Police State (was Re: US backbone and the middle east (was Re: Le Pen ...)

chris arkenberg carkenbe@adobe.com
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:07:08 -0700


--============_-1192357267==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3936063&BRD=982&PAG=461&dept_id=467992&rfi=6

'Living in a police state'
April 24, 2002
The state Legislature has given police power to search your home 
without telling you why.
Two new laws, which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror 
efforts, also shield from public scrutiny the reasons for police 
searches.

Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws, 
which make search warrants and supporting documents such as 
affidavits non-public records.

"If you think the police did secretive work before, just wait," 
defense attorney William Cataldo said. "It gives more power to the 
ignorant and more power to those who would take your rights."

Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said: "This is nuts, this is beyond nuts.

"What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police state."

That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person 
accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home 
without permission.

Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered 
them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains 
the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically 
closed to public view.

"I think this is absolutely unconstitutional," said Dawn Phillips, a 
First Amendment lawyer with the Michigan Press Association.... (cont.)


At 2:51 PM -0500 4/25/02, Matt Crawford wrote:
>  > How many US citizens could pass the "Consitution Challenge" (take the
>>  constitution and see if you can truthly say you could or would defend it
>>  from any forces forgien or domestic)?
>
>You mean, defend it against domestic badge-flashing enemies who would
>destroy our right to "be secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" unless supported
>by a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>the persons or things to be seized"?
>
>
>
>http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

--============_-1192357267==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Police State (was Re: US backbone and the middle
east</title></head><body>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000">http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid<span
></span>=3936063&amp;BRD=982&amp;PAG=461&amp;dept_id=467992&amp;r<span
></span>fi=6</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+3"
color="#000000"><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</x-tab></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="+4" color="#0000FF"><b>'Living in a
police state'</b></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="+3" color="#000000"><b>April 24,
2002<br>
The state Legislature has given police power to search your home
without telling you why.</b></font><font face="Times New Roman"
size="+3" color="#000000"><br>
</font><font face="Arial" size="+2" color="#000000">Two new laws,
which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror efforts, also shield
from public scrutiny the reasons for police searches.<br>
<br>
Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws,
which make search warrants and supporting documents such as
affidavits non-public records.<br>
<br>
&quot;If you think the police did secretive work before, just
wait,&quot; defense attorney William Cataldo said. &quot;It gives
more power to the ignorant and more power to those who would take
your rights.&quot;<br>
<br>
Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said: &quot;This is nuts, this is
beyond nuts.<br>
<br>
&quot;What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police
state.&quot;<br>
<br>
That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person
accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home
without permission.<br>
<br>
Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered
them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains
the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically
closed to public view.</font><br>
<font face="Arial" size="+2" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="+2" color="#000000">&quot;I think this
is absolutely unconstitutional,&quot; said Dawn Phillips, a First
Amendment lawyer with the Michigan Press Association....
(cont.)</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 2:51 PM -0500 4/25/02, Matt Crawford wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>&gt; How many US citizens could pass the
&quot;Consitution Challenge&quot; (take the<br>
&gt; constitution and see if you can truthly say you could or would
defend it<br>
&gt; from any forces forgien or domestic)?<br>
<br>
You mean, defend it against domestic badge-flashing enemies who
would<br>
destroy our right to &quot;be secure in [our] persons, houses,
papers, and<br>
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures&quot; unless
supported<br>
by a warrant &quot;particularly describing the place to be searched,
and<br>
the persons or things to be seized&quot;?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1192357267==_ma============--