Frightening. A warrant is a pretty low bar

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbachruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Courtrejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.

U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."

(Credit: U.S. Department of Justice)

Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment. What lawyers call "curtilage," on the other hand, meaning the land immediately surrounding a residence, still has greater privacy protections.

"Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Department prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department's argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight -- subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure.

About four days after the DEA's warrantless installation of surveillance cameras, a magistrate judge did subsequently grant a warrant. But attorneys for Mendoza and Magana noticed that the surveillance took place before the warrant was granted.

"That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," wrote Brett Reetz, Magana's attorney, in a legal filing last month. "The owner and his guest... had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy."

A jury trial has been scheduled for January 22.

Class warfare and the class-less still peddling fear and distortions

‘LET’S WIN THIS MOTHERFU**ER!’: SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT DELIVERS SHOCK SPEECH AT DNC NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

Aren't unions wonderful. Unions first, everyone else can suffer

Decatur Utilities: Nonunion AL crews turned away from Sandy recovery

 

(Source: Derrick Moore)

SEASIDE HEIGHTS, NEW JERSEY (WAFF) -

The hurricane-ravaged east coast has been receiving north Alabama help, but crews learned they could not help out in New Jersey unless they affiliated with a union.

Crews from Decatur Utilities headed up there this week, but Derrick Moore, one of the Decatur workers, said they were told by crews in New Jersey that they can't do any work there since they're not union employees.

The general manager of Decatur Utilities, Ray Hardin told Fox Business they were presented documents from the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers at a staging area in Virginia. The documents stated they had to affiliate with a union to work, which the crews could not agree to.

Crews were told this was a requirement to work according to Hardin. 

The crews were originally called to Seaside Heights, but they never made it to New Jersey. They attempted to look for work in other areas but made the decision late Thursday night to return home.

Moore said they're frustrated being told "thanks, but no thanks."

Huntsville Utilities said they were not turned away and are up in storm ravaged areas working.

Joe Wheeler EMC said they did not respond to New Jersey, but did go up to Maryland and headed home once they were done. 

The story gets juicier

A123 Wants to Void Contract with Fisker, Fisker Says That Would Disrupt “Ongoing Business”

While Johnson Controls and China’s Wanxiang Group have competing bids to acquire the assets of advanced battery maker and Fisker supplier A123, a more serious battle is occurring in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware between the startup automaker and what is arguably its most important vendor. A123 wants the bankruptcy judge to void its contracts including those for supplying batteries to Fisker. That could stop production of Fisker’s only car, the Karma. A123 says that the existing contract with Fisker is burdensome and that the amount they are getting paid for those batteries is below market value. Fisker attorneys, in a filing with the court, have challenged A123 and said that “Fisker’s ongoing business and operations will be severely disrupted and harmed” if the court voids the contract. The pas de deux between the two companies may be spinning into adanse macabre. Twenty five percent of A123′s revenue comes from its deal with Fisker, while A123 is Fisker’s sole supplier of the lithium-ion batteries it needs to make the extended range EV Karma. There is no way that Fisker can find a supplier who can engineer a replacement battery pack quickly enough to keep the Karma in production. Electric vehicle batteries are not like AA cells that you can pick up at the corner store. While there are standard lithium ion battery formats, the Tesla Roadster is the only high profile EV that uses standard format Li-Ion cells. All other electric cars, including Fiskers, use cells specifically designed and engineered for them. The Fisker 20 kWh battery pack manufactured by A123 is made up of 315 individual Li-ion cells.

Of course this is about money. One reason why A123 is in bankruptcy court in the first place is because of the financial hit the company took due to a recall of defective batteries supplied to Fisker. Since the companies are interdependent, my guess is that if the judge does throw out the contract, a new one will be cut, either between A123 and Fisker, or between whichever company, Johnson or Wanxiang, ends up owning A123′s battery factories.

With such an important vendor in bankruptcy court, Fisker is between a rock and something that would peg a Rockwell tester.

According to Fisker attorneys, “ the rejection of the Fisker contract represents an immediate threat of significant disruption and harm to Fisker’s business, with a corresponding negative impact on Fisker’s lenders, suppliers, customers and investors.” One of those lenders, of course, is the United States Treasury, American

taxpayers having loaned Fisker almost 200 million dollars.

Obama: Doesn't play well with others

Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior US counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."

Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

25 PHOTOS

U.S. consulate attack in Libya

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.

