potential nonprofit legislation to be introduced in Congress

Here are two interesting articles from the Chronicle of Philanthropy about potential legislation in Congress to work on federal policy related to 501c3s and to increase data collection about the sector. It would be called the Nonprofit Sector and Community Solutions Act.

http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Nonprofit-Leaders-Praise-New/24832/

http://philanthropy.com/article/Congresswoman-Plans-to/65945/

taking photographs = obstruction ?

Typos notwithstanding, this is a pretty interesting video from Glass Bead Collective, documenting a Critical Mass Ride in March 2007 where the police arresting bicyclists and then the people who were photographing them arresting the bicyclists.

I recently helped write a motion for someone who got arrested and arraigned on the charges of Obstruction of Government Administration in the Second Degree (P.L. § 195.05) and then resisting arrest (P.L. § 205.30). What did the facts allege? That when the police were doing an "investigative sweep" in a building, he stood up and then didn't sit back down. He also asked what was going on, objected to being told to sit down and asked why they wanted him to sit down, specifically "WHAT’S GOING ON? WHY DON’T TELL US TO SIT DOWN." When the police went to arrest him for that conduct, they allege he resisted arrest by flailing his arms and body and tucking his arms underneath him.  Mind you, that's not -his- story (I can't and won't say anything about that because of confidentiality),  that's just what the complaint alleges. And unlike the people in this video, his charges weren't dismissed or ACD'ed (Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal). At least not yet - that's why we wrote a motion.

When it often takes over 24 hours go to through arraignment, it really makes you think twice about doing anything except keeping quiet and complying when it comes to -any- interaction with the police. Even if you're lucky enough to eventually be vindicated (Let me note that an ACD for this kind of offense usually isn't sealed until after 6 months, by the way) you still have to go through a pretty horrible process. In this case, the people affected are trying to use the video to make the NYPD accountable by going through the Citizen Complaint Review Board, but apparently are having no luck. By the way, there are some pretty interesting stories on the Case Profiles Page of CCRB.




(Found on Boing Boing.)

Fingerprinting of all visitors to US upon entry and exit

From the Washington Post:
"The U.S. government today will order commercial airlines and cruise lines to prepare to collect digital fingerprints of all foreigners before they depart the country under a security initiative that the industry has condemned as costly and burdensome."
. . .
"Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, US-VISIT is intended to automate the processing of visitors entering and exiting the country, using fingerprints and digital photographs to help find criminals, potential terrorists and people who overstay visas and join the nation's illegal immigrant population."

NYPD v Stormtroopers

Geek Treat:
Gothamist linked to these great photos of the NYPD with a stormtrooper outside ComicCon in NYC last weekend.

Crawford Right to Cross Examine - does it apply to murder victims?

Check out this Article in the Washington Post describing the issue presented in Giles v. California, which was discussed in the Supreme Court on April 22nd. Here is the full oral argument transcript (in pdf).
The basic question is this: Is the prosecution allowed to put in statements made by murder victims before they died or is that a violation of the defendant's 6th amendment rights since they are unable to cross-examine the dead "speaker"?

Under the Crawford case, decided in 2004, a defendant has the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when their statements are used against them. But here, the witness is dead, so obviously cannot be confronted. The Crawford case originally contained an exception to the rule when the defendant killed the witness for the purpose of keeping them from testifying.

Here - the woman's statements were accusing the defendant of having "viciously attacked. . . and having threatened her at knifepoint and having threatened to kill her." They were made to the police after a prior assault, but since Giles was never arrested or charged with that assault - the prior Crawford exception doesn't seem to apply.

In argument, Ginsburg makes some interesting points about how the defendant, claiming self-defense, was able to make statements about the victim so her statements might be considered as rebuttal to those statements. But as Scalia pointedly asks, "Is there a rebuttal exception to the hearsay rule?"

And as a silly aside, Justice Breyer makes a great allusion to how witches were tried by dunking under water... and I just -have- to make the Monty Python reference ... "Very small rocks"

Lower Manhattan surveillance - from Wired Security

Check out this article about security and surveillance in the financial district of manhattan from Wired Security.

"But the financial district is a special case, and in June 2006 the NYPD announced a three-year, $106 million plan called the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative. Its centerpiece is an array of 3,000 cameras that will turn the area into a 1.7-square-mile, open-air Panopticon."

"New York's cameras will do more than identify terrorists after they've struck. The new cameras will be fully networked, with video-intelligence algorithms that aim to spot potential attackers before they perpetrate their crimes."

Feds to collect DNA from every person arrested

The Washington Post (registration required) reports that federal authorities now plan to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal enforcement agency. This is a massive expansion from the current policy - which collects DNA only from convicted felons.

"The initiative, to be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register in coming days, reflects a congressional directive that DNA from arrestees be collected to help catch a range of domestic criminals. But it also requires, for the first time, the collection of DNA samples from people other than U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who are detained by U.S. authorities."

"Reuters - "The initiative, to be made public within days, will add genetic information on more than 1 million people per year to a DNA database run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation"
AP News Story - "The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period."

Let's stop and think for a moment about what this means. Any time after someone is arrested, this DNA sample is taken. Not after arraignment, not after indictment, not after conviction, not after a probable cause hearing, not after the person has talked to their lawyer or seen a judge. This means every single person ever arrested by the feds will have their DNA taken and stored. More than 1 million people per year. Wow.

So here's the part where we can do something:
How can I use the Federal Register to affect Federal rulemaking?
"Any person or organization may comment on it directly, either in writing, or orally at a hearing. Many agencies also accept comments online or via e-mail. The comment period varies, but it usually is 30, 60, or 90 days. For each notice, the Federal Register gives detailed instructions on how, when, and where a viewpoint may be expressed. In addition, agencies must list the name and telephone number of a person to contact for further information."

So, once this rule gets published in the Federal Register, I'll post the instructions they provide on how to submit comments on the rule.