Mediaboss Marketing

NEW HAMPTON, Mo. A Christian homeschooling organization has filed a legal challenge against a Missouri sheriff and his deputy after they pepper sprayed and tasered a couple in front of their children when they refused to let them in the house without a warrant.

The situation occurred in September 2011 after a Missouri Child Protective Services (CPS) agent had visited the home of Jason and Laura Hagan of New Hampton following a complaint of a messy home. When the caseworker sought to return a second time for a follow-up, the couple refused. CPS then called the police.

According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA),Sheriff Darren White andChief Sheriffs Deputy David Glidden then arrived at the home, seeking to enter. Mr. Hagan told the men that they needed to obtain a warrant from a court.

When Glidden stated that he would enter anyway, Hagan turned to go back in the house, and was consequently pepper sprayed in the back of his head, and then in his face. Mrs. Hagan was then sprayed as well.

As Mr. Hagan was still standing after the ordeal, he was then tasered, which caused him to fall to the floor just inside of the door. Mrs. Hagan then closed the door on the deputy.

But at this point, White joined Glidden on the porch, and together they busted open the Hagans door, forcing their way inside. They found both Mr. and Mrs. Hagan lying on the floor and began pepper spraying them again. They also sprayed a chemical agent on the dog and threatened that they would shoot if he did not stop barking at them.

The Hagans were then handcuffed and charged with child endangerment and resisting arrest, and the children were taken to the hospital for exposure to the pepper spray used by the sheriff and his deputy on their parents. The children at the time were ages 13, 10 and 8.

As the Hagans were then forced to appear in court to answer for the charges, a judge instead found that Glidden and White had violated the couples Fourth Amendment rights by forcing entry into their home without a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, the constitutional amendment reads.

See more here:
Homeschool Parents Pepper Sprayed, Tasered By Missouri Sheriff, Deputy in Front of Children

The USA Freedom Act died in the SenateTuesdaynight. With it went a provision for a weak advocate to provide at least the beginnings of anadversarial position in the secret FISA court for more exotic requests. The measure would haveallowedthe FISC to consider viewpoints outside that of the government while still retaining the courts secrecy.

Even as that effort to do something to make the FISA court less like as Sen. Richard Blumenthal said during Tuesdaysdebate theStar Chamber, the British kings old secret court, failed, the government released atranscriptfrom a hearing at the FISA Court of Review, the appellate court to the FISC. The hearing considered Yahoos challenge to the Protect America Act, a precursor to todays PRISM program, which required the Internet provider to hand over customer data in response to government directives rather than warrants.

Some of the claims judges made in the secret hearing would be funny perhaps were meant to be if they werent so alarming, coming from a judge working in secret. For example,perhapsas a way of arguing the Fourth Amendment only requires searches to be reasonable, not require warrants, Judge Morris Arnold noted that the warrant clause is at the bottom end of the Fourth Amendment. As if sticking the requirement for warrants at the back end of a constitutional amendment made it optional.

Other commentswere downright troubling, as when Arnold suggested Yahoo hadnt been injured by the governments demand that it help it spy on their customers. Well, if this order is enforced and its secret, how can you be hurt? Arnold asked. The people dont know that that theyre being monitored in some way. Arnold continued, I mean, whats whats the whats your whats the damage to your consumer?

The most substantively outrageous comments came from Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre. To dismiss any Fourth Amendment concerns about the American side of communications collected along with a target, Garre claimed incidentally collected Americans content is either destroyed and not used or disseminated. He then claimed there is no database that is taken from incidental collections.

That claim made it intoFISCRs final rulingto justify the courts finding that the incidental collection of large amounts of Americans data did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The government assures us that it does not maintain a database of incidentally collected information from non-targeted United States persons, and there is no evidence to the contrary, the opinion read. On these facts, incidentally collected communications of non-targeted United States persons do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Even when that claim was first revealedfive years ago, it waspretty clear it was not true. Since then weve learned the government not only keeps that data, meaning it does, in fact, have thedatabase it claimed in secret it didnt have. Weve also learned the governmentsearchesAmericans names and email addresses, even before it has evidence of wrongdoing against them. The FBI does it so frequently, they cannot count how often they do.

Thats not the only gross misrepresentation the government told in the secrecy of Americas Star Chamber.

Later in the hearing, Garre pointed tothe order the government uses to authorizeits spying activities,Executive Order 12333, to prove that it did not spy on Americans overseas without conducting some kind of review that theAmerican is some kind of agent of a foreign power. He emphasized the longevity of the EO. It was issued in 1981, Garre said in 2008, and that is an order that has been followed. I dont think anyone disputes that its been followed. Garre offered up but did not deliver a discussion or explanation of the manner in which Section 2.5 has been carried out over the past few decades. Judge Arnold asked, Your main point is that this wasnt just something hoped [sic] up for present purposes; its been in effect for quite some time? Garre answered, Thats exactly right.

Only it wasnt exactly right.

AsSalon has noted, just six months before Garre made those comments, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouserevealedhow the EO had in reality been treated during the years it authorized a warrantless wiretap program. In fact, sometimeearlier in the Bush administration, DOJs Office of Legal Counsel, a department that interprets the law for the executive branch, had ruled that,An executive order cannot limit a President, Whitehouse read from language he got declassified to read before the Senate.There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order.Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. As described, the EO Garre claimed was so rock solid was actually closer to pixie dust.

See the rest here:
This is America? Secret courts, no Fourth Amendment and magic pixie dust

The Pueblo County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve a fourth amendment to a special use permit regarding a gun range operated by the Pueblo West Sportsmans Association on the 600 block of East Loma Drive.

Seven members of the commission voted yes to approve the amendment. One member was absent and one abstained from voting. The special use permit allowing the PWSA facility was originally approved by the commission in 1986 and has had three prior amendments approved in 1990, 1993 and 2011.

The vote of approval was given by the commission provided 14 amended conditions are met by the gun range, which help satisfy safety concerns that have been brought up about it consisting mainly of berm heights and bullet ricochets potentially leaving the confines of the range.

In addition to the conditions of approval, a directive was ordered for the Department of Planning and Development to conduct an administrative review of the property in May and present a report to the planning commission about how the gun range is complying with the Pueblo County code and the conditions of approval.

Read more:
Gun range on clock to comply

Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing"
Watch full episode of the Debate here: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/11/18/386455/debate-us-spiraling-spying/ The United States Department of Justice is spying on mobile phones through...

By: iStateOfMind3

Follow this link:
Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing" - Video

If the Founders and Framers knew about U.S. marshals' reported airborne collection of cellphone data from thousands of innocent Americans while pursuing criminals, they surely would shout, Get a warrant!

First reported by The Wall Street Journal, this program began outrageously violating Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure around 2007. Cessna aircraft, covering most of the U.S. population from five unidentified metro-area airports, carry devices that mimic cell towers, fooling cellphones into reporting their general locations and unique registration information.

These devices supposedly distinguish between innocents' cellphones and those of fugitives, drug dealers and others under criminal investigation. But they can gather data from tens of thousands of phones, encrypted or not, in a single flight. And while court orders supposedly are obtained for these flights, those orders are sealed.

Given how wide a net is cast, it's hard to see how those court orders could be as specific about what's to be searched, for what purpose as search warrants must be under the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU's chief technologist says judges approving this dragnet surveillance program likely don't realize its scale. Such widespread snooping on innocents is the result of overreaching law enforcers and compliant judges disregarding constitutional wisdom.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

Read the original here:
Snoopers flights: Air raid!