The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a police officer who opened fire on a woman from a distance while she stood on her property, claiming he feared for his safety.
The post Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People As Long As They Say They Were Scared appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
A man filming a police encounter accused officers of confronting an innocent man for "walking while black" when they stopped him out of nowhere and demanded to see the contents of his backpack.
The post WATCH: Citizen Steps in to Defend Innocent Man Being Harassed by Cops for ‘Walking While Black’ appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
With everything you’ve seen thus far from the State of the Union address, the Democrat-Progressives, and Left-leaning Republicans are arraying themselves against the President. Never have so many movie stars, oligarchs, and media mouthpieces threatened the President of the United States with bodily harm (veiled, or overtly) without repercussions. Soon the FISA memorandum will be made public. The makings of a true civil war are formulating before our very eyes.
What this means is that we have a government that is divided, but the division is not an even split. Most of the politicos (we don’t have representation in the United States Congress anymore) want to see complete control over the people with individual rights removed. They want this. For proof? It was a Republican (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-VA) who introduced H.R. 4760, with a “harmless and patriotic” title for the public to gobble down with a smile: The Securing America’s Future Act of 2018. Wonder how much they paid “Smilin’ Bob” to introduce that one?A harmless, patriotic act in our national interests, yes?
No. Securing the citizenry under the “lock and key” of a National ID Card with biometric data and complete storage of individual records back to the time of birth.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution: it will be gone with “the stroke of a pen…. the law of the land,” to paraphrase Paul Begala. Left out are the words “kind of neat” he finished the statement with. That is because it is not neat, nor will the whole situation end neatly. The President vowed to drain the swamp, and now he (and any who support his policies) will face an attack by the Deep State: The Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the Oligarchy (yes, of the ilk of the Zuckerberg’s, Soros’s, Gates, and Buffets), the Obama holdovers (too numerous to count) currently in the administration, and Republican 5th columnists masquerading as conservatives but in reality, Marxist-Totalitarians.
This “Deep State Army” are joining forces to topple the current administration, return the “paradigm shift” to the left at full speed, and bring the U.S. down…toward a global governance. Joining hands with them are the Democratic party entire, and all the liberal Democrat citizen-puppets, along with an army of clueless idiots who believe they are obliged to abandon conservative values for the sake of “unifying” with the liberals.
This bill H.R. 4760 is a “backlash” of the mandatory clause of the Affordable Health Care Law being overturned: the law is now “toothless,” as it is no longer mandatory to have it. This poses a problem for these globalists. Now, here we go on the bandwagon again in another direction…another parade…this time to “Secure America’s Future,” by making sure [that means through force…all authority is enforced and maintained with the barrel of a firearm] everyone…citizen, illegal alien, or “guest” worker/visitor…has a National ID card with biometric data.
The State cannot be beaten: Not unless the people either remove the politicians and reform the policies, or (if that isn’t possible) they must revolt. The United States (with this bill 4760) intends to hire more than 25,000 additional border patrol agents. Do you know why?
It is to keep the taxpayer-serfs in, not to keep the illegals out.
The State has unlimited resources, and the bureaucracy and infrastructure to deploy those resources. The State has federalized the National Guard units, the local and state law enforcement, and militarized all of them with weapons, equipment, APC’s (armored personnel carriers), and millions of rounds of ammunition. The State has multiplied itself into so many federal agencies that it is impossible to keep track of all of them. The State has armed all federal employees to the teeth, even those originally comical “Keystone Cop” organizations, such as the Social Security Administration, the Motor Vehicle Administration, and the Post Office.
Pull up the article Police State? National ID Card Tucked in Immigration Bill to see the details.
There is a precept that has not been mentioned. There is something the Deep State wishes, and yet is terrified of all the same. They desire a war with North Korea. It would be a simple matter afterward to round up and control all the survivors, especially as such a thing could be “timed” to appear spontaneous, yet when the Deep State had prepared with ample warning…as they will precipitate it.
The terrifying part to them? If it is an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack, it will render the surveillance grid inoperable for at least a time. They do not wish to lose the surveillance net they have been “crafting” all these years with the help of Facebook, Verizon, Google, and the other companies of the MIC. The chipmunk-toothed, squinty-eyed sixty-pluses with soft hands and full bellies…the CEO’s and oligarchs who have sequestered armies of military and security personnel to protect them…they will be in bunkers when it begins, sipping on a 21-year-old Portwood Balvenie.
Former Congressman Ron Paul has launched a campaign against this new House bill. Here is an excerpt from the referenced article:
“The biometric identification information on the cards, Paul warns, which could include fingerprints, retinal scans, or scans of veins on the back of hands, could easily be used as a tracking device. Paul noted that the law would require all employers to purchase an ID scanner to verify the cards, and he fears that it would be only a matter of time that ID scans would be required for routine purchases. The national ID card, the former congressman recalls, was a key portion of the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” bills both parties tried to pass during the Obama administration.
“Now, using the momentum behind Trump’s tough talk on immigration and border security, I’m afraid the statists believe the best way to finally enact their National ID scheme is by promoting their bill on Capitol Hill as a ‘DACA fix’ while they sell it to the GOP base as a border ‘security’ measure,” he writes.”
As you can see, this is serious. The Deep State is playing for keeps. The big question remains: “How will the President combat and defeat these forces arrayed against him, if his stance is for real, and he’s not just playing a part as a “prop” in the unfolding battle?” We must take that viewpoint as a possibility as well: that he may just be “making it look good…kicking and fighting,” although he’s really on their side. Hopefully he’s on our side. We haven’t had anyone on “our” side…the side of “We the People,” in a long time. One thing is for sure: the fight is just getting started, and it’s going to be a long one without a clear-cut victory for quite some time, if we do win.
