Oversight Report Says DC's Metro Police Can't Be Bothered To Investigate Serious Crimes

from the why-fight-crime-when-you-can-just-shuffle-papers dept

Police, v. : maintain law and order

Police, n.: responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of law and order

Given these definitions, how is it that Washington, DC's Metro Transit Police Department still has the word "police' in its name?

Metro Transit Police can’t demonstrate that officers investigated thousands of reported robberies, assaults, sex offenses and property crimes over a span of several years, according to the agency’s internal watchdog.

In the case of 1,200 reported crimes, “investigative case files lacked any documentation of investigative activity,” according to a report released Thursday by the agency’s Office of Inspector General. More than 1,600 other case files were missing or withheld from the inspector general, according to the report.

Don't let the name "transit" fool you as much as the word "police" has. The Transit Police "investigate" all crimes that occur on city transit property. Some of these are serious crimes. And they're treated with way less enthusiasm than officers deploy against fare jumpers.

909 cases were open robberies (4.89%)
108 cases were open felony assaults (.58%)
471 cases were open misdemeanor assault (2.53%)
3 cases were open felony sex offenses (.02%)
66 cases were open misdemeanor sex Offenses (.36%)
48 cases were open indecent exposure cases (.26%)
1514 cases were open crimes against property (8.15%)

This is part of the long list of crimes that MTPD isn't solving or even, apparently, investigating. The Inspector General's report [PDF] is an entertaining read, but for all the wrong reasons. It details a distressing amount of incompetence or lack of cooperation. Or possibly both.

OIG began its investigation in August 2020 and has made multiple attempts to recover all 3,110 investigative files. OIG has provided MTPD numerous opportunities to produce all investigative material associated with these complaints, but MTPD’s production, to date, has been incomplete. After six months, multiple suspense deadlines, and given the significant decrease in the volume of investigative case files being produce by MTPD, the OIG closed its investigation with MTPD’s limited production of investigative files.

[...]

An analysis of the documentation provided revealed that approximately 84.1% (1,215 cases) of what MTPD described as investigative case files lacked any documentation of investigative activity. MTPD staff’s failure to properly and accurately maintain investigative files, evidence, and/or associated judicial records obstructed OIG’s ability to determine if CID Detectives ignored victim complaints between 2010 and 2017.

You know, obstruction is a crime. Obviously, someone other than the MTPD should investigate this.

Maybe it's not just incompetence. The OIG notes it opened an investigation in 2012 after receiving an allegation that Transit detectives were falsifying investigations. In that investigation, the OIG found discrepancies between what was documented by CID (Criminal Investigations Division) detectives and what the OIG was told by crime victims it interviewed.

The obstruction/incompetence was present then, too.

As in this current investigation, in 2012, the OIG requested to review 2011 and 2012 CID case files; however, MTPD could not produce 88 out of 134 randomly selected suspended case files.

Corrective actions were ordered and supposedly implemented. But the Inspector General says nearly a decade later, some of what it recommended still has yet to be completed by the MTPD.

From what's seen in this report, it appears the MTPD just isn't interested in investigating crimes. The investigation files seen by the Inspector General contained almost no evidence any investigation occurred. Instead, it appeared CID detectives were simply checking boxes until the case could be closed, in most cases without any resolution.

Out of the 1,445 case files provided, 82.1% (1,186 cases) contained only a one-page closing document without any evidence that an actual investigation was ever conducted. Moreover, 2% (29 cases) contained only two documents, a closing document and the ER [End Report], which is a document generally prepared based on information gathered by the responding MTPD officer. In these 29 cases, however, there was still no evidence that an actual investigation was ever conducted.

Even though these one-page closing documents did not contain investigative activity, they were nonetheless used to change the status of these investigations from open to suspended, which signifies that no further investigative activity was warranted. Most closing documents were signed by CID management officials who justified the suspension status change of these investigations based solely on a written claim that the statute of limitations to bring charges against a suspect had passed along with a statement indicating they were unable to locate the original report and case file.

