The Morning Roar: DHS Forces Couple to Lie Nude & Handcuffed, Court Rules Cops Need Warrants To Check Cellphones, and Judge Dubs No-Fly Lists Unconstitutional
Welcome to the Thursday Morning Roar! Actually more good news than bad in this edition, which is strange but welcome.DHS Forces Couple to Lie Nude & Handcuffed at GunpointIt seems like only yesterday that we were covering a no-knock raid that was terrifying in its barbarism (wait, it was yesterday!) and now a woman in Florida and her boyfriend have filed a suit with the ACLU over a DHS raid on their house that left them angry, naked, and with the shattered remains of much of their property. From Infowars:
Kari Edwards said she and her boyfriend were forced to strip naked at gunpoint during a terrifying Department of Homeland Security dawn raid on their Florida home which lasted for two hours.The incident began on June 10 at 6:16am when numerous armed SWAT team members, accompanied by a helicopter overhead, arrived in an armored vehicle at the couple’s address before smashing in the door and deafening their pet cat with flash bang smoke grenades.
“They busted in like I was a terrorist or something,” Edwards told the Tea Party News Network, adding, “[An officer] demanded that I drop the towel I was covering my naked body with before snatching it off me physically and throwing me to the ground.”
Having been previously employed by the federal agency herself, Edwards noted that some of the men were DHS agents, although when quizzed as to who they were and why they were conducting the raid, the men only responded by saying that they were “police,” while calling Edwards “stupid” and “retarded” for asking the question.
“While I lay naked, I was cuffed so tightly I could not feel my hands. For no reason, at gunpoint,” Edwards said. “[Agents] refused to cover me, no matter how many times I asked.”
After trashing her home for two hours, Edwards said the SWAT team eventually handed her a warrant signed by Jonathan Goodman, a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which authorized the agents to search for computers and electronics, although Edwards claims police seemed uninterested in the couple’s electronics and did not seize any items despite raising the suspicion of child pornography.
These State-entitled raiders take the supposition that a suspect is guilty until proven innocent, and in their minds that seems to mean they have no rights whatsoever. This circles back to the idea that those that wear the badge of authority have special rights greater than those of the average citizen. If one is not empowered by the State and armed with the State's blessing, they are considered second hand citizens by these forces without rights and without value. This is the rise of the Police State.
For more about the rise of the Police State, listen to Marc Clair's discussion with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.
Supreme Court Rules Police Must Obtain a Warrant to Search Cell Phones Seized During Arrest
In a major ruling that furthers the cause of digital privacy from the State's prying eyes, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police must obtain a warrant before searching a suspect's cell phone.
"Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion."The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."
Naturally the Department of Justice expressed its immediate intent to try to skirt and ignore the privacy rights of citizens, saying:
"We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant," a DOJ spokeswoman said. "Our commitment to vigorously enforcing the criminal laws and protecting the public while respecting the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is unwavering."
Frankly I'm amazed she even knows what the 4th Amendment is, other than the thing that lines the floors of the DOJ to be regularly tread upon without care.Federal Judge Rules No Fly Lists Are Unconstitutional District Court Judge Anna Brown ruled on Tuesday that rules surrounding the creation of the "no fly" list utilized by the government violates the Constitutional rights of citizens. This ruling stems from a case brought to the courts by the ACLU on behalf of 13 Muslim-Americans who have been unable to remove their names from the list since 2010.
Because the procedure for getting removed from that list is so marred and, according to Judge Brown, “wholly ineffective,” she wrote in her decision this week that its existence in its current form violates the constitutional rights of those affected."The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society," Brown wrote."Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel," Brown said.
Not only is the procedure marred and ineffective, but there is also absolutely no way to find out how one's self was put on the list in the first place. The plaintiffs, of which four were former U.S. armed service members, repeatedly requested to know what the circumstances around their being added to the list were.
“Despite Plaintiffs' requests to officials and agencies for explanations as to why they were not permitted to board flights, explanations have not been provided and Plaintiffs do not know whether they will be permitted to fly in the future,” Judge Brown acknowledged with Tuesday’s ruling.Now as a result of this week’s ruling, Brown wrote that the plaintiffs must be allowed to submit evidence to counter whatever claims from the government that earned them a spot on the infamous list already. She’s asking that both parties come up with a plan ahead of a follow-up hearing now scheduled for July 14.“For years, in the name of national security the government has argued for blanket secrecy and judicial deference to its profoundly unfair No Fly List procedures, and those arguments have now been resoundingly rejected by the court,” ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, said in a statement on Tuesday.
Being able to actually prove yourself innocent or at least defend yourself to charges against you? What a novel concept.Read The Morning Roar every weekday Monday-Friday!The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