When police arrived to address a handicapped veteran who was accused of panhandling, they refused to let him retrieve his cane, and instead Tased him, pulled him from his car, and left him lying on the ground.
From the government"s disregard for civil liberties, to new research showing the power of cannabis, here are the stories the mainstream media missed in 2017
U.S. officials admit they are not planning on shutting down the government"s warrantless spying program, even if it is not reauthorized by 2018.
Civil liberties experts are up in arms over the police state rolling out a warrantless saliva testing program to test people for drugged driving.
As the mainstream media provides relentless coverage of the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal, there is one major piece of legislation it is ignoring, and if passed, it will have massive repercussions for all Americans.
More than 40 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, have joined together to condemn the USA Liberty Act, a trendy name for a dangerous bill that reauthorizes and creates additional loopholes for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the coalition noted that one of the most obvious problems with the USA Liberty Act is that it fails to address concerns with the “backdoor search loophole,” which allows the government to “conduct warrantless searches for the information of individuals who are not targets of Section 702, including U.S. citizens and residents.”
Advertisment
“The USA Liberty Act departs from the recommendation made by the President’s Review Group on Surveillance, appropriations amendments that have previously passed the House, and urgings of civil society organizations, which would have required a probable cause warrant prior to searching the Section 702 database for information about a U.S. citizen or resident absent narrow exceptions. As written, it raises several concerns. First, the bill’s most glaring deficiency is that it does not require a warrant to access content in cases where the primary purpose is to return foreign intelligence. This is an exception that threatens to swallow the rule.”
Not surprisingly, the USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”
However, as The Free Thought Project previously reported, what the USA Liberty Act does not advertise is the fact that the FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents will only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.
READ MORE: Edward Snowden Develops Phone Case to Alert Users if Their Data is Being Compromised
As the coalition noted in its letter, “the bill’s current language leaves room for the government to conduct queries and access content for law enforcement purposes without a warrant,” which should be considered a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“The current language does not make clear that the government must have a warrant to access content for law enforcement searches where the purpose may not be to specifically obtain evidence of a crime, or in cases where there may be a dual foreign intelligence and criminal purpose. As such, the bill could still permit the government to conduct queries and access content without a warrant in cases involving criminal investigations and prosecutions.”
The coalition also criticized the USA Liberty Act’s broad consent and emergency exceptions, noting that, “the emergency provision does not parallel analogous provisions in FISA and require imminence or that the government go back to the FISA court for a warrant after beginning the emergency surveillance.”
While the government claims the purpose of FISA is to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it should be noted that the law has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”
When the USA Patriot Act was passed in 2001, and the USA Freedom Act was passed in 2015, the U.S. government used fear-based propaganda disguised in the form of All-American titled legislation, which was spread without contest by the mainstream media. Section 702 is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017, which means that Americans will likely see the same game come into play as the government prepares to pass the USA Liberty Act—a bill that is the opposite of its namesake.
After 9/11, the United States government preyed on the fear felt by many Americans to justify the passage of the USA Patriot Act—a law that was supposed to prevent future terrorist attacks. Now, after the Las Vegas shooting, the government has another proposed law ready to go, and just as with the Patriot Act, it also infringes on Americans’ liberties, and does very little for their security.
The USA Liberty Act is the latest trendy name for a law that would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017. According to the House Judiciary Committee, the act would preserve “the core purpose of Section 702: the collection of electronic communications by non-U.S. persons for use in our nation’s defense.”
However, it should be noted that while the purpose of FISA was reportedly only to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”
The USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”
But what the USA Liberty Act does not advertise is the fact that it does not actually address the legitimate problems that exist with Section 702. The FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents will only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.
READ MORE: 9/11 Scam: More than 100 NYC Police and Firefighters Indicted in Despicable Fraud
One of the most important things to remember about Section 702 is that, as the Constitution Project noted, it gives domestic law enforcement agencies access to the data seized by the NSA, while allowing the NSA to “retain and disseminate Americans’ communications that may contain any evidence of any crime.”
In a press release on the new act, the House Judiciary Committee bragged about the “bipartisan success” of the USA Freedom Act in June 2015, claiming that it “ended the bulk collection of data, protected civil liberties and national security, and provided robust oversight and transparency of our vital national security tools.”
However, as The Free Thought Project reported in May 2015, the USA Freedom Act “doesn’t actually end or suspend the phone records program, but simply requires phone companies to hold onto these records rather than the NSA.” It also authorized, for the first time, “the NSA, FBI, and other government agencies to unconstitutionally collect data in bulk on potentially millions of law-abiding Americans,” and it let the NSA collect “cell phone records in addition to the landline call records.”
In the same way that the USA Patriot Act was the opposite of patriotic in 2001, the USA Freedom Act only took away freedom in 2015. Do not be fooled by the title—the USA Liberty Act in 2017 has nothing to do with expanding “liberty.”
In a case that clearly highlights the manner in which police break the law to target, arrest and convict citizens with impunity, 77-year-old Charles Frederick White has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for cultivating marijuana.
The sheriff’s office claims they happened upon the growing operation by mistake, while ostensibly claiming to follow up on a call from a woman outside the Baltimore area who said her identity had been stolen and that new credit cards taken out in her name were being sent to a Polk County address.