Sure, the statute of limitations can prevent some cases from being investigated further, but the MTPD had no idea if the statute of limitations had run because it often had no idea what specific crime was alleged. The cases were "suspended" by CID supervisors, who never bothered to speak to detectives to see what investigative activity had occurred or obtain further details about the alleged crime.

The whole system -- bought and paid for with the tax dollars of underserved DC residents -- sucks. It starts at the top, gets worse in the middle, and by the time it reaches the bottom, the only thing that does "work" is the perverse incentives.

OIG interviewed numerous other individuals who were current and/or former CID supervisors from 2010 through 2020. None of these individuals could definitively state that all 3,110 victim and general complaints were investigated. They all expressed concern over the discovery of 3,110 complaints that still appeared to be in an open status in the CID database. They generally attributed the lack of accountability and oversight of CID cases to a variety of factors, including lack of supervisory knowledge of CID’s duties and responsibilities; insufficient supervisory staff; lack of administrative case oversight; high caseloads; nonexistence of policies and procedures; and lack of a case tracking system. In addition, the interviews uncovered that performance evaluations of case work only focused on closure rates, which did not account for suspended cases and/or disposition of previously open cases from past fiscal years.

This investigation by the Inspector General is yet another MTPD-related investigation that can never be considered properly closed. The IG says it is forced to conclude that records related to 1,500 investigations simply no longer exist.

As the IG points out, this is abysmal and it will result in a host of negative side effects. The OIG says (again) the MTPD obstructed its ability to carry out this investigation properly. The large number of missing investigative files make it impossible to determine whether or not CID detectives ignored complaints from victims -- another allegation of misconduct that cannot fully be resolved. The missing documentation will also put past prosecutions in jeopardy of being overturned. Finally, there's the blow to public confidence the MTPD can't possibly absorb -- not with its history of tagging minorities for minor offenses while ignoring more serious criminal acts occurring in its jurisdiction.

Filed Under: crimes, dc, investigation, metro police, police

Florida Man Governor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media Law

from the fiscal-conservative? dept

Last month, a federal judge easily declared Florida's social media law (complete with its Disney-inspired theme park exemption) as unconstitutional. It wasn't a hard call. Florida had tossed out a bunch of wacky arguments and the judge smacked down each and every one of them. He even pointed out that if you didn't use strict scrutiny (as you must) to analyze whether the law violated the 1st Amendment, it would still be unconstitutional.

But, of course, as we discussed with Florida legislator Anna Eskamani last week, this was never about anything more than trying to kick up yet another culture war. So it should come as little surprise that Florida has now officially moved to appeal the district court ruling. This will shock no one, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be disappointed. This will be yet more of a waste of Florida taxpayer money on a frivolous legal battle in a state that has some pretty significant and real problems at the moment.

Hopefully, the 11th Circuit makes quick work of this. The district court judge, Robert Hinkle, of course, expected all of this, and much of his ruling seems drafted to convince judges on the 11th Circuit (he more or less said as much in the hearing before his ruling). But, these days, you still do need to worry that some confused judge will suddenly get infatuated with a dumb idea, and make a total mess of things. Even though to basically every expert this law is obviously unconstitutional, no one should breathe easy until after the courts have thoroughly stomped on its dead corpse and made that abundantly clear.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, florida, ron desantis, section 230, social media, social media law, strict scrutiny

Tesla Urged Chinese Government To Censor Critics In China

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Outside of the company's unwavering fanboys, it's fairly clear to most folks that the honeymoon phase of the planet's relationship with Tesla is coming to a close. Whether it's regulatory scrutiny of the company's premature and often inaccurate self-driving claims, the loss of significant emissions credits in the US and Europe, frustration at the often stupid shit that comes out of Elon Musks' mouth, legal issues related to the SolarCity acquisition, or major quality headaches related to the company's solar installations and cars alike, the bloom has, as they say, fallen from the rose.

