UPDATED re Saratoga County NY : Deputy Shawn R. Glans slaps & threatens man for refusing warrantless search | YouTube

Cameras: the great equalizer.  Behold Deputy Sgt. Shawn R. Glans (No, I am not making that up… how appropriate) getting his panties in a wad after being told to uphold the law and obtain a search warrant.  You see, these two nitwits (Adam Roberts and Colin Fitch) reportedly had left a .22 rifle on the back seat of their car in the Peoples Socialist Republic of NewYorkistan.  Not a good move boys…

But, Deputy Sgt. Pencil-Dick shows up – for whatever reason – and wants to get into the parked, locked car.  Stasi theatre of the Absurd ensues:

Now, the stress of the day-to-day that may have caused the fine deputy’s lapse in judgement may have been compounded by the paltry compensation he endured – $87,156 in 2014 – exacerbated by the fact that he only got a $7,000 raise (or overtime?) in the past year. I.e:

Shawn R and his wife Carrie M. (nee Bohanon) Glans reportedly purchased the home at 3 Tanglewood Drive, South Glens Falls NY on or about March 19, 2014 for $204,000 from Dolores Chittendon  Here is what that house reportedly looked like in 2013 – before the purchase.

——————————–

The Good Deputy Shawn R. Glans photo’d in 2013 with some of the other members of the Waffen-SS Gay Mens Choir. Note the non NY-SAFE Act Compliant penis surrogates they are clutching. I am sure, too, that the illegal 30-rd magazines are full of Pez candies, Lip balm or condoms.

A New York deputy with the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department was caught on film early Friday morning slapping a young man who declined to have his vehicle searched.  According to Adam Roberts, who spoke with Infowars after uploading the disturbing video to YouTube, he and his friend Colin Fitch were approached by two deputies while shopping inside a WalMart that evening.

After being forced to present their IDs, the pair were taken outside to Colin’s vehicle and asked about a .22 rifle on the backseat.

As Colin explained that he had just purchased the rifle earlier that day at a nearby store, a deputy Shawn Glans began demanding access to the vehicle, despite Colin proving that he was of legal age to own it.

“So they started questioning us and were very ornery and asking about the gun and what not and then Colin asked him what we had done wrong and what he was charging us with and he didn’t give us a good answer,” Roberts said.

Choosing to assert his Fourth Amendment, Colin told Deputy Glans that he would not consent to a search unless a warrant was obtained.

“But he said he wanted to search the car… and my friend Colin asked him what his reason was for and the cop went on about how he just wanted to check, and Colin didn’t really feel like he had a real reason.”

After failing to coerce Colin into opening the vehicle, Deputy Glans became irate, ironically at the constitutional right he swore to uphold.

“Let me see your f*cking keys… I’m searching your f*cking car,” Deputy Glans said, taking Colin’s keys against his will.

“You saw the video. It doesn’t look good,” Glans told the Times Union. “I’m all about doing the right thing. I had to go to that point because of the factors that came into play. There was a gun that was involved (that) I spotted in the vehicle.”

——-

Now it seems that Storm Trooper Penis-Glans is not quite a stranger to unprofessional behavior.  In March,1996 he cost the citizens of NewYorkistan millions in an attempt to relive the adrenaline rush of The Dukes of Hazard shows he watched in the 70’s, turning taxpayer Douglas H. McEachron into a non-taxpaying quadriplegic, by hurtling thru a 20mph zone at about 60 mph before the impact. I.e.:

Click to jump to readable version

BATFE attempts to intimidate patriot blog-o-sphere by attacking the Charles Carroll Society over coverage | CCS

“I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable.”  — Kurt Hoffman, in his Armed & Safe blog

Out of the entire Internet, the Charles Carroll Society and The Federalist Papers are singled out by the BATFE and US Attorney for their coverage of the immoral and unconstitutional raids conducted by the BATFE against Ares Armor.  Why do you think the BATFE and the Obama administration has personally attacked this blog?