Curiously, the officers took four months from the time she called to allegedly investigate.
“It was just really hard to get in touch with them,” Rianhard said of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office. “They just really didn’t do a whole lot.”
Rianhard said she doesn’t know why it took four months after calling in December for sheriff’s detectives to go out to the address of the supposed thief.
She said she never knew that her identify-theft case had accidentally spawned a major marijuana bust.
“It’s bizarre how that happened,” Rianhard said.
Advertisment
Bizarre is likely a vast understatement, with the truth likely being much closer to White being targeted by federal, state, and local law enforcement, which used an absurd excuse to gain access to his property.
The detectives claim that they were unable to find the home they were looking for in the rural area 45 miles north of Springfield, so they decided to stop at the nearest home – that of Charles Frederick White, who at the time was 71.
From the outset, law enforcement began violating White’s rights, as they drove up a long driveway to his home and parked. The detectives immediately noticed the pungent skunk-like smell of unharvested cannabis.
READ MORE: Hero Congressman Openly Defying Drug War to Bring Cannabis to Sick Kids
White approached the detectives, who spoke to him for a few minutes before leaving. A search warrant was then obtained, and White was eventually charged with growing more than 1,700 marijuana plants.
The problem with this initial contact by the detectives is that White had a closed gate on his driveway — with a posted “No Trespassing” sign.
Of course, the detectives claim that the gate was open and they never saw the sign – although two neighbors testified in court, saying they had lived next to White for years, and he NEVER left the gate open.
One of the neighbors even testified that he saw officers approach the gate that day, get out of their car, undo the chain and open the gate.
According to a report by Springfield News-Leader:
White’s attorneys have long argued that the case should have never reached a sentencing, saying White has been unfairly targeted by local, state and federal authorities.
Authorities already had their eye on White long before March 2012, his attorneys say, when overzealous detectives illegally stepped on his property — and trampled his constitutional rights.
According to a motion filed by White’s attorneys, this case didn’t begin with a Maryland woman’s identity being stolen — it began in a Kansas City parking lot in 2010.
Court records show that a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant observed White and another man leaving a hydroponics store and filling a pickup truck with plant-growing equipment.
According to court filings, White was the focus of a brief investigation.
Details of that investigation were never passed onto the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, the federal prosecutor said.
The discovery of more than 1,700 marijuana plants on White’s property, authorities said, was just luck.
The detectives, of course, testified in court that they had never heard of, nor met, White before trespassing on his property in March 2012, and unsurprisingly, also claimed to have not noticed the “No Trespassing,” as they trespassed onto his property.
READ MORE: Report: "All Cannabis Use is Medicinal" Whether You Know it Or Not
Court records revealed that police twice went onto White’s property prior to obtaining a search warrant.
Despite the neighbor’s testimony — that they saw the detectives undo the chain and open the gate — the federal judge in the case, Douglas Harpool, refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the clear violation of White’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Finally, after years of legal wrangling, this week, White, now a 77-year-old man with failing eyesight, walked into the federal courtroom for sentencing with a cane in his hand and shackles around his ankles after accepting a plea deal in February of 2017.
Harpool said he didn’t feel good about handing down a 10-year prison sentence an elderly man over growing a plant that is legal in many states. The judge claimed to have researched ways to give White a downward departure from the 10-year-minimum federal prison sentence – but was unable to find any legal rationale to justify it.
“This is not a sentence I feel particularly good about,” Harpool said.
Showing the clear insanity of federal law, a pre-sentence report pegged the time white should serve in prison for his offense at 24 years in prison due to his past convictions for growing cannabis. White was previously convicted in 1990 of growing more than 600 marijuana plants, and in 2004 of cultivating more than 100 marijuana plants.
Under the terms of White’s plea deal, the federal prosecutor recommended the minimum sentence under U.S. law: 10 years in federal prison.
Friends and family who attended the sentencing hearing were dismayed that the case was never thrown out of court due to the clear violations of White’s constitutional rights (ie trespassing onto his personal property) during the investigation.
READ MORE: USMC Veteran Facing Life in Prison Over 1 Oz. of Cannabis to Treat His PTSD
Robert Murphy, a friend, said officers entered White’s property unlawfully.
White’s attorney suggested home confinement, but the judge said that was not applicable in this case.
Judge Harpool eventually sentenced White to 10 years in prison and said that he would recommend that the Bureau of Prisons consider a “compassionate release” for White.
The fact that this man elderly man, who has no history of violence, is going to prison for 10 years over growing a plant shows the sheer insanity of federal cannabis law.
Sadly, it’s likely that White will die in prison over simply farming a plant the US federal government bans – but that over half of the US states have legalized medically – with a growing number having legalized recreationally.
Please share this story to awaken others to how the insane war on marijuana destroys the lives of good people!
While it is a rare occasion when the group claiming to represent the will of the American people actually votes accordingly, the House of Representatives voted in opposition of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ plan to expand civil asset forfeiture on Tuesday.
The Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act will now include Amendment 126, which “restricts the use of the federal government’s use of adoptive forfeiture.” It is co-sponsored by a group of nine bipartisan representatives, including Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, and Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii.
“About to speak on the House floor in support of my amendment to rein in unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture,” Amash wrote on Twitter. “We must defend our rights.”
Advertisment
About to speak on the House floor in support of my amendment to rein in unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture. We must defend our rights.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) September 12, 2017
Gabbard noted that she co-sponsored the bill because it was “yet another area where AG Sessions must be stopped in his unconstitutional attempts to expand civil asset forfeiture.”