That also extends to China, where Tesla's early successes appear to have hit a bit of a roadblock. Part of that roadblock recently emerged in the form of a massive recall of nearly every Tesla sold in China due to software issues. Responding to bipartisan US aggressiveness (see: TikTok), the Chinese government has also banned all Teslas from being used by government agencies, citing potential privacy natsec concerns. After initially rolling out the red carpet, Chinese officials have sharply shifted their tone over the better part of the last year.

As Bloomberg notes, genuine concerns about Tesla safety, government anger over Tesla hubris, and a souring US/China relationship appear to have fused into one big headache for the company:

"Tesla’s experience is “a warning shot that they need to stay between the lines, and not be so flamboyant in their success,” said Bill Russo, a former Chrysler executive who’s now chief executive officer of Automobility Ltd., a Shanghai-based consultancy. “You can’t be so far up front that you become arrogant in the way you conduct yourself.”...

Signals of a tougher stance toward Tesla came as early as February, when agencies including the State Administration for Market Regulation, China’s most important market watchdog, summoned executives to discuss what they said were quality and safety issues in Tesla vehicles, including reports of abnormal acceleration and battery fires. After the meeting, Tesla issued a statement so apologetic it verged on groveling, declaring it had “sincerely accepted the guidance of government departments” and “deeply reflected on shortcomings."

To counter the shift, Tesla has engaged in a massive new PR push on social platforms, and some newfound groveling at the feet of Chinese authorities. But Bloomberg buries a troubling part of said groveling in a throwaway sentence halfway into the story. Namely the fact that Tesla went so far as to ask the Chinese government to use its immense censorship apparatus to censor company critics online:

Previously focused on state-run media, Tesla is now trying to build relationships with auto-industry publications and influencers on platforms such as Weibo and WeChat, for example by inviting them on factory tours, and conducting group “discussion sessions” with policymakers, consumers, and media outlets. According to people familiar with the matter, it’s also complained to the government over what it sees as unwarranted attacks on social media, and asked Beijing to use its censorship powers to block some of the posts."

Asking the government to censor online criticism of your products isn't likely going to do much to shift public sentiment back in Tesla's favor. Again, Tesla's now facing what's probably a combination of legitimate anger over the company's documented hubris, exaggerated promises, and potential safety issues, fused with China's over-arching policy goal of empowering its own electric car makers (Nio, Xpeng) and countering growing US animosity. Combined, they've resulted in a 50% drop in new Tesla orders in China over just the last few weeks.

I get the sense in the coming year that Tesla (and its unwavering devotees) will focus entirely on the latter (the government is unfairly targeting us for being American!) and less on the obvious need, both overseas and here in the States, for a dramatic fix for the company's product quality issues, ridiculous hype, and less than flattering executive character flaws.

Filed Under: censorship, china, critics, elon musk, great firewall
Companies: tesla

Phones Backdoored By The FBI Are Being Sold To Unsuspecting People Just Wanting A Cheap Replacement Device

from the retooling-the-tools-of-the-trade dept

Now that it's been revealed the FBI -- along with an unnamed conspirator linked to encrypted phone development -- created a honeypot device to harvest communications between suspected criminals, the backdoored devices are making their debut in the (non-criminal) public domain.

Following the exposure of the FBI-created "Anom" chat service -- a backdoored service placed on secure phones supposedly only sold to members of large criminal organizations -- multiple law enforcement agencies announced the arrest of dozens of suspected criminals. The devices, however, are still out there. And they're showing up on classified ad sales sites and potentially suckering in people just looking for a cheap Android device.

Whatever the price is, you're getting screwed, as Joseph Cox reports for Motherboard.

Unlocking the Google Pixel 4a with a PIN code reveals some common apps: Tinder, Instagram, Facebook, Netflix, and even Candy Crush. But none of those apps work, and tapping their icons doesn't do anything. Resetting the phone and typing in another PIN opens up an entirely different section of the device, with a new background and new apps. Now in place of the old apps sit a clock, a calculator, and the device's settings.

Clicking the calculator doesn't open a calculator—it opens a login screen.