"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

• New documents reveal events leading up to Benghazi attack
 
• Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack
 
• Admin. rejects new claim about Libya attack
 
• Military response to Benghazi attack questioned
The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism."
The Administration also didn't call on the only interagency, on-call, short notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide: the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). FEST's seasoned experts leave within four hours of notification and can provide "the fastest assistance possible."
FEST Teams deployed immediately after al Qaeda bombings of US embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000, but were not used for Benghazi, to the chagrin of some insiders. It's likely that the CSG task force, if contacted, would have recommended FEST aid.
"First a tactical response was needed," says a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, "and while that was being implemented, the holistic response could have been developed and deployed within hours" which could have allowed the FBI investigate safely on site well ahead of the "24 days it took."
When asked why the FEST wasn't utilized, a State Department official said it was used previously in East Africa because of damage sustained to a US embassy "to help restore communications and other infrastructure support. In this case, that was unnecessary at Embassy Tripoli."
A White House official told us that at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies." He also said a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived. The Pentagon moved a team of special operators from central Europe to Sigonella, Italy but gave no other details.
Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died in a protracted battle over the course of eight hours. It's believed two of the victims, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack some six or seven hours after the US Mission was first overrun by a terrorist mob that burned buildings and used AK-47 rifles, bombs, and mortars.
In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.
Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."
A White House official says President Obama immediately acknowledged the assault was a terrorist attack. However, there was confusion as White House spokesman Jay Carney said three days later, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."
On Sept.16, US Ambassador Susan Rice told CBS' "Face the Nation" and other talk shows that the assault appeared to have grown from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.
CBS' Bob Schieffer asked Rice whether she thought "that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?" Rice answered, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
In an interview last week, President Obama said "the minute" he became aware of the Benghazi attack, he directed his staff to "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do."no previous page

The EPA objective is to limit growth in order to save the world. Too bad you'll just have to suffer

EPA Regs To Destroy 887,000 Jobs Per Year, Senator Says Citing New Study

EPA regulations the Obama administration is scheduled to unleash in its second term would destroy up to 887,000 jobs a year, Sen. James Inhofe announced today.

Citing the results of a new study released today by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), Sen. Inhofe described the crushing effects on jobs and family income of the coming EPA regulations:

“Earlier this month I released a Senate oversight report detailing the numerous job-killing regulations that the Obama-EPA has delayed or punted until after the election.

“Now, thanks to a new report from National Economic Research Associates (NERA), we have more insight into just how devastating these regulations will be for American families. According to NERA, they will destroy up to 887,000 jobs per year, hitting coal regions the hardest. In fact, peak year losses in family income in coal country would range up to $1,600 per household.”

Inhofe’s announcement comes a day after the Obama administration missed its second straight statutory deadline for publishing a legally-required report on its regulatory intentions and their economic consequences.

Sen. Inhofe blasted Pres. Obama for neglecting his legal duty to let the public know his regulatory intentions before the upcoming presidential election:

“President Obama is refusing to comply with the law that requires him to publish forthcoming regulations because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term.”

“So instead of being honest with the American people about what’s in store if he wins, he’s been trying to hide the fact that he intends to move forward with a slew of rules that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically raise the cost of energy on American families.”

Earlier this month, Sen. Inhofe released a Senate oversight report listing the numerous job-killing regulations that the Obama-EPA has delayed until after the election.

how the Luddite environmentalists have made us more vulnerable

Missing Bush in Northeast Electrical Outage

All-Out Attack on Bush Energy Plan Is Readied

Mismanagement

Cameras catch 67 Metrobus operators dozing while driving

She's on shaky ground with the illegal war in Serbia

Albright raps 'disgusting Serbs' in Prague book signing

Obamacare

New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS

Here's why the IRS will require Americans to disclose their personal health ID information starting in 2014

For the left tax planning is bad. Will they roast one of their own?

George Lucas’s Jedi estate planning

Why the “Star Wars” creator’s decision to sell his film company to Disney was a savvy move.

"That Lucas struck a deal in 2012 may be no accident either, advisers say. Long-term capital gains tax from the sale of assets held more than one year are taxed at a rate of 15% for investors in the 25% income tax bracket or above (Lucas’s level), and zero for investors in the 10% or 15% bracket. Those rates are set to jump to 20% and 10%, respectively in January. “He probably wanted to take advantage of the lower rate on long-term capital gain while it’s certain,” says Bill Smith, managing director at CBIZ MHM, a national accounting and professional services provider."