“I’ll be on House floor soon with Justin Amash urging support for our bipartisan amendment to stop AG Sessions expansion of adoptive forfeiture,” Gabbard wrote on Twitter. “Adoptive forfeiture allows state law enforcement to sidestep state laws and use federal law to seize people’s property without conviction or charges. Burden of proving innocence is on the individual, not on law enforcement. Even if innocence proved, the property/cash is often not returned.”
I"ll be on House floor soon w/ @justinamash urging support for our bipartisan amdmt to stop AG Sessions expansion of adoptive forfeiture
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) September 12, 2017
Burden of proving innocence is on the individual, not on law enforcement. Even if innocence proved, the property/cash is often not returned
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) September 12, 2017
Defining civil asset forfeiture as “a pernicious practice that throws due process out of the window and allows permanent seizure of assets based on an extraordinarily low evidentiary standard,” FreedomWorks.org noted that Amendment 126 seeks to “prohibit the use of funds authorized by Division C from being used for adoptive seizures, through which state and local agencies can circumvent protective state laws to seek forfeiture of seized assets under federal forfeiture laws.”
Sessions announced a new policy to increase civil asset forfeiture in July, labeling it as a means to “better protect victims of crime and innocent property owners, while streamlining the process to more easily dismantle criminal and terrorist organizations.”
“As any of these law enforcement partners will tell you and as President Trump knows well, civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels. Even more importantly, it helps return property to the victims of crime. Civil asset forfeiture takes the material support of the criminals and instead makes it the material support of law enforcement, funding priorities like new vehicles, bulletproof vests, opioid overdose reversal kits, and better training. In departments across this country, funds that were once used to take lives are now being used to save lives.”
However, as The Free Thought Project has reported extensively, and as the majority of the representatives in the House seem to understand, civil asset forfeiture has only led to more corruption.
READ MORE: Before & After Photos Prove the US is Funding a War on Human Rights in Syria
In fact, even one of the co-creators of the civil asset forfeiture program in the United States has said he thinks it should be abolished. “Three decades ago I helped create our civil asset forfeiture system; now it is time to end it,” Brad Cates, former director of the U.S. Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Office, said in February 2016.
“During the Reagan administration I helped establish these programs because I believed they would quickly channel seized criminals’ profits into the fight against organized crime and drug cartels. Yet over time we have created a new bad incentive: policing for profit, out of the reach of the proper legislative budget process.”
The purpose of “due process” is to ensure that suspects are given a chance to prove their innocence. However, when police are given the power to confiscate cash, weapons, cars and other possessions, the suspects they are targeting are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and even if their innocence is proven in court, their possessions that were stolen by the state are not always returned.
Randolf, NJ — Parents of high school teenagers were outraged this weekend after dozens of their children were ordered to undergo forced blood and alcohol tests because officials found a beer can under the stadium during a football game. As parents tried to refuse the tests, they were told their children would be suspended for noncompliance.
Naturally, school officials are claiming that the forced blood and urine samples, taken under the threat of suspension, were done in the name of child safety.
According to a letter from Randolph Superintendent Jennifer Fano, the school is charged with enforcing the policy of mass drug tests for suspicion of drug or alcohol use among students.
The law requires that we send students out to be tested when it appears that they may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Given the events in question, the students in this area of the stadium were brought in to the school, separated into classrooms, and parents were contacted to pick their child up and have them screened. District policy and regulation states that failure to comply with a screening is deemed a positive test result and will result in a suspension from school.
After the can of beer was found, roughly 75 students were taken from the game and detained in classrooms where their parents were called and told they must comply with the tests. Noncompliance meant that the student would be automatically assumed guilty and face the consequences of a crime that they may or may not have actually committed.
Advertisment
According to a public Facebook post by Randolph High School student and Class of 2018 President Nate Pangaro, “Before the game could begin, an administrator went to the front and told everyone to be quiet. He announced that he found an opened beer can on the ground that rolled to him, and that someone should confess to (whose) it was before everyone was taken in for a breathalyzer test. No one confessed, so people went into the school each row at a time to be tested.”
READ MORE: Police Kill Innocent Unarmed Grandpa for Holding a Crucifix in His Own Front Yard
Some parents were outraged by the incident, according to DailyRecord.com.
“Everybody was just so confused, miscommunication,” said parent Stephanie Pangaro. “As a parent, you’re going to defend your child to the fullest when you know they’re innocent.”
The sheer number of students having to go out and get blood and urine tests overwhelmed the medical systems in town.
“Students then proceeded to emergency rooms in Dover, Denville, Morristown and Livingston,” Christopher C. Treston, a school board candidate, posted on his campaign Facebook page. “The emergency departments at Dover and at Morristown were not given any warning of what was coming, and were overwhelmed.”
As the Daily Record reports, Sheryll Lynne Penney, a former Randolph PTO president and mother of a 2017 Randolph High graduate, spoke exclusively in that capacity with the Daily Record. Penney said she had been contacted by several parents who expressed similar confusion and anger. Those parents said they believed their constitutional rights, as well as the rights of their children, had been violated.
“The students sign a code of conduct and they need to be held accountable, but so does the administration for handling the situation professionally,” Penney said.
In spite of forcing all 75 students to submit to unconstitutional blood and urine tests, only five students were found to have had alcohol in their bloodstream.
