Law Professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) devotes his new MSNBC blog today to the demise of the Rave arrests in Racine Wisconsin. He includes some very informative links--including our's to the new anti-Rave bill introduced as part of Tom Daschle's Homeland Security Bill, S. 22, in the new Congress. The time to begin opposing this bill to your congresspersons, loudly, is now.

And check out the police chief's comments :

Racine Police Chief Dave Spenner spoke to his officers about the citations being dropped Thursday and released a statement to the public.

"The safety of this community is paramount in the eyes of city of Racine police officers," Spenner said. "I am disappointed we did not have the opportunity to present this case in court in front of Municipal Judge Weber, but will support the decision made by the city attorney.

"This situation does not slow police resolve to keep this community free of illegal drug use, and we will continue to faithfully discharge the responsibilities we have. It is our mission to keep neighborhoods safe and not expose one person to the risks of another's impaired judgment or driving ability."

(from our friend Pete Karas over at Progressive Racine Blog who is running for a seat on the Racine City Council--we hope he makes it)

Here's Toby's Political Diary, 'Let it Begin Here', with a layman's view of what we might be reading in the national news in the not too distant future, based upon the Bush Administration's "unbridled" exercise of what it perceives to be its rightful executive power. We won't spoil it, as it's quite creative (and, to us, conceivable) but we will quote Toby's conclusion:

It is probably a cliché, but rights and freedoms atrophy and die unless they are strongly defended and supported. Look what is happening to affirmative action, which came into being through the civil rights movement to remedy vicious legalized discrimination, but is now dying. We have leaders who represent a throwback to a militaristic, southern aristocracy, with contempt for democratic and egalitarian values. If we don't want to live on the plantation, we had better call in the Union cavalry.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center and other civil liberties groups have sent a letter to Congress calling for a prohibition on further development of the controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) project.

Also on EPIC, this seven page letter to Attorney General Ashcroft--written by three Senators-- asking for detailed information on current "data-mining" operations, including information on practices and policies at the Department of Justice and DOJ's involvement in TIA.

"Racine - Hundreds of young people who fought $968 citations for attending a rave party here won vindication in court Thursday morning when the city agreed to dismiss all of the pending tickets and to make refunds to the relatively few party-goers who had pleaded no contest and paid fines.

In addition, the city agreed to:

Not again use its "inmate of a disorderly house" ordinance for writing citations at such gatherings.

Work with the Common Council to revise the ordinance.

Train police officers so that citations will not be issued as they were at the Nov. 2 party.

Expunge the record of each person so that no record of the citations will exist.

In exchange, the Milwaukee-based American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which negotiated the settlement, agreed not to bring a class-action civil rights lawsuit against the city."

Thanks again to our great source on this topic, Pete Karas at the Progressive Racine--he's got more, so go read him.

Three cheers for Senator Russ Feingold.

Business Week reports that there is growing opposition on the Hill to the Pentagon's proposed Total Information Awareness Program. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) plans to introduce legislation today to prevent TIA from being implemented, until Congress has had sufficient time to study the datamining issues.

"If fully implemented, TIA would link databases from sources such as credit card companies, medical insurers and motor vehicle departments for police convenience in hopes of snaring terrorists. It's funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)."

The program would track consumer purchases, such as "sudden and large cash withdrawals, one-way air or rail travel, rental car transactions and purchases of firearms, chemicals or agents that could be used to produce biological or chemical weapons. It would also combine consumer information with visa records, passports, arrest records or reports of suspicious activity given to law enforcement or intelligence services."

In today's Virginia-Pilot on line, an informative article addressing the issue "Are cybercops setting up high-tech entrapments for fantasizing adults? Or are they members of new-age vice squads, patrolling a virtual red-light district where predators roam 24/7?"

"Civil libertarians worry that the government is not only entrapping otherwise law-abiding citizens but also invading the minds and computers of people who have little or no intention of acting on their private fantasies."

We're on the side of the civil libertarians and were quoted in the article, written by reporter Jon Frank:

Jeralyn Merritt, a spokesman for the Washington-based National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the government should not invade personal computers. ``If the person never left their living room and never intended to, but merely was engaging in fantasy and role playing on the Internet, should that be a crime?'' Merritt said. "

The defendant in the case was found guilty of proposing indecent liberties with a minor and faces up to a ten year sentence. His criminal conduct consisted of insta-messaging with a person he thought was a 15 year old in a chat room, but who turned out to be a 44 year old male agent.