The devices have a sole purpose: to enable secure chats between owners of these devices. Their original usefulness was subverted by law enforcement agencies able to intercept the compromised communications. Now that they're ostensibly free of law enforcement meddling, they're equally useless. The only option is a chat app known to be a honeypot for law enforcement investigators. Whether or not they're still being monitored no longer matters. That the service itself is compromised makes it an untenable option.

If you want a phone that doesn't do phone stuff, these pre-compromised devices are an option, I guess.

"I bought this phone online, for ridiculously low price, now I understand why," that second person said. That person also provided Motherboard with photos and a video of their device. In that case, the Anom login screen appeared inaccessible, but other settings such as the decoy PIN code remained. "Probably this phone was used by some drug dealer :D," they said.

Hobbyists and other developers are trying to help people who've purchased phones that do nothing more than offer them the opportunity to share their communications with law enforcement agencies around the world. If they can get them to work like other Android devices, purchasers may find themselves with potentially more secure devices once they abandon the Anom app crafted by FBI agents.

There appears to be no way to activate location tracking (or turn it off, for that matter), suggesting these phones do not harvest this data. A built-in option allows for PIN scrambling that randomly rearranges digits to defeat shoulder surfing when detained perps input their passcodes. Users can also set up a wipe code that will wipe the device from the lockscreen or perform this task automatically if the phone is not logged into after a certain amount of time. This feature can be accessed from the status bar, making it ideal for quick deletion of incriminating content.

But those features can only be trusted if one assumes the limited OS is not also compromised. Given what we know about the built-in chat service, only the ignorant would assume any of these features would actually prevent investigators from recovering data.

So, if you're in the market for a pre-compromised phone, there are options out there. But most people looking for a cheap phone aren't going to be happy with the limitations of this device and even less so when they discover these are little more than an investigational tool for law enforcement agencies around the world.

Filed Under: anom, backdoors, doj, fbi, honeypots, resale market, used phones

Daily Deal: The Complete 2021 American Sign Language Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The need for American Sign Language speakers is continuing to rise. This Complete 2021 American Sign Language Bundle includes Level 1, 2, and 3 and a bonus course for free: baby sign language. Learn the basics from the sign language alphabet to more advanced signs, such as for medical emergencies. This bundle is exactly what you need to become confident in sign language for many situations. It's on sale for $20.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible

from the congress-made-companies-free-not-to-do-anything-to-encourage-censorship? dept

As you know, last week Donald Trump sued Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in ridiculously dumb cases (which seemed to only really serve the purpose of continuing his culture grievance war and to be used as a fundraising hook). In each case, they claimed (incorrectly) that the private companies violated the 1st Amendment by kicking Trump and others off the platform and that Section 230 itself was somehow unconstitutional.

Two days later, it appears that someone on the legal team realized that when you file a lawsuit claiming that a federal law is unconstitutional, you have to file a notice of constitutional question, which effectively alerts the DOJ/Attorney General that someone, somewhere is challenging the constitutionality of the law.

Trump has now done so with identical such filings for YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. The notice is as short and sweet as it is ridiculous:

1. Section 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) were deliberately enacted by Congress to induce, encourage, and promote social medial companies to accomplish an objective—the censorship of supposedly “objectionable” but constitutionally protected speech on the Internet—that Congress could not constitutionally accomplish itself.

2. Congress cannot lawfully induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Norwood v. Harrison, 413 US 455, 465 (1973).

3. Section 230(c)(2) is therefore unconstitutional on its face, and Section 230(c)(1) is likewise unconstitutional insofar as it has interpreted to immunize social media companies for actions, they take to censor constitutionally protected speech.

This argument has been made a few times, and it's incredibly dumb. The citation to Norwood is beyond silly for some very, very basic reasons. While it is true that the government "may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish," there is absolutely nothing in Section 230 that induces or encourages any action that is constitutionally forbidden.

Companies have every constitutional right to remove people who violate their terms of service. They have every constitutional right to say "I don't want to host your speech." None of that is constitutionally forbidden.