“Let me be very clear: teenage drinking is a serious problem, and it did in fact occur at our school on Friday night,” Treston wrote. “Our process of preventing backpacks, bottles and cans from entering the stadium broke down. In addition, some number of students arrived intoxicated. We owe it to the community to identify such students, and to protect them and the community. But, we also need to do it in a way that protects the rights and dignity of the student body. When the accused-but-innocent outnumber the guilty 16 to one, we probably did it wrong.”
READ MORE: Wall St. Mega-Banks Funding Vicious Attacks on Protestors Over the Dakota Access Pipeline
What this policy does is condition students to think that it’s okay to violate the rights of the innocent in order to catch a few people who may be breaking the rules—a dangerous path—and one the U.S. has been travelling down for far too long.
Snopes.com has made its name as the truthful source that debunks crazy conspiracy theories and “fake news” on the internet, but its response to a story on legislation allowing warrantless searches is in need of its own fact check.
As Snopes correctly noted, the story in question was published by The Free Thought Project on Aug. 24, and is on the subject of House Joint Resolution 76. What Snopes does not mention is that up until TFTP reported on the legislation, it received virtually no media coverage, aside from criticism from Congressman Justin Amash on social media.
As the original story noted, House Joint Resolution 76 creates the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, which looks harmless on the surface. The bill claims that its purpose is “Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”
In its “Fact Check” of the story, Snopes made the claim that “The legislation does not allow authorities all over the U.S. to conduct warrantless searches, as claimed by a number of disreputable web sites.”
This is 100% true. The legislation does not allow this, at all.
Advertisment
The major red flag that comes from this bill can be found in the list of powers that are given to the safety commission, when it comes to its authority over the properties around surround the metro rail system. As the text of the bill notes:
“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”
The problem with this legislation is that even if the commission gives advanced notice that it will be entering a private property, that advanced notice is not a search warrant. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant can only be obtained with the consent of a judge, and it must have probable cause laid out by law enforcement.
READ MORE: New Study Quantifies U.S. Fascism -- Nearly Half of All Retired Congress Members Become Lobbyists
The bill received unanimous approval in the Senate, and Justin Amash was one of just five members who voted against it in the House. As he noted on Twitter, the bill gives the government the authority to enter and search private property in parts of Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland without a warrant.
Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant. https://t.co/SVhTWqbPaB
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 18, 2017
Responding to critics on Twitter, Amash wrote, “This bill does authorize a #4thAmendment violation. Congress has a duty not to pass such broad language even if Constitution nullifies it.”
This bill does authorize a #4thAmendment violation. Congress has a duty not to pass such broad language even if Constitution nullifies it.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 27, 2017
As Amash also noted, the language of the bill is entirely too broad. “‘Safety’ presumably includes preventing criminal/terrorist activities near WMATA. Bill doesn’t contemplate potential abuse of MSC authority,” he wrote.
"Safety" presumably includes preventing criminal/terrorist activities near WMATA. Bill doesn"t contemplate potential abuse of MSC authority.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 27, 2017
When a Twitter user insisted that the bill only applies to “federally owned property,” Amash replied, “Read carefully. It applies to *any* property ‘adjacent to the WMATA Rail System.’ You ignored the phrase ‘including, without limitation.’”
Read carefully. It applies to *any* property "adjacent to the WMATA Rail System." You ignored the phrase "including, without limitation."
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 30, 2017
While Snopes does acknowledge that Amash considers the legislation to be “too broad and potentially unconstitutional,” its entire article is based on the premise that “The legislation does not allow authorities all over the U.S. to conduct warrantless searches, as claimed by a number of disreputable web sites.”
Although Snopes does not list any of these “disreputable web sites,” the only website it does reference is The Free Thought Project, which it describes as a website that “mostly posts stories geared towards stoking fear that the government is on the verge of becoming an authoritarian police state.”
However, the article Snopes was attempting to debunk was based entirely on the facts surrounding the bill—its text, who voted for and against it, and how it was interpreted by elected officials who were charged with the power of determining whether it becomes law. Never once did the story claim this bill would affect the entire United States, or that it would completely put an end to the Fourth Amendment.
READ MORE: Poll: 2016 is the Year Americans Stopped Trusting the Establishment, Especially the Media
As for Snopes’ definition of TFTP’s reputation, an outlet that “mostly posts stories geared towards stoking fear” sounds a lot like the description of the many mainstream media outlets The Free Thought Project debunks on a regular basis. As for warning that “the government is on the verge of becoming an authoritarian police state,” in many ways that is essentially what the government already is—an authoritarian state that uses violence and intimidation to enforce its laws.
The Free Thought Project is dedicated to exposing stories of government corruption and police misconduct based on facts and evidence, while also fostering the creation and expansion of liberty-minded solutions to modern day tyrannical oppression. If we were solely focused on brainwashed fear-mongering, we would be no better than the mainstream media.
A bill that will allow homes to be searched without a warrant was passed with overwhelming support by the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Trump—and it happened with no media coverage and very little fanfare.
On the surface, House Judiciary Resolution 76 looks harmless. The title of the bill claims that its purpose is “Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”
“Whereas the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, provides transportation services to millions of people each year, the safety of whom is paramount; Whereas an effective and safe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capital region; Whereas the Tri-State Oversight Committee, created by a memorandum of understanding amongst these 3 jurisdictions, has provided safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.”
The proposal for a safety commission to act as a wing of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority may sound logical, when its power includes thing such as the ability to “Adopt, revise, and distribute a written State Safety Oversight Program” and to “Review, approve, oversee, and enforce the adoption and implementation of WMATA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.”
