Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Warrentless Search and Seizures

Smart Devices Are Snitching On Owners And Rewriting The Criminal Justice System

By Nicholas West

A new type of court case is slowly but steadily emerging within the American legal system: alleged crimes being detected from data supplied by smart devices.

Several cases over the last few years have focused on data transmitted within the modern smart home, while a couple of others add an extra dimension of police completely reconstructing a crime scene based upon data collected from the home as well as the various Internet-connected devices that we wear.

The very nature of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution appears to be at stake.

In December of last year an Arkansas murder case made headlines not so much for the death itself, but how a suspect was brought into custody. James Bates hosted a party at his Bentonville home on the night of November 21st, 2015. At some point during the event a man drowned in a hot tub on the property.  Bates claimed to have found the victim the next morning when he awoke, stating that it was a tragic accident, but Arkansas police obtained smart water meter readings that showed an anomaly between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Based solely on this data – and obtained without a warrant – Bates was arrested and charged with 1st degree murder.

Somewhat ironically, James Bates subsequently requested recordings from his Amazon Echo to defend himself against these charges, which resulted in Amazon waiving their standard privacy conditions.

A second case followed wherein we saw a police narrative emerge that a crime had been prevented by a home’s smart system. A domestic dispute resulted in Eduardo Barros allegedly wielding a firearmagainst his girlfriend and threatening to kill her. However, during the argument he exclaimed, “Did you call the sherrifs?” This activated a voice-controlled sound system in his home and dialed 911. After an hours-long standoff, the suspect was taken into custody and charged. Law enforcement was quick to hail the smart technology as having “saved a life.”  But it was the presiding judge who shook privacy advocates by accepting the evidence regardless of how it was obtained, saying that there was indeed probable cause for the arrest without a warrant.

Continue Reading: https://www.activistpost.com/2017/10/smart-devices-are-snitching-on-owners-and-rewriting-the-criminal-justice-system.html
Advertisements

Coming After Us Six Ways from Sunday

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Logo | Spivak ... Founders_Finger_Gulag

Re: Andy Ostrowski’s false psych hold and a most curious comment

Subject: Re: Andy Ostrowski — recent comment on post
Date: Oct 9, 2017 10:49 AM
JoAnne is absolutely correct in her posts.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, confirms the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution. In order for any involuntary incarceration under the 5th and 14th Amendments DUE PROCESS must be strictly observed.  All that this requires is NOTICE AND HEARING.  There is a District Court case in Wisconsin that suggests that in this regard Form TRUMPS Substance, and a totally biased finder of fact still meets the criteria.  However, this was not the situation!
An ex-parte commitment order to be enforced by Police Act is so wrong that it is a massive stretch for any policeman participating to not be legally and criminally culpable for any action on his part that interferes with the civil rights of a victim – in this case Andy.   (The fact that Andy may have given his key to someone is irrelevant – and the fact that he might have on social media made statements that were offensive to someone are not grounds for summary incarceration.  THIS IS NOT ALLOWABLE under the Constitution and ANY LAW THAT IS or is interpreted to deny basic DUE PROCESS is void.   A middle school student is required to know this fact – to require a well paid judge/lawyer/policeman to be aware of such a proposition is equally appropriate.
I agree with JoAnne — ANDY’s incarceration was WRONGFUL, and criminal.    All the miscreants involved ought to be charged with KIDNAPPING, tried and sent to jail!   The Gulag cannot be tolerated in America.
Ken Ditkowsky
 Continue Reading: https://marygsykes.com/2017/10/09/re-andy-ostrowskis-false-psych-hold-and-a-most-curious-comment/

Activist Lawyer Released

Hallelujah! Andy Ostrowski lawyer activist has been released and we have video conference he is okay

some comments from Ken Ditkowsky:

AT this point in time Andy has been free – below is a link to his interview with John Adams   – it is worth a listen – at least in part.
On Friday, September 29, 2017, 8:10:01 PM CDT, Brian Fedorka <bfedorka82@gmail.com> wrote:
You can go to his page for a live video interview (crappy audio) earlier today with John Adams. If you don’t trust the link below then to repeat, simply visit Andy’s facebook page, ‘Andy Ostrowski’.
-Brian
It is now clear that we are in fact all in danger.  As an attorney Andy had the training to know what he was facing and to deal with it; however, had the miscreants been able to drug him — he would have been a candidate for “elder cleansing!
Now that the ordeal is over, Andy indicates that he wants to get on with his life – however — the wrongful mental health arrest of Andy is a warning for every one of us — Democracy is not a spectator sport and in a flash – any one of us, including some of us who feel immune, can be hauled off to the Gulag and the next time any one sees us – they see a zombie!    A dose or two of the right chemical and  – bingo!   You are none person!