Democrat moral relativism

Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic

PICKET: Flashback- (VIDEO) Sen. Menendez called for secret service agents to be fired over prostitution scandal

R

Liberals show their compassion for their fellow citizens

C'est la vie! Bette Midler celebrates Halloween with extravagant French themed party in New York, despite Hurricane Sandy destruction

How many of these folks chided Romney for collecting food and other items for the victims of Sandy? 

Why is the Mayor using police and other over stretched city resources to hold the Marathon run? 

 

Now the photo ops are over the rubber meets the road

Staten Island Borough President: Don’t Give Money to the Red Cross

At a press conference this morning on Staten Island, a host of local officials, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, gathered to highlight the needs of the hard-hit borough in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And, although many pols spoke, no one was more impassioned than Borough President James Molinaro, who called the Red Cross an “absolute disgrace” and even urged the public to cease giving them contributions.

“Because the devastation in Staten Island, the lack of a response,” Mr. Molinaro said to explain his comment to NBC after the press conference. “You know, I went to a shelter Monday night after the storm. People were coming in with no socks, with no shoes. They were in desperate need. Their housing was destroyed. They were crying. Where was the Red Cross? Isn’t that their function? They collect millions of dollars. Whenever there’s a drive in Staten Island, we give openly and honestly. Where are they? Where are they? I was at the South Shore yesterday, people were buried in their homes. There the dogs are trying to find bodies. The people there, the neighbors who had no electricity, were making soup. Making soup. It’s very emotional because the lack of a response. The lack of a response. They’re supposed to be here….They should be on the front lines fighting, and helping the people.”

Several other local officials agreed with Mr. Molinaro’s rage over Staten Island’s situation, although they did not call out the Red Cross specifically.

“It is as the borough president, Jim Molinaro, said, it’s disgusting, it really is,” State Senator Andy Lanza said, criticizing the city for giving the go-ahead to the New York City Marathon this weekend and the focus on pumping the water out of the East River tunnels. “We’re talking about getting water of the tunnel. Let’s get the water out of the tunnel tomorrow, let’s get the people out of the water today. There’ve been thousands of people who have been displaced. There are people who are cold, who are hungry, who are without a place to go, and looking for warmth. There are people still trapped. Yet we’re talking about marathons and tunnels. I walked on the rooftop of a house yesterday, I stepped on it because the debris that surrounded it was level with the rooftop. That’s what happened here on Staten Island.”

Congressman Michael Grimm concurred.

“I think this is an example of what infuriates people here on Staten Island,” he said. “Like Senator Lanza just said, we have people, people still in water. Families displaced, families wondering where their grandparents are. Are they at a shelter? Are they at a hospital? Or are they gone? That’s what we should be focusing on. I think it would be very misguided to have this marathon. I think that the people of Staten Island will see this, unfortunately…as another shot against them, that the City Hall is more worried about getting everything running again for Manhattan and making everything look like it’s back to normal. We’re not back to normal and we’re not going to be back to normal for a long time.”

The problem with choosing shortcuts in medicine

NHS millions for controversial care pathway

The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial “pathway” to death, it can be disclosed.

Almost two thirds of NHS trusts using the Liverpool Care Pathway have received payouts totalling millions of pounds for hitting targets related to its use, research for The Daily Telegraph shows.

The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the full scale of financial inducements for the first time.

They suggest that about 85 per cent of trusts have now adopted the regime, which can involve the removal of hydration and nutrition from dying patients.

More than six out of 10 of those trusts - just over half of the total - have received or are due to receive financial rewards for doing so amounting to at least £12million.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Doctors to launch investigation into Liverpool Care Pathway 
  24 Oct 2012
• Families left grieving and angry by the Liverpool Care Pathway 
  29 Oct 2012
• TV chef's anger over mother's 'end-of-life' pathway 
  31 Oct 2012
• Family 'not told' grandmother was put on 'death pathway' 
  16 Oct 2012
• Death pathway under renewed attack from doctors 
  22 Oct 2012
• Care Pathway must not be 'agenda-driven' 
  31 Oct 2012

At many hospitals more than 50 per cent of all patients who died had been placed on the pathway and in one case the proportion of forseeable deaths on the pathway was almost nine out of 10.