Advertisment
However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenants of the U.S. Constitution.
“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”
The text gives the Commission the authority to enter property near the Metro Rail System “without limitation” and without a warrant, for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”
This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”
When the bill was brought to a vote in the House of Representatives, there were only five Congressmen who voted against it: Representatives Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan; Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina; Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky; Alex Mooney, a Republican from West Virginia; and Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.
READ MORE: Breaking: Congress Passes Bill Giving Police Unlimited Access to Citizens" Private Communications
Amash called out the hypocrisy surrounding the fact that even though this legislation is in clear violation of the Constitution, it was passed by Congress with overwhelming support. “Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant,” He wrote on Twitter.
Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant. https://t.co/SVhTWqbPaB
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 18, 2017
This is not the first time Congress has quietly passed a bill that will take away some of the most basic rights from law-abiding citizens in the U.S., and it won’t be the last. One of the most important things to remember about this legislation is that it was ignored by the media, and while it may only affect the Washington D.C. metro area now, it could be laying the blueprint for future legislation across the country.
Detroit, MI – Nikita Smith filed a lawsuit against the Detroit Police Department after they killed her three dogs during a raid of her home in search of pot last year. On Wednesday, a judge absurdly ruled the dogs were considered “contraband,” noting that Smith had no legal basis to sue the police department for shooting and killing her dogs, due to the canines not having been properly licensed.
Subsequently, the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Smith after a raid of her home by the Detroit police was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh.
According to a report by Reason:
The ruling is the first time a federal court has considered the question of whether an unlicensed pet—in violation of city or state code—is protected property under the Fourth Amendment. Federal courts have established that pets are protected from unreasonable seizures (read: killing) by police, but the city of Detroit argued in a motion in March that Smith’s dogs, because they were unlicensed, were “contraband” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, meaning she had no legitimate property interest in them and therefore no basis to sue the officers or department.
Sadly, Judge Steeh agreed with the city’s ridiculous assertion that since the dogs were not licensed, they were not a legitimate property interest, thus giving Smith no legal basis to sue either the department or the individual officer/s that killed her dogs.
“The Court is aware that this conclusion may not sit well with dog owners and animal lovers in general,” the judge Steeh wrote in his opinion. “The reason for any unease stems from the fact that while pet owners consider their pets to be family members, the law considers pets to be property.”
Advertisment
“The requirements of the Michigan Dog Law and the Detroit City Code, including that all dogs be current with their rabies vaccines, exist to safeguard the public from dangerous animals,” he continued. “When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the dogs, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Think about that for a moment, the judge is legally equating owning an unlicensed dog, with “illegal property or contraband.”
So, does someone owning an unlicensed car give you no Fourth Amendment protections over it, and does it constitute illegal property or contraband simply because it isn’t licensed with the city/state?
Federal judge rules that unlicensed pets are "contraband." Cops can kill them with (legal) impunity. https://t.co/PZ0T0WX42Q
— Biased Cosmopolitan (@radleybalko) August 3, 2017
Steeh’s opinion went on to reason that since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, then there is no legal basis for a civil rights claim against the city. Additionally, Steeh ruled that even if the dogs had been recognized as her property, the animals presented an imminent threat to police, thus the suit would have been dismissed anyway.
READ MORE: Cops Caught on Video Breaking into Family"s Backyard and Killing Dog in Front of 2-Year-Old Girl
Much in line with the brutal reality that a massive number of dogs across America are being executed, Smith’s suit labeled the police officers’ actions in her home akin to a “dog death squad.” She noted that officers shot one of the dogs through a closed bathroom door. Gruesome photos from the raid revealed a blood-drenched bathroom with Smith’s dog lying in a pool of blood.
In only the past two years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Detroit Police Department for executing dogs. Once incident ended with the city paying out $100,000 to settle a suit after police dash cam footage revealed a dog being killed by an officer while still chained up and no threat to officers. The case was one of three lawsuits filed against the DPD for killing dogs during raids in search of cannabis. In another case, filed in June, officers are alleged to have killed a couple’s dogs while they were behind a backyard fence.
The absurdity of raiding people’s homes in an assaultive and violent manner in search of a medicinal plant reeks of government overreach and waste.
The report by Reason noted extremely brutal nature :
A Reason investigation last year found the DPD’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids in the city, has a track record of leaving dead dogs in its wake. One officer had shot 39 dogs over the course of his career before the raid on Smith’s house, according to public records.
That officer is now up to 73 kills, according to the most recent records obtained by Reason.
Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified during the trial that they had shot “fewer than 20” and “at least 19” dogs over the course of their careers…
Reason’s review of “destruction of animal” reports filed by Detroit police officers did not find a single instance where a supervisor found that a dog shooting was unjustified.
Does anyone really believe that the officer with 73 dog killings is doing it to protect themselves and other officers from imminent danger? The wanton disregard for life is astonishing and speaks to the extreme levels of brutality we see taking place on American streets on a daily basis.
READ MORE: Court Rules Cops Don"t Need to Know the Laws they Enforce -- THEIR Ignorance Can Be Used Against YOU
Once again highlighting the lack of proper training police receive, Judge Steeh’s opinion noted that the “police officers conducting the search had not received any specific training on how to handle animal encounters during raids.”
The court opinion also recognized that Detroit police supervisors found the shooting of Smith’s three dogs all to be justified, but curiously noting:
“However, as in many other cases, the ratifying officers did so without speaking to the officers about what had transpired,” the court wrote.
