Uncategorized

April 15, 2016

Criminal and Constitutional Rights of Corporations: Apple’s Example

In an unprecedented case, Apple, the ever-popular electronics company, has argued that the FBI is violating its constitutional First amendment rights. In a 36-page legal brief submitted in the District Court: Central District of California, Apple made its first formal rebuttal to a court order ordering Apple to code a software that would make it easier for the government to crack open the phone of the San Bernardino gunman, Syed Farook.

Apple’s legal team, led by George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, Theodore Olson, claims that computer code is speech, which cannot be compelled. Compelling Apple to write a code it does not want to violates the first amendment. Moreover, Apple has accused the federal government of being indifferent to privacy concerns and being dishonest in how legally valid the request was.

Lastly, Apple has claimed that the order violates its fifth amendment due process protections by leaning too heavily on the archaic 1789 All Writs Act. Essentially, the Act allows courts to issue whatever legal orders they need to issue in order to do their jobs. See 28 USC §1651. Essentially, the company claims that forcing them to write a special code for the FBI is burdensome, illegal, and unfair.

April 13, 2016

Police are Now Pepper Spraying Trump Protesters

by David M. Boertje

As if this year’s race to the White House could not get any more dramatic or contentious, Kansas City police in Missouri pepper sprayed a group of protestors outside Donald Trump’s rally. According to the Kansas City police, they did it to break up two large groups of people who were ready to fight. They also claimed that they arrested two people for failing to follow the law. Meanwhile, inside the event, Trump was continually interrupted by protesters, who were quickly escorted out by police. The move by police marks yet another moment of conflict at a Trump rally. Chaos ensued earlier in the same week when he canceled his campaign stop at the University of Illinois in Chicago after protesters flooded the pavilion.

Pepper spraying protestors is a rare occurrence when it come to presidential campaign events, but it is becoming more and more common in this election cycle. This week, the NYPD pepper sprayed a crowd of protestors that were marching towards the Trump International Tower. There were thousands of protesters walking from Central Park to the Trump tower.

Trump has said during his Kansas rally that he wants charges filed against all the people protesting him. In addition to police force, his rallies bore witness to violence in Arizona and Ohio, and his campaign is notorious for violent and racially charged rhetoric.

April 6, 2016

Justice Sought for Robert Branch: Protests Against DA’s Bias Against Minorities

by David M. Boertje

In the latest incident of controversies involving the San Diego Police Department and accusations of bias against minorities, several community leaders protested at the preliminary hearing of Robert Branch at the Hall of Justice Thursday, March 10. Back in May of 2015, 25 year old Robert Branch, a security guard at the time, was accused of assaulting a sheriff’s deputy Paul Ward after an apparent road-rage incident. Ward is described as a “loose cannon,” by his colleagues.

During the incident in question, Ward allegedly swerved to block Branch’s car from passing on an El Cajon onramp, sending Branch’s car into the shoulder lane. Ward then followed Branch for nearly ten miles. When Branch exited near San Diego State University, Ward pulled over Branch’s car in an unmarked and unidentified police vehicle. He was not in uniform, so Ward began recording with his cell phone. That led to Ward trying to restrain Branch, and Branch was charged with resisting arrest. Branch subsequently filed a civil suit for illegal detention.

Protestors with the National Action Network has accused District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis of selective prosecution of minorities intended to further her political ambitions.

Resisting Arrest in California

Under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), one may not willfully resist, relay, or obstruct an enforcement officer or emergency personnel from doing their job/ performing his or her duties. This is a vague definition which often leads to false allegations. Oftentimes, a cop will charge you simply for being dismissive, uncooperative in their eyes, or rude.

A conviction of resisting arrest is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

Legal Defenses

Similar to battery on a peace officer, physically resisting an unlawful search, arrest or detainment or defending yourself against excessive force is does not constitute resisting arrest. Likewise, reasonable self-defense against excessive force does not constitute assault or battery on a police officer. Another legal defense is that it was a false allegation. You will need to prove that you did not intend on obstruct a cop’s duties.