Last night the Department of Health insisted that the payments could help ensure that people were “treated with dignity in their final days and hours”.

But opponents described it as “absolutely shocking” that hospitals could be paid to employ potentially “lethal” treatments.

The LCP was originally developed at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital and the city’s Marie Curie hospice to ease suffering in dying patients, setting out principles for how they to be treated.

It involves the withdrawal of treatments or tests from patients which doctors believe could cause distress and do more harm than good.

Protocols say that doctors should consult the patient, if possible, and their families.

But the system has been mired in controversy amid claims that it can actively hasten death.

A series of cases have also come to light in which family members said they were not consulted or even informed when food and fluids were withheld from their loved-ones.

In some instances patients placed on the pathway because doctors judged that they were nearing the end of their life went on to recover.

According to responses from a sample of 72 trusts, at least £12.4 million has been paid out in the past two to three years to trusts which hit targets associated with use of the care pathway. But the full figure could be more than £20 million.

Under a system known as “Commissioning for Quality and Innovation” (CQUIN), local NHS commissioners pay trusts for meeting targets to “reward excellence” in care.

These can range from simply recruiting a set number of people to classes to help them stop smoking to providing specialist end-of-life services on wards - such as LCP.

As the goals are set locally, they vary from area to area but in some cases trusts are given specific targets to ensure that a set number of people who die in their hospital are on the LCP.

Elsewhere the targets relate to how the pathway is operated or monitored.

Each Trust was asked how many people had died on the LCP over the past three years and how much money received in that period was attached to goals involving it.

Overall 61 of those which responded said that they used the pathway, translating to 85 per cent of the total.

Of those, 62 per cent disclosed that they had either received, or expect to receive, cash rewards for meeting targets associated with the implementation of the pathway. The remainder said they had adopted the LCP without receiving any payments.

Central Manchester University Hospitals - which received £81,000 in 2010 for meeting targets relating to the LCP - said the proportion of patients whose deaths were expected and had been placed on the pathway more than doubled to 87.7 per cent in the past year.

In Berkshire the Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals Trust received more than £1 million over two years for meeting its LCP goals.

Its targets included carrying out an audit of the number of deaths of patients on the LCP as well as having a “meaningful conversation” with the patient themselves but did not set a specific goal for the number of deaths.

Bradford teaching Hospitals, which qualified for CQUIN payments of more than £490,000 in the last two years, has seen the number of patients dying on the pathway more than double to 51 per cent over the last three years.

In Birmingham the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust disclosed that 38 per cent of patient deaths occurred on the LCP in 2010 and 27 per cent in 2011. It received a CQUIN payment of £603,886 in the financial year 2010-11 alone.

A handful of trusts openly spoke of either hitting or missing targets connected to the LCP in their responses.

Dr Gillian Craig, a consultant geriatrician who was among the first doctors to raise the concerns over the possible flaws of the LCP, described the use of the incentives as “absolutely shocking”.

“I think there should be questions in Parliament as to who instigated this policy and I think the cash payments should be stopped forthwith,” she said.

“You can’t pay people to use a certain protocol that everybody knows to be lethal.”

Dr Phillip Lee, the Tory MP for Bracknell and a former GP, insisted that the pathway did not amount to “euthanasia by the back door”.

“This is about trying to provide appropriate care to someone who is dying,” he said.

“Palliative care specialists are some of the best doctors that this country has.

“Sometimes there are conflicts between doctors and patients’ families but I just cannot believe that there is anybody in the palliative care arena who is trying to anything other than provide the best care for patients.”

Earlier this week the NHS disclosed that it was beginning a review of the operation of the LCP following concerns highlighted in the media. Dying Matters, a coalition of organisations including hospices, has been asked to speak to relatives about their experiences as part of the inquiry.

The Department of Health has consistently stood by the LCP.

Last night a spokesman said: “The Department of Health does not centrally fund any payments for the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway, but local areas may choose to do so in order to improve the care and support given to people in their last days.

“This means patients can be more comfortable and treated with dignity in their final days and hours.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway is supported by more than 20 leading organisations, including Marie Curie Cancer Care and Age UK, as a way to help meet the care and dignity needs for those who are at the end of their life.

“We are clear the Liverpool Care Pathway can only work if each patient is fully consulted, where this is feasible, and their family involved in all aspects of decision-making. Staff must properly communicate with the patient and their family - any failure to do so is unacceptable.”