The search warrant for Smith’s residence came after police received a tip that marijuana was being sold out of the home. The raid, which killed her three dogs, netted a total of 25 grams of marijuana – not even an ounce. Since recent polling support for legalizing cannabis has reached upwards of 80%, perhaps giving police a license to kick down doors, with weapons drawn, in search of a plant, is a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, after the police killed her three dogs, the case against Smith was dismissed due to officers failing to show up for her court hearing. Three murdered dogs, smashed house, no charges, and endless pain and suffering — all for an illegal plant — and this is called justice.
Police in states across the U.S. have increasingly been employing new methods to search unsuspecting motorists’ vehicles. First came the DUI checkpoints, then the insurance checkpoints, and driver’s license checkpoints. Now, in the Land of the Free, a growing new trend is emerging — Americans will be forced to go through “firewood” checkpoints.
The public reasoning for these checkpoints is state firewood quarantine programs, which prohibits residents of the invasive insect-infected areas, to transport untreated firewood outside that area. While these programs are meant to prevent the spread of the emerald ash borer, a legitimately destructive beetle that targets ash trees, they clearly disregard constitutional guarantees against illegal search and seizure.
Ohio police have been setting up ‘firewood’ checkpoints to search motorists’ vehicles since 2004, with violators potentially facing fines up to $10,000 if they’re caught with the banned firewood, according to the Daily Jefferson. In Michigan, police have been using ‘firewood’ checkpoints since at least 2005, and the list of states using them is growing.
In New Hampshire, traveling with contraband firewood could result in a fine of $250, confiscation of the wood, and misdemeanor charges for subsequent offenses, according to forest ranger Douglas Miner.
Just last week, the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development announced that it would police firewood transport with roadside checkpoints over Memorial Day weekend.
In typical police checkpoint fashion, Miner said he’s legally unable to divulge the locations of the checkpoints — as that wouldn’t allow for enough revenue generating potential.
“It is a similar process to follow as when DWI checkpoints are announced,” he said. “Essentially they are usually adjacent to major roads where signage directs vehicles with firewood to pull off into designated areas for inspection. If the firewood is found to be in violation of the quarantine, it will be confiscated and either a written warning or court summons issued.”
The problem is these stops are often simply a pretext for police to engage in fishing expeditions and revenue-generating behavior.
READ MORE: Councilman Wants "Black Leadership" to Team Up & "Throw Rocks" at Cops for Endangering Children
While the U.S. Supreme Court has held that DUI checkpoints are constitutional, without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed, police have absolutely no legal grounds to detain or arrest someone. In fact, existing case law actually requires law enforcement to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for police to even require someone to show their identification.
And while the checkpoint stop itself has been granted legitimacy by the Supreme Court, the fact that there is no established reasonable suspicion of criminal activity means that a person being forced to stop at the checkpoint is under no obligation to present an identification or ID themselves.
Of course, while you are well within your rights to refuse to present identification during a checkpoint stop, you would be well advised to record the interaction as law enforcement notoriously responds to a failure to obey their commands with escalation, and often violence, which can quickly turn into a dangerous situation.
Giving an indication of the current police state we are living under, there are now THIRTEEN different types of checkpoints being employed by law enforcement.
Thirteen police checkpoints:
Let’s be clear — the ‘firewood’ checkpoint has very little, if anything, to do with public safety.
This ever-expanding list of checkpoints is clearly about giving law enforcement the ability to illegally search more vehicles and have contact with more innocent drivers who have done nothing wrong.
A ‘firewood’ checkpoint is simply a pretext to randomly search vehicles, and a precursor to even more intrusion by the police state, into the lives of innocent and unsuspecting Americans.
A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the National Security Agency, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall. In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were “widespread” and created a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
These new discoveries come from a recently unsealed FISA court document dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2017, just days before the 2016 election, in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of “widespread” and illegal spying on American citizens by the NSA under the Obama administration.
“The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review…indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet “upstream” collection, even though NSA’s section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries…this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern.”
The court order goes on to reveal that NSA analysts had been conducting illegal queries targeting American citizens “with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court”…an issue which the court described as a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.”
“At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government’s failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional ‘lack of candor’ on NSA’s part and emphasized that ‘this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue."”
So what safeguards are in place to protect your privacy and ensure you’re not erroneously turned into a target?
“Patriot One Technologies, Inc. is about to kick off an experiment of its new detection system,” Concealed Nation reports. “They’ve partnered with Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino to implement the system in public for the first time.”
“Detection system”?
So much for “concealed” carry — and for being secure in your person and effects…
“[T]he system uses ‘Cognitive Microwave Radar’ to detect any unwanted items, and ‘related hardware can be installed in hallways and doorways to covertly identify weapons and to alert security of an active threat entering the premises,’” the report elaborates. “If this test proves to be successful in their eyes, it could open the flood gates for companies looking to use this technology in their own locations.”
And not just companies. If it actually works, this could be installed in public places to flag down any and everyone carrying a gun. And that should raise all kinds of civil liberties concerns, including the way it could “mine” a patchwork of public and private zones that becomes impossible to navigate, and make invasive privacy intrusions the norm every time you step out of the house. Add in a rapidly expanding presence of “security” cameras, an increased use of facial recognition technology for everything from airport security to dispensing toilet paper (!), and it’s clear we’re living in a culture with citizen surveillance capabilities Orwell’s Big Brother nightmare couldn’t even come close to approximating.