Because these type of cases often turn to ‘he said/she said’ against police, it is always recommended you record your encounters with police (you do not even have to tell them you are recording if you fear retribution) and gather witnesses. Continue reading

April 1, 2016

Oregon Man Who Shot a Radio-Collared Wolf Pleads Guilty

by David M. Boertje

In our neighboring state, a 26 year old Oregon hunter named Brennon D. Witty has plead guilty to illegally shooting a radio-collared gray wolf in Grant county. He was out hunting for coyotes on private property when he shot and killed the radio collared wolf named OR-22. While gray wolves are currently delisted under the state of Oregon’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), gray wolves still remain protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the shooting happened one month before the wolves were delisted under the state ESA. As a result, Mr. Witty has pled guilty to the “taking” of a threatened or endangered species. Because of a plea deal, a companion charge of hunting with a centerfire rifle with no big game tag was dismissed.

Witty was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $1,000 of restitution to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The rifle he used to illegally kill the endangered wolf was confiscated by the state. He faces zero jail time.

It is a Federal and State Criminal Offense to Kill Endangered Species

March 30, 2016

Ku Klux Klan Rally in Anaheim Erupts in Violence

by David M. Boertje

A Ku Klux Klan (KKK) rally in Anaheim erupted in violence at the end of February, when three people were stabbed and 13 people were arrested. The KKK had planned a rally at Peterson Park for the afternoon to protest against immigration and Muslims, when counter-protesters showed up to confront them. Fighting broke out just moments after the KKK members exited their vehicles. According to reports, witnesses saw the counter-protesters kicking and attacking the KKK members. Then one protester collapsed, crying he had been stabbed. Additionally, two other protesters were stabbed during the melee — one with a knife and the other with an unidentified weapon.

There was next to no police presence at the rally when it first started. A KKK member in handcuffs is reportedly claiming that he stabbed the other protester in self defense. Witnesses said they saw the Klansmen using the point of a flagpole as a weapon while fighting with protesters. Another witness who was near the Klansmen reported seeing them swarmed and attacked with two-by-fours and other weapons by the counter protesters.

The Klan members who were determined to be connected to the three stabbings were arrested. All could face charges of assault with a deadly weapon, although some folks could have a self-defense claim.

March 25, 2016

The FBI Can Use Dead Suspects’ Fingerprints to Open iPhones

by David M. Boertje

In this ever-increasing digital age, personal privacy and rights continue to controversial topic. In the midst of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s investigation, the District Court of California, at the formal request of the FBI, issued an All Writs Act 1789 order on Apple asking them to code a special iOS to be installed on Farook’s iPhone. The code would allow the FBI to make unlimited guesses at Farook’s password. As Apple makes their iPhones increasingly secure, the FBI is having trouble hacking into iOS data, which is costly and time-consuming.

As a result, the government has tried to co-opt Apple and used the Writ Act to force Apple to collaborate with them. Apple has currently appealed its case, with its CEO Tim Cook issuing a statement that such a code would threaten the security of iPhone owners, and pledging to uphold people’s privacy. In the interim, they have figured out that Apple’s TouchID can be bypassed with people’s fingerprints and/or copies of their fingerprints.

If Apple loses its appeal, those concerned about their security should disable their TouchID and opt for a strong password.

March 23, 2016

Navy Offering Reward for Information on Bomb Threats

by David M. Boertje

Earlier this week, the Naval base in San Diego received a phone call that specifically threatened one of the buildings on the base. Around 9:15am, someone called in and threatened to bomb Building 36. Around 9:15am, the base posted on its Facebook page that the area had been secured, meaning they did not find evidence of bomb(s). There was a perimeter set up between Pier 3 and Pier 5.

This is the second threat at Naval Base San Diego within two weeks. Previously, a hand-written note sparked an investigation and the evacuation of the pier at 32nd Street and Harbor Drive.

The base is currently not on lockdown. Now the Navy is offering a $5,000 reward for any information leading to the arrest of the person who made the fake bomb threat. A spokesperson for the Navy stated that since last November, 11 fake bomb threats have been made.

March 16, 2016

S.F. Officials Warn of Chinese New Year ‘Blessing’ Scam

by David M. Boertje

Chinese New Year may have just passed, but San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón is warning residents in Chinatown about a scam that has popped up every year. The “blessing scam,” which is a scam committed by fortune tellers of all cultures, involves a “psychic” who claims s/he will un-curse someone if the victim is willing to pay up large sums of money or gold.

This world has no shortage of pain, hardships, and heartache. It is fairly easy for these “psychics” to convince their victims that they are cursed. Overall, incidents of the blessing scam, carried out mostly in San Francisco’s Chinatown, have decreased dramatically from 2012, when 47 cases were reported and 10 people were charged with crimes. City officials and law enforcement attribute this decrease to the community outreach and education they have been doing in senior centers in Chinatown. They have been warning people not to fall for scammers asking them for their family heirlooms, valuables, or money.