And nothing in Section 230 "induces" or "encourages" any behavior. What it says is that websites are free to moderate how they want, without fear of liability. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints from many (especially most of the early Section 230 lawsuits, and the Prodigy lawsuit that inspired Section 230 in the first place) was that without Section 230, websites would be much faster to remove all sorts of content out of fear of liability. If you're trying to induce websites to take down content that the government cannot force to be taken down, you don't do it by saying "you're not liable if you leave all that content up." That would be the dumbest inducement possible.

What still astounds me is that no one who is filing these lawsuits seems to recognize that if Section 230 were actually found unconstitutional, it would mean that websites would be much, much quicker to remove the likes of Donald Trump and his propaganda-spewing allies, because the risk of liability from lawsuit would be too great, and the 1st Amendment would still be around to protect their moderation choices.

And I won't even bother responding to the idea that 230 was put in place to encourage censorship on social media when social media... didn't exist when Section 230 was put in place.

Either way, it will be interesting to see if this move leads the DOJ to now get involved -- and what it will say in this case. After all, we (unfortunately) still have Joe Biden on record insisting that Section 230 should go away.

Filed Under: attorney general, constitutional, doj, donald trump, florida, notice of constitutional question, section 230
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

MAGA-Friendly Twitter Clone, GETTR, Coughs Up 90,000 User Email Addresses To Hackers

from the gettr-(un)done dept

GETTR, the Twitter clone created by former Trump advisor Jason Miller, seems to have rolled out just as smoothly as every other attempt to replace the social media service that's still inexplicably popular with people who claim to hate it for moderating their speech.

It's yet another "free speech" platform that claims it upholds the lofty ideals of allowing those banned from other, more functional sites to speak their minds… just as long as said mind speech does not include any of the following:

Without limitation, we may, but do not commit to, do so to address content that comes to our attention that we believe is offensive, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate, or to enforce the rights of third parties or these Terms or any applicable Additional Terms.

Just like Gab, Parler, and whatever the fuck the thing is that the MyPillow guy is doing, GETTR is finding out it has a host of moderation problems that can't easily be dealt with, especially when you've promised to not "censor" your users' speech.

On top of that, GETTR -- like the other platforms listed above -- seems to have been cobbled together somewhat incompetently and rolled out hastily, opening itself up to an unhealthy blend of toxic content, trolling (both expert and inexpert), and security stress testing from those interested in this new collection of user data.

GETTR, whose surprising surge of early users appears to be mostly a mirage created by the importation and deployment of Twitter data, is no exception to the Far Right Twitter Clone™ rule. Toxic content abounds, as do multiple trolling efforts that only add to the mess. And it appears that while GETTR claims it wants to protect speech, it doesn't care nearly as much about protecting speakers.

Hackers were able to scrape the email addresses and other data of more than 90,000 GETTR users.

On Tuesday, a user of a notorious hacking forum posted a database that they claimed was a scrape of all users of GETTR, the new social media platform launched last week by Trump’s former spokesman Jason Miller, who pitched it as an alternative to "cancel culture." The data seen by Motherboard includes email addresses, usernames, status, and location.

New platforms are often a bit leaky, usually thanks to the inexperience of those creating them. This is all part of the learning curve. But GETTR had some advance notice its uncensored ecosystem had some security problems, given that it was successfully breached on opening day.

On July 4, the day of the site' official launch, a hacker broke into and defaced some of the site's most prominent users, including its founder Jason Miller, former CIA director Mike Pompeo, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, and pro-Trump congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, as first reported by Insider.

Less than three days later, the platform was coaxed into coughing up user data. Not exactly a sign things are improving. The site's CEO says otherwise, claiming this scraping was related to the first breach, which allowed a hacker to deface several prominent accounts. Jason Miller claims the security hole has been closed and that GETTR "takes cybersecurity seriously."