"Close to 1,000 cases are prosecuted annually in the United States, Kerr said. Most of them, he said, end up in federal court, where penalties are stiffer and interstate crimes are more easily prosecuted. Because these investigations tend to be conducted by police officers working solely in cyberspace, state lines are insignificant, Kerr said. Perpetrators may be far away from the investigators who catch them."

According to Frank's article, the two issues raised most often on appeal are that since the investigator is an adult, there has been no crime committed. This has been almost "universally rejected."

The second issue -- entrapment -- has been marginally more successful.

A law professor, Orin Kerr, states that ``As long as the cops remain passive targets, I am not too worried'' about civil rights being trampled." Of course, we had a different take on it:

But Merritt of the defense lawyers group said electronic entrapments threaten basic liberties. ``The job of law enforcement is to police crimes, not to patrol private thoughts,'' she said. ``The places one visits on the Internet in the privacy of his own home should be protected. We need to avoid a `one click and you're guilty' standard of justice.''

[one note: we are an Officer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Our extremely talented and capable Media Affairs Director is Dan Dodson, dodson@nacdl.org, or 202-872-8600 × 228]

"The U.S. government's willingness to compromise on human rights to fight terrorism sets a dangerous precedent and drives away some nations from joining that war, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday. The private group said U.S. support for human rights in countries that are critical to the anti-terrorism campaign was at best inconsistent and at worst completely muted."

Pete Karas of the Progressive Racine Blog advises that court dates for the hundreds of rave-goers arrested in Racine, Wisconsis have been canceled .

"75 people had been scheduled to meet with city prosecutors today in Municipal Court to discuss their cases."

"Police issued $968 citations to more than 440 people who attended the Nov. 2 party at a bar, which had been billed as a fund-raiser for the Uptown Theatre. The citations were for being an inmate of a disorderly house. Police had said drug activity was obvious to all attendees, but only three people were arrested on drug charges."

"The Racine City Attorney's Office offered to reduce the fines to $100, but most of the people cited pleaded not guilty and demanded trials."

Apparently, negotiations are underway between the Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, including Racine attorney Erik Guenther, who is volunteering his time to the Milwaukee-based American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, and the City of Racine.

This has us a bit curious:

"Guenther said any rave-goers who have pleaded not guilty prior to Friday will be notified by the court if any proceedings are rescheduled....Guenther also said people who had pleaded no contest but not yet paid the fine should not pay the fine and should await further instructions from the court."

What do they mean "if any proceedings are rescheduled?" And why are they instructing those who agreed to pay the fine but haven't yet done so not to pay? Pete at Progressive Racine Blog says his sources are telling him the negotioations may lead to a very quick "settlement or closure" in all of these cases. We have no sources, but it sounds like a done deal to us--and a favorable one. If so, our hat is off to Mr. Gunenther and the Milwaukee ACLU.

Further Update: Two mayoral candidates think charges should be dropped against all those arrested.

"I agree that the party probably did get out of hand, but I think they've taken it too far, and I think they're wasting the taxpayers' money," said political newcomer Laurie Kell. Added County Supervisor Ken Lumpkin, another mayoral candidate: "I think they should cut their losses and walk away from it."

Former Congressman Bob Barr is outraged (as are we) about this over-the-top and hopefully illegal Virginia police practice (remember, Barr is now working with the ACLU) in Crimes before the fact :

"The gendarmes are going into local area bars undercover, waiting for patrons to imbibe what might possibly be too much inside the bar, forcing them outside for a mandatory blood-alcohol content test and, if they fail, citing them. In some instances, eschewing the boredom of operating undercover, they are charging in with full, SWAT regalia, and pulling patrons outside the bar. All this with no evidence whatsoever the poor souls enjoying a drink at the local pub were going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive under the influence."

Barr's opinion on the practice? We have to give the former Congressman credit here, let's face it, he's due:

"This actually is a frightening scenario that one hopes is nipped in the bud. Not only is this sort of Gestapolike behavior chilling in the extreme, but if condoned or encouraged, will find its way into other areas of detaining or arresting people for potential criminal behavior."

