Guilty until fourth amendment shows up

Wash. legislator to introduce DNA testing bill

TACOMA, Wash. -- Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, says he plans to introduce a bill in the 2009 Legislature that will put the state on the same page with the federal government on the subject of DNA testing.

Your right to be secure in your person and your papers includes your DNA. The police may take "non-intimate" body samples from you. These include samples of hair, fingernail or toenail scrapings, and some external body swabs.

However, you cannot refuse to be fingerprinted because it is considered non intimate. Unfortunately we have a long line of prescient set out before now that eviscerates your ability to refuse fingerprinting.

Additionally because of Terry v. Ohio you can be frisked without arrest.

Fingerprints and frisking literally exist on the edge of personal and public space. Personally I argue that subpoena /should/ be required as in order to do either, but that is another subject entirely.

Obtaining DNA is about as intimate as you can get, thus requiring a subpoena to protect against unreasonable search and seizure by the fourth amendment.

Additionally it sets a prescient that can be used to further eviscerate our fourth amendment rights to privacy.

In an age where you are more likely to be jailed then you are to have a crime committed against you (thank you, drug war), this is another nail in the coffin of civil liberties. The creation of a database of citizen's DNA who haven't actually been convicted of crimes opens a door to far greater abuses.

Take for instance that now you can be required to give your fingerprints to the state if you lost your id, putting your thumb print on file for the state/federal government....

Those who fight against Real ID should be the same ones who are queasy right now.

Rule by corporations is called a what, a Plutocracy? Corportocracy? Corrupt?

Bush attempts to nullify an entire branch of government

They state this better than I can. It kinda makes me ill.

Olbermann states it well: in Europe they vigorously regulate everything and ensure that things are safe before they hit the market. Here, we don't regulate them before hand so much as sue after they're defective: i.e. in Europe you have to prove that it's safe, in America you have to prove that it's not.

Since we do /not/ have strict regulations before something goes out (better than some countries, however Regan reduced the size of the FDA by 2/3s), the way that we have a check on corporations is through the ability to pursuit legal action.

Before you start whining about frivolous lawsuits, remember that this is the third check on our government. This country is unique in that a lone person on the streets may stand before the courts and their government and say "Hey, that's not right," and the courts can look at their case and say "Yeah, you're right, that's /not/ right."

You, citizen, have power. It's not a perfect system, but there are a heck of a lot worse.

Are you no longer a US citizen when you walk into a school?

Former Student Who Created Facebook Group Critical of Teacher Sues High School Over Suspension

A former Florida high school student who was disciplined for "cyberbullying" a teacher on Facebook is suing the school principal on allegations of violating her free speech rights.

Before you start whining about frivolous lawsuits, remember that this is the third check on our government. This country is unique in that a lone person on the streets may stand before the courts and their government and say "Hey, that's not right," and the courts can look at their case and say "Yeah, you're right, that's /not/ right."

You, citizen, have power. It's not a perfect system, but there are a heck of a lot worse.

This particular case regards the fact that minors and students still have rights, /especially/ when they are not at school.

Freedom of speech does not protect /popular/ speech, it protects that which is /unpopular./ If we take away one right, where will that lead us?

And students have the ability to speak out. They should not be censored. Freedom of speech is your right, and it is their right too. You do /not/ give up your rights as a citizen to the moment you enter a school, and you ESPECIALLY do not give up your rights /away/ from it!

Demonstrating the Need for Prison Reformation

Charles Platt on life in prison - Boing Boing

"The man by the metal detector looks like somebody’s benevolent uncle. White-haired, folksy and jovial, he could be in a TV commercial selling hearing aids. You’d never guess he controls access to a concrete-walled correctional facility."

"The list of ominous indicators is long and getting longer, including warrantless wiretaps, innocent people killed or traumatized during no-knock drug busts based on bogus tipoffs, random traffic stops in search of drivers who have had two beers and will be hauled straight to jail, search-and-seizure of laptops by immigration officers, suspension of constitutional rights for anyone suspected of “terrorist acts,” tasering of citizens who ask why they’re being arrested"

"...Among the adult population of the United States, 1 person out of every 100 is now behind bars. Thus the unweighted odds of going to jail are greater than the odds of being a crime victim."

"...It’s important to understand just how extreme the situation is. We now incarcerate a larger proportion of our citizens, and a larger absolute number of them, than any other nation in the world. The United States has less than 5 percent of the global population yet has almost one-quarter of all the world’s prisoners."

What the heck is a Fourth Amendment? Against the car citizen.

Court Upholds Conviction From Illegal Traffic Stop

"The California Supreme Court on Monday reinstated the drug conviction of a man based on evidence found during an illegal traffic stop, in a case that had brought the issue of passenger rights before the nation's highest court. ..."

California Supreme Court: Cops can use evidence found in illegal traffic stops

Yes... This will end well.

Court Finds Necrophilia is Illegal Even When Using A Condom

Men to face charge after court finds necrophilia is illegal in Wisconsin even when using a condom

"Three men accused of trying to dig up a grave in Wisconsin in order to have sex with a dead woman entered not guilty pleas this week. The twin brothers, Alex and Nicholas Grunke, and Dustin Radke (all pictured) are alleged to have attempted to remove the body of a 20 year-old woman killed..."

Ok, so creepy factor aside, Wisconsin is deciding what the lines of consent are - such as if dead bodies can consent or not.

Interestingly enough Wisconsin /is/ one of the many states where there is an actual exclusion in the law making it legally impossible to rape your spouse - i.e. they are considered always consenting regardless of circumstances, including inflicting bodily harm.

Additionally, there's this whole thing called "ex post facto" which says that you can't create a law that doesn't exist, to punish someone, 'cause it's just a little unconstitutional. Not just against the Bill of Rights, no, it's in the constitution itself, right next to Habeus Corpus.

A laughably bizarre case to follow. And only /one/ of them actually wanted to have sex with the corpse.