Maybe so, but we'll see what happens. Alt-right Twitter also-rans Gab and Parler both gave up plenty of user data -- some of it proving instrumental in federal prosecutions -- and those sites had plenty of time to harden themselves against attackers. A quick patch of a service that seems to rely heavily on someone else's API to give the appearance the platform is heavily used is still a very tempting target, both for malicious hackers and those whose efforts are just another form of trolling. When your social media alternative is more performative than functional, little things like securing user data tend to be afterthoughts.

Filed Under: emails, hack, jason miller, scraping, security
Companies: gettr

Police Union Sues Kentucky City's Mayor, Claiming New No-Knock Warrant Ban Violates Its Bargaining Agreement

from the working-tirelessly-to-be-as-wrong-as-possible dept

The city of Lexington, Kentucky recently passed a ban on no-knock raids by the local police department. A long string of no-knock raids that have ended tragically likely contributed to this, but a recent high-profile raid in which a 26-year-old black ER technician was shot and killed by Louisville, Kentucky police officers probably hit closest to home.

In that raid, officers did not announce their presence. Bursting into the house, they were met by gunfire from one of the house's residents who thought he was being robbed. (He had called 911 prior to arming himself.) While the officers did knock, they apparently did not declare they were police officers before breaking down the door. The officers returned fire, killing Breonna Taylor. The entire thing was predicated on an drug investigation that appeared to be at least partially fabricated.

Lexington has its own experience with botched drug raids. A no-knock raid in 2015 terrorized the residents of the wrong house, most of whom thought they were being robbed. It wasn't until the residents were surrounded by officers pointing guns that the officers realized they had the wrong address. The push to end no-knock raids began then, prompting opposition from law enforcement.

Lexington police insist that no-knock warrants — that allow police to enter a residence without knocking or announcing — are used sparingly and are thoroughly vetted before they are carried out. Police Chief Lawrence Weathers said in a June presentation before the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council that no-knock warrants had been used four times in the last five years.

That's according to the police department, which did not release any documents that might have confirmed the chief's claims about the limited use of these raids. Following several months of anti-police violence protests -- along with more recent tragedies linked to no-knock raids, the city passed a ban on this form of warrant service. The new city ordinance mandates that police knock, announce their presence, and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before forcing entry.

Now the city and the mayor are being sued by the local police union.

The Fraternal Order of Police has filed a lawsuit against the mayor and the city over the recently passed no-knock warrant ban.

It was last Thursday when the city council approved the ban in a 10 to 5 vote. The lawsuit claims that the city violated its collective bargaining agreement with the FOP.

So, what is the legal footing the FOP hopes will overturn this ban? It's a very creative reading of the city's agreement with the police union. According to bylaws the city and PD agreed to, the PD is obliged to keep officers as safe as possible. After spending some time bitching about how city reps made no effort to "negotiate" with the union, it finally gets around to laying down its ridiculous argument [PDF]. Here it is:

Article 14, Section I of the Officer/Sergeant CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement] stipulates, "The Department will take precautions to safeguard the health and safety of Members during their hours of work and maintain standards of safety and sanitation."

[...]

The No-Knock Ordinance seriously endangers the health and safety of LPD Officers.

The No-Knock Ordinance prohibits LPD officers from seeking a lawful no-knock warrant, even when they objectively establish probable cause that requiring law enforcement to knock and announce their presence would increase the danger to the officers involved in executing the warrant.

The No-Knock Ordinance creates an extrajudicial "knock and announce" policy for all arrest and search warrants, devoid of any "precautions to safeguard the health and safety of [LPD Officers]."

It's not much of an argument. First, let's look at the police chief's statement. If the PD is only using these warrants about once a year, the loss of this one opportunity to surprise occupants isn't going to significantly increase the risk to officers.

If the chief was being dishonest about the frequency of no-knock warrant deployment, there's literally no evidence available anywhere that shows no-knock warrants are safer (for occupants, officers, or the general public) than regular knock-and-announce warrants.

