] Three years ago, the high court surprised law enforcement
] experts by ruling that it was unconstitutional for drug
] agents to use heat-seeking devices to detect marijuana
] plants growing inside a home. Usually, the plants grow
] under hot lights that emit heat that can be detected from
] the street.
]
] But on Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of
] the 2001 opinion, said it did not mean the use of
] drug-sniffing dogs was unconstitutional. The heat
] detectors are a new technology that can, in effect, look
] inside a house, he said.
]
] "This is not a new technology. This is a dog," Scalia
] said.

There is no difference between a drug sniffing dog, and a silicon based air borne molecule detection device. They have the same application and they work the same damn way. Either they both constitute a search, or neither does!

[ Agreed. I would think that the limitations on search should pertain to any mechanism by which "things that would otherwise be private" are discovered. The mechanism may be an infrared scanner, or it may be a highly trained German Shepherd, but in both cases the police are using a tool to detect something that would otherwise not be detectable.

Now, the merits of this activity may happily be debated, but I agree that it's inconsistent to differentiate the tools based on their modernity. The infrared detectors don't "look inside" the house any more than the dog does. Both detect particles that are being emitted by something inside, and react to concentrations thereof. Seems dumb. My $0.02. -k]

Stupid broken SCOTUS rulings

] "Let history be witness I am a criminal."

This story is interesting on a number of levels.
Outwardly, you've got the small town library fighting to protect it's patron list.

Secondly, you've got the FBI not using the Patriot act to collect that list. Its informative on that level. They likely didn't use the patriot act because the conservatives are fond of defending the ability to collect library records by saying that its never been used. On the other hand, because they didn't use the patriot act the library is screaming to high heaven about the inquiry. If they had reason to suspect that an Islamic terrorist did actually read this book that guy has lots and lots of notice that the feds are on to him. In a way, by running screaming to the press the library is demonstrating why the feds need gag orders on libraries. (My defense here of gag orders should not be misconstrued as a defense of the collection of this data without a court order.)

The third level is the interest in the first place. Why get a grand jury involved just because someone scribbled a quote in the margins of a book? Is this a Bin Lauden quote? Googling the quote only returns references to this story. One blogger from the area claims to have seen another quotation in a TV news report about the incident. I wonder if the quotation is entirely different then these two and one which hasn't been made public... Something only someone connected to the base would know...

(Turns out the correct quote is "Let history be witness that I am a criminal." Google it.)

komo 4 news | Small Town Library Takes On The Feds

] Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush
] Administration's war on terror, was ruled
] unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday.
]
] U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the
] American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the
] power the FBI has to demand confidential financial
] records from companies as part of terrorism
] investigations.

ABCNEWS.com : Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision

] Results 1 - 10 of about 421 for "Fraudulent Online
] Identity Sanctions Act" privacy.

"Largely uncontroversial." I've got 421 articles that say otherwise.

Google Search: 'Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act' privacy

Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Oregon, was held for two weeks, even though the only other connections between him and terrorism were things like the fact, as the FBI pointed out, that his law firm advertised in a "Muslim yellow page directory" whose publisher had once had a business relationship with Osama bin Laden's former personal secretary.

So is this what you call a Non-Obvious Relationship?

This nation was organized under a rule of law, not a dictatorship of the virtuous. The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights specifically because they did not believe that honorable men always do the right thing.

About Independence

[ Decius makes some very good points here, and I'm not going to waste time repeating too much, or being as thorough...

I agree that the cross on the seal of LA county almost certainly has a religious, not historical, intent. I agree that in a perfect world, it wouldn't be on there. In this world though, it's an extremely minor issue, and not worthy of the expense, both monetary and social, of attacking.

There are greater questions of church/state separation to be dealt with, not the least of which is what happens when the majority of people *want* more religion in their government. I'm happy to be the elitist who says categorically that the majority is wrong in such a case, and that ethics can and should be separated from whatever framework of mtyhology you prefer.

Anyway, yeah, the ACLU needs to re-prioritize. And also stop sending me so much paper. Use more of my money for causes and less on sending me sheaves of action alerts and requests for more money. -k]

Seal - Los Angeles County

This is the future, and don't guile yourself into believing you can make a difference here by voting. The Democrats pursue stuff like this even more ferociously then the Republicans. Kerry is already promising to increase funding for these programs.

[ I guess we're all fucked then. I better run down to the Ministry and sign up for my subdermal RFID, and start checking eBay for a Penfield Mood Organ and a sheep to raise. -k]

[Politech] TSA trials registered travelers

] It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts
] say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no
] longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief
] search of your home or business.

This is a little hard to cipher through. The crimes the perp in question is accused of cloud the issue. Basically, these two officers show up at a residence looking to question someone. They have no warrants of any kind. Someone lets them into the residence, so they go back to the room the person they are looking for lives in. The person isn't there. So they go in and have a look around. They find evidence and submit it.

The police claim they felt at risk, and were worried that the individual might be hiding. Thing is, they weren't executing an arrest warrant, so basically the person in question had every right to hide, and if they felt they were at risk snooping around for him they should have left.

Typically the police are allowed to perform a "protective sweep" of a residence if they are there executing an arrest warrant. Now, in these states, they can execute a "protective sweep" at any time if they feel the situation poses a danger. In this case they were probably justified in feeling there was a danger. However, the fact is that the police consider any situation to be risky, and rightly so. You never know when you might end up in a dicey situation. That means they can perform a search any time they enter any residence for any reason. If they want to search your residence all they have to do is question you. Good by forth.

Whats really disturbing about this is that this is the 5th circuit to come to this conclusion. These rules might already apply to you.

[ That sucks total balls. -k]

TheNewOrleansChannel.com - News - Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

] Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called for the hearing during
] a speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday. He
] suggested that use of the technology, known as radio
] frequency identification (RFID), may need to be regulated
] at the federal level.

[ Good... it's about time we see legislative movement *before* the technology is widespread. Here's hoping some useful policy comes out of this... -k]

Tracking tags may get congressional scrutiny - News - ZDNet

] New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Wednesday
] the state's laws do not permit gay marriage, dealing a
] harsh blow to the growing nationwide battle for same-sex
] weddings.

[ Look for liberals nationwide to bash Eliot Spitzer without paying attention to the actual story... even the Reuters headline here is a little bit sensational.

Spitzer is doing his job by interpreting the language of state laws on the matter and not ignoring them out of political or personal views, which are decidedly pro-same-sex-union :

] "What motivates gays and lesbians is the same thing that
] motivates heterosexuals, and that is the desire to live
] as true partners with the protection of the law and full
] recognition of society," Spitzer told a news conference.
]
] "I know gays and lesbians want marriage and I respect
] their commitment to each other and I personally support
] their desire," he said. Still, he had to put the law,
] "ahead of my personal views or political considerations."

I guess i'm just pre-emptively getting pissed at a media that's likely to spin this as much as possible to gain controversy... the LA Times story headline is "NY Attorney General: No Gay Marriages". Irresponsible if you ask me.

Incidentally, I grew up about 15 miles from New Paltz, NY... if i were gonna try to compare it to anyplace local, I'd say it's a lot like Decatur, for what it's worth. I'm not surprised at all to see it become an early battleground for this issue in NY State. -k]

Gay Marriage Suffers Legal Setback in New York