In one of the most amazing things I have ever seen, the BATFE, one of the most lawless agencies we have has targeted this small community here on the Charles Carroll Society (CCS). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), specifically the United States Attorney listed the Charles Carrol Society as the example for their reason not to provide the names of the federal agents who lied to support the novel decision (that means B.S. for the rest of us) to say that an 80% lower is a firearm.  Why didn’t they target the Drudge Report? Why not Alex Jones Info War?  Those blogs covered the unconstitutional seizure of customer records from Ares Armor.   Because those blogs have lawyers and they have very loud voices.  Why not Cam at NRA News?  They wouldn’t dare.  They attack the smallest blogs.  Please forward this to the largest voices in the patriot blog-o-sphere and ask them to cover it. 

Reviews Mostly Positive Following Metal-Detector Debut At Yankee Stadium

…
…
Seriously? The folks are happy about this ?
Tell me more CBS News.
…

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Why Would They Do This? | Simple Justice

Cops conducted an illegal search of a house. So far, nothing new here. Cops found nothing. Still, nothing new. Cops decide to plant meth in the house. Interesting, but nearly impossible to prove. Cops get caught on their own dashcam talking about it. Bingo!

From Courthouse News:

A police car dash cam captured Santa Clara deputies plotting to plant drugs in a woman’s home after their first illegal search turned up nothing, the woman claims in court.

Allison Ross, who was arrested after the second search of her home, sued the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, its crime lab, Sheriff Laurie Smith, and 12 of her officers, in Federal Court.

Someone always asks, can the cops be so stupid that they would forget there is video and audio running, and talk about it openly?  Well, apparently so, though the question isn’t necessarily about the degree of stupid as opposed to the degree of brazen.  Force of habit dies hard.

Can Police Search Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant? The Supreme Court is About to Decide | Liberty Blitzkrieg

Two very important cases related to the 4th Amendment protection of cellphone data went before the Supreme Court yesterday. At issue here is whether or not police can search someone’s cellphone upon arrest. As usual, the Obama administration’s Justice Department is arguing against the citizenry, and in favor of the (police) state. Let’s not forget that the “Justice” Department also argued in favor of the police being able to place GPS tracking devices on people’s cars without a warrant back in 2011. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against it.

Naturally, the feds in the current case will discuss all of the criminals they were able to bring to justice as a result of these privacy violations, but they will certainly not point out America’s current epidemic of unlawful arrests, as well as arrests for petty non-violent crimes that happen each and every day. For instance, let’s not forget statistics that came out last fall from the FBI that showed police make an arrest every two seconds in the USA. I covered this in detail in my post: Land of the Free: American Police Make an Arrest Every 2 Seconds in 2012.

Supreme Court Maintains Spotty Civil-Liberties Record | Reason.com

click to go to Reason.com

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding police powers were mixed, thus offering a reminder to civil libertarians that they cannot depend upon the high court to protect the public from unwarranted government intrusions.

“The U.S. Supreme Court handed police one victory and one loss on Tuesday,” reported National Public Radio. “In one decision, the justices limited the power of police to detain people who are away from their homes when police conduct a search. And in a second case, the justices ruled that drug-sniffing dogs don’t have to get every sniff right in order for a search to be valid.”

Goodbye Fourth Amendment: Homeland Security Affirms “Suspicionless” Confiscation Of Devices Along Border | Zero Hedge

…According to Wired, “the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security...”

 

via Zero Hedge.

This Dog Can Send You to Jail | Reason.com

“… He asked me would I mind if he searched my vehicle, and I said, ‘Well, yes, I would mind if you searched my vehicle.’ ”

But thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, the deputy did not have to take no for an answer. In the 2005 case Illinois v. Caballes, the Court declared that “the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog…during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests.” So the deputy was free to walk his dog around Burns’ truck. “He got out with this dog and went around the car, two or three times,” Burns says. “He came back and said the dog had ‘passively alerted’ on my vehicle.”  via This Dog Can Send You to Jail – Reason.com.

