the public lobby of the city building in support of another activist who was being arraigned (also for the crime of videotaping in that same lobby).

The court’s marshall ordered him to stop–and when he refused–they arrested him for disorderly conduct. At this point he went passively limp and was then handcuffed and dragged to a waiting patrol car. [see video below]. Other friends of the man being arraigned that day were then ordered from the lobby–and when they refused–five more were arrested for disorderly conduct.

Police booked all the arrestees and released them later that day–all except Sam Dodson. Dodson refused to talk to the police and refused to identify himself. He has since been identified by police but the judge refuses to arraign him and has refused him a trial until he is willing to tell them his name. Dodson is on a hunger strike, only drinking liquids since he was jailed on April 13.

Writs of habeas corpus have been filed and rejected by the court.  The court explained that Dodson’s complaint was premature because he “may make the same challenges . . . as the criminal case proceeds.” But the case does not proceed.

It is quite possible that Dodson will eventually be found not guilty of the charges, but the state will not give him a trial until they have broken his will. He therefore remains in jail for the indefinite future.

More on the story here: Exercising Right to Remain Silent Lands Video Journalist in Jail Indefinitely and video here:

* * *

Now that Sam Dodson has spent far longer in jail than any convictions would actually have cost him, this looks more and more like the authorities are just flexing their muscles with this guy.

Absolutely nothing would stop them from bringing him into court, reading the charges, setting the case for trial and releasing him until the trial date. It would cost them nothing. Instead, they seem intent on making martyrs.

There is a news story about a Baptist pastor who was driving home to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego. He was stopped at a customs checkpoint (not actually at any border, apparently).  He informed  the agents that his business was his own and he would not answer their questions, but just wanted to be on his way.

They brought up a drug dog up to sniff his car trunk and then informed him that the dog indicated that he had drugs or a person hidden in the car trunk and that they were going to search it.

[Note:  the indication of drugs turned out to be false, but not soon enough to do this guy any good]

When he refused to get out, they broke out his car windows, ground his head into the broken glass, dragged him out, threw him on the ground while tasing him throughout the entire procedure.

After a trip to the emergency room to stitch up his face, they took him to jail (I’m not sure for what).

When he later asked why they had done it, he was told it was because he did not answer their questions.

Here is some local coverage of the story:  Pastor Claims Border Agents Beat Him

Here is a YouTube video of the guy telling his side of the story:

In the news story the border patrol claims they never use tasers. Here is a video that the pastor made showing one of his taser wounds (looked real to me –and I’ve seen taser wounds) and some of the spent taser wires that he collected from inside his car after the incident:

I really admire this guy.  It takes guts to refuse to answer police questions about one’s personal business. Even when you know you are completely innocent, this can still happen to you.  It is so much easier to give them what they want.  I fear our police state will get worse before it gets better.

In 1981 the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in the case of New York v. Belton, that if an occupant of a motor vehicle was arrested, the police could search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle to look for weapons or evidence of a crime.

Under the fourth amendment such a search would normally be considered unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional, unless a search warrant was obtained. Even so, the Belton case has been the rule in Missouri ever since and gave the police an absolute right to search the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle once any occupant of that vehicle has been arrested.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v.  Gant overruled its 28 year old decision in Belton by holding that the police could not search inside a vehicle, once the arrested person was away from the car, unless they had reason to believe that evidence of the crime might be found in the vehicle.

This is a huge decision.  It is huge because a large proportion of drug arrests occur when the police arrest someone for an unrelated offense such as driving while revoked.  Once the person is handcuffed and placed in the patrol car, the police always return to the vehicle and search the passenger compartment thoroughly.

It will be interesting to see how both police and citizens react to this change in the current search and seizure law.

Citizens may be more likely to step out of their vehicle after being pulled over so as to ensure that they will not have their vehicle searched if they were arrested for some reason.

One wonders if some police might be tempted to change their current practice of getting suspects out of a vehicle before arresting them. It’s hard to imagine a driver being arrested while still seated in his car and then being commanded to sit still while the officer searches the vehicle around him.  If that were permitted, we might see the police running public service announcements telling drivers to remain in their vehicles when stopped, lest they be attacked by police officers who–misunderstanding the person’s actions-believe they are in danger.

I doubt the courts will permit the police to search vehicles by forcing arrested persons to stay inside the vehicle after arrest. If that is the case, then getting out of your car at a traffic stop would be an unnecessary precaution. It might also serve as a signal to police that evidence of a crime may be in the vehicle.

Another thing we may see is an escalation of vehicles being towed by police after an arrest (for safety reasons, of course). Then the police would thoroughly search the vehicle under what is known as the “inventory” exception to the search warrant requirement.  Click here for “inventory search” explanation.  A driver fortunate enough to be pulled over near a legal parking space may want to take advantage of that opportunity and deny police an excuse to tow the car.

We will have to see how this all plays out.

Everyone has heard about the Missouri Highway Patrol & the Dept of Public Safety getting egg on their faces over the MIAC “confidential report,” they sent out to law enforcement agencies. The report noted that domestic terrorists are often supporters of Ron Paul, pro-lifers or 3rd party candidates.

One thing that has not been disclosed about this “confidential report” is where it came from. The MIAC claimed it was publicly available information. The so-called “publicly available information” sounded suspiciously like the materials of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC presents itself as a “tolerance” group (fighting “hate”) and have been quietly feeding their “domestic terrorism” material to law enforcement for many years. When I was a prosecutor I saw this first hand. They are perfectly happy with grouping their political enemies (conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul) in with Nazis and the KKK.

The MIAC report was an outrageous bit of work and has no place in a free country. Most people agreed. The report was roundly denounced from ALMOST every direction, the exception being Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who originally supported the report even though he hadn’t read it. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here: Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists

Last week, the State was forced to apologize and withdraw the report. Even Nixon was running away and pointing the blame at others. No surprise here.

But now a very disturbing report has come out of St Louis about a citizen who on March 23 faxed a Sunshine request to Governor Nixon’s office requesting information about the MIAC report.

Within six hours, two of the man’s friends were being questioned about his political beliefs by law enforcement. Within a few days, seven of the man’s friends had been interrogated by police, obviously because he had the audacity and imprudence to exercise his right to request information from the government. Read the story here: Is Nixon Abusing His Power?

Now, unless this fellow made threats in a sunshine request (which is hard to imagine) this behavior by the State is unconscionable. What’s next? Midnight shakedowns and no-knock warrants? No citizen should ever have to fear the government for exercising his statutory rights. Something must be done.