Perhaps instead of being deemed an anxiety disorder, agoraphobia should be viewed as a healthy and rational reaction.
Then consider there have been no long-term studies on regular and prolonged exposure to what “Low-power impulse radar… from 500 MHz to 5 GHz” might do after a few decades. It is interesting to note that while they were intially presumed “safe” enough to subject the public to, the European Union banned backscatter X-ray scanners from airports over “citizen’s health and safety” concerns. And while we’re told alternative millimeter-wave systems “do not expose passengers to ionizing radiation,” it’s undeniable that technologies presented as benign can merit a second look when several years of field experiences yield new information. Case in point, cell phones and potential cancer risks…
Employees who need to be scanned every day, possibly several times as they leave and then reenter “secured” areas, may be serving as unwitting guinea pigs. Will OSHA take an interest?
Still, that’s all theoretical at this point. But the liberty concerns are undeniable, particularly with the potential to infringe on the Second and Fourth Amendments. So it’s curious the outfit behind the surveillance devices calls itself “Patriot One.”
Hey, what could be more patriotic than defending lives and property, providing freedom is also being protected? Will trust in benevolent and protective intentions be well placed?
So what’s “necessary to the security of a free State” is … this?
I’d feel better about it, first of all if they weren’t Canadian, but also if they hadn’t issued a press release praising and welcoming former Congressman, Pennsylvania Governor ,and Homeland Security “czar” (how come they never say “führer”?) Tom Ridge to their advisory board.
That would be “Oathbreak Ridge.” He voted to ban semi-autos demonized as “assault weapons.” He opposed arming pilots after 9/11. And he thumbed his nose at those who asked about the Second Amendment by essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted because “Those people aren’t registered. Nor do they vote.”
As an establishment RINO, he has since attempted to torpedo conservative political candidates. And he’s still out there in the media trying to push gun and magazine bans, and showing that privacy concerns over his new venture are not unfounded:
“And it’s a little more complicated than just bans and background checks,” he added. “People talk about the 2nd Amendment, but they ought to start talking about privacy and whether individuals have a right to keep their own medical history to themselves, or under certain circumstances are obliged to provide it.”
With this guy’s track record, can anyone be sure those “certain circumstances” he’s talking about do not result in prior restraints and denial of due process? Or that his new associates aren’t as enthusiastic about his views on guns and privacy as they are about welcoming him on board?
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Alexander, AL — The Southern Poverty Law Center has reached a $680,000 settlement in its lawsuit against the Alabama city of Alexander and its police chief Willie Robinson. The settlement was for depriving 190 of its residents their rights to due process (6th Amendment) and the unlawful seizure of their property (4th Amendment). Sheriff Robinson has even been asked to resign by lawyers representing their client.
Each one of the 190 individuals will receive $500 cash from the city for jailing them for being too poor to pay the fines imposed on them by the town. As reported by AL.com, “Hundreds of impoverished residents have faced unconstitutional and unjust treatment in Alexander City simply because they were too poor to pay fines and fees,” said Sam Brooke, in a press release. Brooke is the SPLC’s deputy legal director. He added, “The shuttering of this modern-day debtors’ prison, along with the monetary award, brings justice to many of the people who were unfairly targeted for being poor.”
The way the injustice flourished was as follows. A resident would receive a speeding ticket, for example. If they were unable to pay, they were arrested, taken to jail, and forced to remain there. While in jail, they would earn $20 a day for just being in jail, and $40 a day for doing laundry, cleaning, or washing police cruisers, until the total sum of the fine was paid in full. Each person was not allowed to go before a judge, nor to have a lawyer present to help in aid in their defense.
READ MORE: Cop Quietly Given Back Job After Executing Handcuffed Man on Video
“Around 30 percent of Alexander inhabitants live below the poverty line. Plaintiff Amanda Underwood is one such person, who was jailed twice for not being able to pay her fines. Underwood previously earned $8 an hour and has two young children, according to the SPLC release. After not being able to pay a fine of $205 for a traffic violation, Underwood had to borrow money to secure her release. On a separate occasion, Underwood was fined $250 for driving without a license. She spent five days in jail working off her debt.”
What may have seemed like a quick way for the town to punish offenders — and settle long-standing fines, fees, and court costs — turned out to be a complete violation of Alexander’s residents’ civil rights. Underwood reveled in the victory saying, “I am glad the city is going to pay everyone who they jailed, to try to undo some of the harm they caused…I am so proud that this lawsuit has made a difference. I hope it will help many others, especially those like me who have been unfairly punished for being poor.”
Brooke said Alexander’s settlement out of court is just the latest in a string of successful lawsuits in Alabama which have made a positive impact on civil rights. “Courts are being sued and forced to change their procedures, and judges have been censured and suspended,” Brooke said. “And now a municipality has been forced to pay those it illegally jailed. We hope and believe all courts are now getting the message: It is unacceptable to punish the poor just because of their poverty.”
READ MORE: Cops Assault, Taser Wrong Man, Laugh About Framing Him "Someone drop the dope in here"
There’s very little difference between jailing someone to work off a fine, and selling one’s property to pay for such fines. One is a debtor’s prison and the other results in a debtor’s auction. In both cases, the police benefit from free labor and free revenue generation. Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) has been used for years to punish citizens accused of crimes such as drunk driving, driving with too much cash on hand, or being in possession of marijuana. Hopefully, with wins such as what the SPLC has been able to achieve in Alabama, more progress can likewise be made in CAF cases across the country as well.