Fraudulent Fortune Telling vs. ‘Free Speech’

Under California’s Penal Code § 332, fraudulently taking someone’s money or property through: card game tricks (ie. the “three card monte”), betting or gambling, or fraudulent fortune telling is a crime. It is considered a type of theft.

However, the crime of fraudulent fortune telling is difficult to prosecute. Nearly three decades ago in 1985, the California Supreme Court struck down an ordinance banning fortune-telling. As such, ‘genuine’ fortune-telling is protected under the First Amendment of free speech. Since then, a handful other courts in several states (New York included) have since followed suit in response to claims brought by fortune-tellers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

What does this mean? This means that only fortune telling fraud may be considered a crime. Generally, the fortune-teller must not legitimately believe in his or her services, and must have the intent to defraud victims of large sums of money/property. In other words, you must have knowingly lied.

Penalties

A violation of CA Penal Code § 332 is the same as with California theft. If you defraud someone of property worth more than $950, it is up to the prosecutor to charge you with either a misdemeanor or felony. A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and $1,000. If you defraud someone worth more than $5,000, it is a felony punishable by up to three years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Continue reading

March 9, 2016

The Latest in the Armed Oregon Standoff: Nine Others Charged

by David M. Boertje

As the drama unfolded in our neighboring state of Oregon in the course of two months, one cannot help but wonder what laws were and were not violated by the leaders of armed militia occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon. In case you missed it, a man named Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy (from the Nevada BLM standoff in 2014) led a group of 30+ armed occupiers to take over a bird refuge in Harney County, Oregon. They refused to leave the Malheur national wildlife refuge since they took over the refuge’s headquarters on January 2, 2016. The militia had taken the stance that they were reclaiming public lands to protest the federal government’s regulations on private cattle grazing (the Bundy family is notorious for grazing their cows on public lands without paying the grazing fees).

Since then, a total of 25 people have been charged with the standoff. The most recent six arrested include: Blaine Cooper of Arizona; Wesley Kjar of Utah; Corey Lequieu of Nevada; Neil Wampler of California, Jason Blomgren of North Carolina, and Darryl Thorn and Eric Flores, both of Washington state. They surrendered to the FBI without incident. Two unnamed occupiers are currently on the run, and being sought. Ammon Bundy was arrested at a traffic stop on January 26, and his father Cliven, was arrested on Thursday. The occupiers themselves all face the same felony count under 18 U.S.C. § 372 – conspiracy to impede with federal workers. It is a felony punishable by six years imprisonment.

Regardless, legal experts say that the armed occupiers would have hefty fines and more than 10 years in jail, if the Department of Justice had decided prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Some of the federal charges they potentially faced include:

February 17, 2016

San Deigo Police Slow to Post ‘Stingray’ Policies

by David M. Boertje

A new state law taking effect this new year will require any California city or county that uses the Stingray technology or any other cell-site simulator technology to approve and publish a usage and privacy policy. The policies would be required amongst other things, to say who is using the equipment, how the data is retained, how the program is monitored, whether information is shared, etc. The new law also requires this policy to be publicly available, and posted on the city or county website.

However, San Diego has not done so yet. The only thing that has been released, is a one page policy, which privacy groups say falls short of the state’s law. For example, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit group, one of the things missing from SDPD’s policy are details on their data retention plans, and clarifications on whether the SDPD plan to share their data with other departments.

What is Stingray and What Does the Law Say?

Stingray, also known as cell-site simulators, is a technology which locates a cell phone and intercepts calls and text messages. It is a hand held device that acts as a makeshift cell-phone tower. The device(s) essentially trick cellphones into bouncing their information off the devices instead of cell towers, allowing police to rake in all of the nearby phone numbers and locations. They also relay contact numbers.

Back in October of 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that requires police get a warrant to use a stingray during criminal investigations. The law, known as the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, would require a search warrant for the police to wiretap or access your cell phones or any digital data. The language of the statute itself is broad, and does not apply to specific technologies. This gives the law the ability to stay relevant as technology also changes.

It should be noted that California is not the first state to legislate such a requirement. Others states that already have similar laws include Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, and Utah.

Probable Cause

Under the fourth amendment of the constitution, probable cause is required for any warrant to be issued, in order to avoid a search and seizure violation. Probable cause means that there is sufficient reason based upon the facts, that a crime has been committed. Continue reading