Here’s how to avoid “consensual” police encounters | Slate

click the pic to go to Slate

The crux of avoiding a consensual encounter is noncooperation—refusal to answer questions and to consent to police requests. As noted above, this requires a fair degree of self-confidence and a willingness to flout the conventions of common discourse which, of course, this is not. Nevertheless, it is the sine qua non of consensual encounter avoidance. “Can we see your driver’s license?” “No!” “What are you doing here?” “I am not answering,” or less politely, “None of your business.”

Saying “no” once may not be enough. Some courts have held that continued badgering after a first refusal causes the encounter to cross the line to a seizure, but others have permitted repeated questioning and requests for consent to search without concluding that a seizure had taken place. A reasonable person would thus be well-advised to say “no” repeatedly, and to reject any attempt by the officer to accompany her if she tries to leave. Some courts have found it significant that the refusals were delivered in a shout or scream, or that the individual ran from police in an attempt to get away. The cases thus not only encourage flatly rebuffing the officer’s inquiries, but also encourage doing so in the rudest, most confrontational, and most obnoxious manner.

via Stop-and-frisk Florida: Here’s how to avoid “consensual” police encounters..

Sixth Circuit Rules That Pinging a Cell Phone to Determine Its Location is Not a 4th Amendment “Search” | Volokh

The decision handed down this morning is United States v. Skinner, and it was 2-1 on the Fourth Amendment merits. The defendant used a pre-paid cell phone obtained by providing false identity information (also known as a “burner“) to communicate with co-conspirators as he brought a motor home filled with marijuana from Arizona from Tennessee. Agents learned the cell phone number that the defendant was using and obtained a court order requiring the cell phone company to disclose location information of the phone to the agents. The government used the location information to track the car for three days, eventually catching up to the car ata rest stop in Texas. Local police brought out a dog to sniff for marijuana; the dog alerted for the presence of drugs inside; and the search of the car revealed 1,100 pounds of marijuana inside.

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen | USN&WR

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart’s lawyer argued that law enforcement’s “warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft” and “outrageous governmental conduct” warranted dismissal of the case …

…District Judge Joel Medd wrote that “there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle” and that the drone “appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here,” according to the documents… Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart’s 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which “was used for surveillance,” according to the court documents… via US News and World Report.

When Is a Dog Sniff in Your Car Not a Search? | Volokh

Jonathan H. Adler • July 27, 2012 11:42 am

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided United States v. Sharp, a dog-sniff case.  Here’s the court’s summary:

It is well-settled that a dog’s sniff around the exterior of a car is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress because a narcotics dog jumped into his car and sniffed inside the car before “alerting” to the presence of narcotics. The canine’s jump and subsequent sniff inside the vehicle was not a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the jump was instinctive and not the product of police encouragement. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

It’s legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner | Ars Technica

Everybody loves texting (click to jump to source article)

In November 2009, police officers in the state of Washington seized an iPhone belonging to suspected drug dealer Daniel Lee. While the phone was in police custody, a man named Shawn Hinton sent a text message to the device, reading, “Hey whats up dogg can you call me i need to talk to you.” Suspecting that Hinton was looking to buy drugs from Lee, Detective Kevin Sawyer replied to the message, posing as Lee. With a series of text messages, he arranged to meet Hinton in the parking lot of a local grocery store—where Hinton was arrested and charged with attempted possession of heroin.

How Homeland Security Increases Your Cancer Risk | The Nation

via How Homeland Security Increases Your Cancer Risk | The Nation.

“Official US policy used to be that X-rays were banned for anything other than medical use. The machines now found in airports, Grabell reports, were once banned from the California penal system. Then came 9/11, officials anxious about another hijacking, and corporations selling expensive products to the government—including the new scanners—that they claimed could keep America safe.

Meanwhile other countries, Grabell reports, have concluded that radiation from airport X-ray scanners poses “unacceptable health risks.”