Continue Reading: https://marygsykes.com/2017/09/30/hallelujah-andy-ostrowski-lawyer-activist-has-been-released-and-we-have-video-conference-he-is-okay/

MaryGSykes.com

19-Year Old Forges Ahead

Annelise Rice

Annelise Rice, a hockey player at UND and graduate of Minnetonka High School, filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2017, in Minnesota federal court seeking damages for deprivation of civil rights by tortuous intervention in a mother-child relationship and deprivation of rights under color of the law (Civil Action No. 17-cv-796 ADM/HB).

 

As expected, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery dismissed the case on September 19, 2017. Annelise will be appealing to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Conitnue Reading:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MINNESOTA CHILD VICTIM ACT

First Amendment Wins Again!

The Volokh Conspiracy

Court order banning speech about a person (and banning gun possession by speaker) reversed

 May 2, 2016

I’ve blogged often about how criminal harassment bans, “cyberstalking” bans and restraining order laws have been morphing: They began by restricting unwanted speech to a person, but they’ve often been used to restrict speech about a person.

Many recent appellate court decisions, fortunately, have been rejecting this process. Here’s the latest example from the Florida Court of Appeal (Scott v. Blum) reversing a “stop talking about plaintiff” order. (Incidentally, like many such orders, this came with a ban on gun possession by the defendant.)

First, the facts (some paragraph breaks added throughout):

Mr. Blum is a process server and a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS). [Randy] Scott is a former process server and former member of NAPPS…. Mr. Blum testified that Mr. Scott sent emails about Mr. Blum and Mr. Blum’s family, partners, and former employees to 2200 NAPPS members.

The emails consisted of links to articles, blog posts, or videos. In some instances, the articles or blog posts were written by Mr. Scott. The tenor of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos was derogatory, and the allegations within them were potentially damaging to Mr. Blum’s business and reputation. Copies of the emails supported Mr. Blum’s testimony.

Mr. Blum testified that none of the emails were sent directly to him but that he knows about them because they were forwarded by the recipients to him or he received phone calls about them. The emails, articles, blog posts, and videos did not contain threats against Mr. Blum. However, Mr. Blum claimed that the content of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos caused him emotional distress; he had trouble sleeping and eating, the emails were constantly on his mind, and he constantly had to defend himself to people.

Mr. Scott testified that his emails discussed many people within NAPPS or connected to NAPPS and were not directed at Mr. Blum.

Continue Reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/02/court-order-banning-speech-about-a-person-and-banning-gun-possession-by-speaker-reversed/?utm_term=.be93d44ebee8

Criminalizing Whistleblowers

© 2015 Red Herring Alert. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: Red Herring Alert is an information and news organization. The information provided on this blog is intended as information only and is not intended to be legal advice. Each author on the blog provides information, personal opinion, and insight. None of the writers are attorneys, nor are they intending to provide legal advice or assistance with any court case. The writers do not necessarily agree with the opinions or blog posts of all other writers, but we support each other’s rights to free speech. Each writer is responsible for their own research and content.

The courts are continuing to legitimize malicious actions against me to silence me into submission. Yesterday I received 3 new charges for another writer’s posts on Red Herring Alert. At this rate, I will have a life sentence without the possibility of parole in a few months. See previous charges → MINNESOTA: COME ON VACATION-STAY ON PROBATION

Newest Charges Below↓

The system will always make criminals out of those who expose their criminal activities.

FIRST AMENDMENT UPHELD IN MN

MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings 

Bob Collins 

The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

“The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

Here’s how the law reads:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
. . .
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .

“An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.

Continue Reading: https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/09/mn-supreme-court-throws-out-law-against-disorderly-conduct-at-meetings/

%d bloggers like this: