Illinois v. Perkins

In this case, police informants posed as prisoners in order to obtain evidence of Perkins' involvement in a murder. Perkins made statements to the one of the "prisoners" implicating himself. This information was subsequently used at trial and Perkins was convicted. There had been no Miranda warning, since the defendant did not know he was speaking to someone acting on behalf of the police.

Should Perkins' incriminating statements have been allowed at trial, considering that he made them without having been warned of his rights?

Answer this question from two perspectives:

1. Your own common sense. Is this police tactic fair or reasonable? Explain.
   

2. The Supreme Court. Justify your answer using what you know about the Miranda decision.

Yarborough v. Alvarado

Michael Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder and robbery for his alleged role in a 1995 killing. Alvarado, who was not the triggerman, was convicted in large part because of incriminating statements he made during a two hour interview with a police detective. At the time of the interview, Alvarado was a 17-year-old high school student with no prior arrest record. The detective had contacted Alvarado's mother, who agreed to bring him to the police station for questioning. When Alvarado arrived with his parents, the detective denied the parents' request to remain with their son during the interview. While they waited in the lobby, Alvarado was questioned alone for two hours. He was not placed under arrest and was allowed to leave after the questioning ended. At no time was Alvarado advised that he had a right to remain silent, a right to consult an attorney prior to answering, or a right to leave the police station at any time. Alvarado alleges he was deprived of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.

Following his criminal conviction, Alvarado brought a petition in federal district court against Yarborough, the warden of the prison where he was being held. The district court denied Alvarado's petition. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Alvarado was "in custody" when he was interrogated by police and, therefore, should have been read his Miranda warnings. The Ninth Circuit insisted that federal criminal law treated children differently and this principle should apply to Miranda custody determinations. The Supreme Court granted review.

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule? In determining "custody" for purposes of Miranda, should a court apply a different standard for juveniles?

Balancing competing interests

Write a detailed response to the following statement. Use what you have learned about the Miranda case as evidence to support your thesis, either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda restricts the ability of the police to fight crime. Police officers are on the front lines in the fight against crime, and they should be allowed to interrogate suspects as they best see fit. Society's right to public safety is more important than the rights of criminals."

Political Cartoon

What is the cartoonist's message? Do you agree or disagree with the message? Explain your answer.

Homework due December 4

Choose at least one of the next four posts -- the one you find most interesting, perhaps? -- and respond to it in the comments section of that post.

Patriot act redifines domestic terrorism.

The patriot act broadens the category of what can be investigated as domestic terrorism. Groups like Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, the Earth Liberation Front, asnd the Animal Liberation Front have been envolved in activites that could encourage an investigation into the possibility domestic terrorism.

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html

ACLU represents anonymous ISP in court.

Earlier this year, the ACLU fought for an anonymous Internet Service Provider who claimed that the NSL (National Security Letter) was infringing upon their First Amendment rights. The NSL (which is the provision to the PATRIOT Act) granted the government the ability to obtain files, records, and other data without probable cause, or any other authorization. Upon receiving an NSL, you are required to provide the requested data to the government. You are also bound with a suppression order. This forces you to remain anonymous. You also cannot share certain information, and you cannot let it be known that you received an NSL in the first place. This is clearly a conflicting law. The Judge ruled in favor of the ISP but the government has appealed the case and they are still continuing to fight for it in court.

Article found here.

Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions

On September 6, US District Court Judge Victor Marrero struck down certain controversial portions of the patriot act regarding the FBI's widespread use of National Security Letters. The case was filed by the ACLU. Although the FBI was allowed the use of NSLs before the patriot act, afterwards the rules for issuing them were dramatically relaxed. Marrero stated: "several aspects . . . violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html

Doe vs Gonzales.