Come to think of it, however, we're already on the way to that scenario, what with the manner in which law-abiding citizens are subject to humiliating, public partial strip searches for no reason other than they might have looked at an airport security person in the wrong way, or bought a ticket in a manner different from their usual routine."

"All this fits right in with the "Eye-in-the-Sky" perspective of retired Adm. John Poindexter and the cherished Total Information Awareness system he's building at the Pentagon — collect all the information on as many people as you can in advance, decide who might be bad, and act on it. So what if you invade the privacy of virtually every law-abiding citizen in the country; you might be able to possibly identify a potential lawbreaker. The good retired admiral would really like those guys down at the Fairfax precinct. They're his kind of guys."

Instapundit's on our side on this one as well. Law Prof. Reynolds says, "Sorry, but this is inexcusable, and some of the examples make clear that this is really just an in terrorem effort, not serious law enforcement. I hope a bunch of people sue. Could it be another Houston in the making? We'll see."

Former NYC Mayor had to testify in a New York trial today--of a former police officer and two former firefighters suing the City for their improper dismissal after wearing blackface during a Labor Day float and mocking the death of an African-American man in Texas. The issue is whether city employees, including police officers, are entitled, under the First Amendment, to participate in a "spoof of a racist murder, grossly insulting an entire race of people," and later contend "it was all meant in good fun and as fine entertainment."

"At the time, Mr. Giuliani called the float "a disgusting display of racism," and said that if the men were caught, they were "going to be fired immediately." But Guliani did not have the right to fire the men. Police and Fire Commissioners alone have that authority--after due process (i.e., notice and an opportunity to be heard.)

"The New York Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the former police officer, argued that government cannot retaliate for the content of speech. He also charged that Mr. Giuliani acted in self-defense, to rebut charges that he was racially insensitive, especially in regard to the Police Department's handling of the so-called Million Youth March in Harlem just a few days before the float rolled through Broad Channel, Queens."

The presiding jurist, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Sprizzo did not care for Guliani's testimony, and at one poin,"got rather animated."

"They do work for you, they serve at your pleasure, don't they?" he asked. "Knowing how you felt, did you really expect them to disagee with you?"

Yes, Mr. Giuliani said."

"Really?" asked the judge. "You are the boss."

"Mr. Giuliani: "But I wasn't the boss of the disciplinary process."

"The judge: "If that were truly your state of mind, the statements you made were really most improper."

"Mr. Giuliani: "I have a right to my opinion."

"At which point Judge Sprizzo invoked 12th-century England, when Henry II famously flew into a rage and said "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?," in effect directing his followers to murder Thomas à Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. Which they did."

At one point, "Judge Sprizzo said flat out that the mayor's strong condemnation of the three men "was designed for public consumption."

Guliani kept his cool during his three hour stint on the witness stand, "perhaps mindful of his national reputation." The trial is ongoing.

We just did a live radio interview on Dan Viets' program in Missouri on the Patriot Act and abuses. For those listeners checking in here, and anyone else who's interested, we are reprinting a list of the changes that we published back in September.

The list comes from the Des Moines Sunday Register (September 1, 2002 edition). It was in the print (but not online) edition of the paper accompanying the opinion article "Lessons in Freedoms, Rights" by Rekha Basu.

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks are:

Freedom of Association: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

Freedom of Information: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests.

Freedom of Speech: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. The FBI won't say how many public libraries it has checked in order to determine who is getting particular books or looking up certain information on computers. A University of Illinois survey of nearly 2,000 libraries in December and January determined that the agency searched one of every nine of the nations largest libraries.
Right to Legal Representation: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Freedom from Unreasonable Searches: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Trial: Government may jail Americans without a trial.

Right to Liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Other Changes: Government may listen to suspects on any telephones they might use, not just on a specific phone. The FBI and intelligence agents may share information, an unprecedented shift away from a 24-year-old policy that placed a high wall between domestic law enforcement officials and the CIA. The Treasury Department may target banks and foreign countries deemed havens for money-laundering. The Immigration and Naturalization Service may hold noncitizens up to seven days without charges and detain them indefinitely if they are considered a threat to national security.

[comments now closed]

Don't miss Jack of the People's Republic of Seabrook on why you should object to DNA dragnets.