The FBI wanted too get all the computer recordes of the Connecticut libraries, in 2005. Some librarians said no and filed a lawsuit. They won their case.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usactlibrarians.htm

FBI ordered to turn over Patriot Act abuse documents

In April of this year, an inquiry was followed through about the misuse of National Security Letters(NSLs) by the FBI. It was found that, although the NSLs are to be used sparingly, the FBI issued over 47,000 of them in 2005. Around 700 issued NSLs were discovered to have false information. The FBI now has to turn over 2,500 pages a month to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who discovered the breaking and bending of laws the FBI was commiting.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/judge_orders_fb.html

FBI tries to get information from journalists

In 2003 the FBI used the PATRIOT Act to subpoena a bunch of journalists who wrote stories about or interviewed Adrian Lamo, who had been arrested for hacking into the New York Times webpage. The reporters were told to hand over emails, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, off the record statements, their own notes, pretty much everything that had anything to do with Lamo. Later the FBI apologized for their demands, and instead requested that the reporters give the information voluntarily.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/29/fbi_bypasses_first_amendment/

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2003/09/60538

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2003-10-08-lamo-apology_x.htm

FBI Employees face criminal investigation

FBI personnel used misleading "emergency" letters to acquire thousands of phone records.

www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation

USA Patriot Act Used to Clear Out Homeless

In the New York City suburb of Summit, Richard Kreimer (a homeless man) was kicked out of a train station. The police told Kreimer that he was being removed because of the Patriot Act, specifically because of potential attacks on mass transit systems. According to the article, Kreimer said he has the right to be in a public place and sued the city for 5 million dollars. He wanted the judge to rule that the train station was a public place. Interestingly, the U.S. Justice Department criticized Summit for using the USA Patriot Act in a unreasonable way.



Resource: http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=506&aid=24

Audit Finds Many "National Security Letters" Misissued

This is a Wired Article by Ryan Singel on the FBI's use of "National Security Letters" that I found through Bruce Schneier's blog. Bruce Schneier is a world renowned security expert and his blog is an excellent source of security related news and information.

The article is about how a Department of Justice audit found that the majority of the times that the FBI issued a "National Security Letter," they did not follow the (limited) rules listed in the USA Patriot Act of 2001. This article is a good example on how useful the "checks and balances" part of the constitution really is.

U.S. Citizen Asks Federal Court to Insure Safe Passage For His Family Back from Canada

On December 17th, 2006 a family of full-fledged US citizens, who just happened to be Muslim, had been blocked from traveling back across the US-Canadian border. The Father, Akif Rahman was seized by security in the Toronto airport and underwent terrorist screening procedures. It took at least an hour, which caused Rahman and his family to miss their flight. on the 21st, with help from the ACLU, he asked a federal judge to help insure a safe and calm trip back to Chicago. He had been unfairly and (he claims) violently detained in similar situations 4 other times since 2004. This is all due to him having a similar name to a suspected terrorist on a government watch-list. Rahman and the ACLU had filed a lawsuit against the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) in 2005.

(I can't find any updates on him and his family adsafhjdkslabcnxkcsorry)

NPR News Report

Most Recent ACLU Article

FBI uses incorrect information and Patriot Act to arrest innocent man

On May 2004, the FBI arrested attorney at law Brandon Mayfield without charge. This was because Mayfield was erroneously linked to the 2004 train bombings in Madrid. A finger print found near a detonator was identified by the FBI as being Mayfield’s. The FBI used Letters of National Security to wire tap Mayfield’s phone and conduct searches of his house. Despite Spanish police’s conviction that the print belonged to someone else as well as documented evidence that there was an “unusual similarity” which was confusing to investigators, the FBI arrested Mayfield when information about the investigation was leaked. Mayfield was held without charge for over two weeks. The FBI refused to release Mayfield, even after the Spanish police provided evidence that the finger print belonged to an Algerian national named Ouhane Daoud. He was finally released when the international press broke the story. A judge dismissed the case outright. Mayfield and many others believe that he was persecuted due to his Muslim faith. Mayfield received a public apology from the FBI; never the less, he has filed several suits against them for invasion of privacy. This could not have happened without the Patriot Act



Links:



http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/03/11/patriot-act-dont-worry-about-abuse-worry-about-incompetence



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

Homework Due 11/27/07

In class today I explained several key sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the fall of 2001. Your task as a group is to "fill in the gap" -- what kinds of things have happened since the Patriot Act was passed?

1. Research news stories, other articles, or other info on the web about how the Patriot Act has been enforced, challenged, changed, or otherwise impacted people. Choose an article that is interesting to you.

2. Post your findings to this blog. Give your posting a descriptive title, and in the body of the post write a 100-word (or less) summary of the information you found. Include a link to the page where you found the information.

3. Read what other students contribute, and comment if you wish.

Contact me if you have questions.