No studies have examined the impact of banning no-knock warrants on key outcomes such as reducing fatalities and injuries of officers and members of the public. But evaluations of the impact of police raids, which typically involve no-knock warrants, on crime include two rigorous experiments. One study assessed the impact of randomly assigning city blocks in Kansas City, MO, to receive forcible police raids involving dramatic, highly visible armed entry while other blocks were subject to routine policing practices. Researchers found no statistically significant impacts on violent crime. Another study assessed the impact of randomized deployment of police paramilitary units to raid known Buffalo, NY, drug houses over a two-week period in 2012. Evaluators detected slight increases in calls for service and drug arrests following the raids, but no significant impacts on serious violent or property crimes.

A third evaluation employed a less rigorous methodology, examining 9,000 law enforcement agencies along with all of those in Maryland to compare outcomes in crime and officer assaults between agencies that established or eliminated a SWAT team during a period of time in the 2000s. The study found no statistically significant impact of SWAT deployment on either crime or officer assaults.

That comes from the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), whose membership includes several current and former police officials. It is not a font of anti-police activism. And it recommends ending the use of no-knock warrants and the use of plainclothes officers and/or the use of military uniforms during warrant service… to increase officer safety.

Unless they are engaged in covert operations, officers should be in standard dress uniform when executing warrants, particularly at premises that are known to be occupied, in order to be clearly identifiable as law enforcement and remove the impression that the execution of search warrants is a burglary (in the case of plainclothes officers) or military exercise (in the case of officers wearing battle uniforms). This practice minimizes the potential for officer harm from occupants using deadly force against assumed intruders. When a threat assessment determines that it is appropriate for a SWAT team to execute the warrant, those suitably attired and equipped officers should execute the warrant.

There's nothing out there showing ending no-knock raids would make officers less safe. It certainly would make the residents of houses raided safer. Many of those inside houses being raided are suspected of no criminal activity. This includes children who just happen to live in homes targeted (sometimes mistakenly) by officers who appear to believe catching kids in the crossfire is just acceptable collateral damage in the War on Drugs.

According to a New York Times study, no-knock raids involving SWAT-style tactics have led to the deaths of at least 100 people since 2010. Some of these are deaths of children, like seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones in Detroit who was shot in the head by police during a SWAT raid while she was sleeping next to her grandmother

[...]

Reports of botched raids show that no-knock warrants are used for an array of activities that simply do not justify the level of intrusion and inherent risk involved. Indeed, they have been deployed on high school students, in simple drug possession cases, and even for unpaid utility bills.

When the FOP argues in favor of no-knock raids, it's arguing for continuing the escalating trend of police violence.

There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000 (Kraska, 2001). The trend-line demonstrated that this growth began during the drug war of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The city's ordinance is trying to slow that roll. And it should make officers safer, whether they believe it will or not. Just because everyone calls it the "war on drugs" doesn't mean PDs should erect paramilitary forces that treat regular warrant service like an assault on enemy territory. The FOP is suing because the cops its represents love the violence, the culture, and the opportunity to feel like they're fighting a battle, rather than serving and protecting. Hopefully the court will point out that the city has the power to impose rules like this that do not directly violate the bylaws of the bargaining agreement.

Filed Under: kentucky, lexington, lexington police department, no knock warrants, police union

Broadcom Gets a Wrist Slap For Monopolizing Cable Box, Modem Markets

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

While most folks didn't notice ahead of the holiday weekend, the FTC on Friday announced it would be giving chipmaker Broadcom a bit of a wrist slap after the agency found it had become an "illegal monopoly." In the FTC's complaint (pdf), the agency notes that Broadcom "illegally monopolized" both the cable modem/gateway and cable set top box markets by preventing its customers from buying products from other vendors. It did this by forcing both OEMs and service providers into long-term agreements that prevented them from purchasing chips from Broadcom's competitors, then bullying them if they went off script:

"These agreements required customers to purchase, use or bid Broadcom’s chips on an exclusive or near-exclusive basis. Broadcom entered these exclusivity and loyalty agreements with at least ten OEMs, including those with the most extensive engineering and design capabilities and the strongest ties to service providers. And Broadcom entered similar agreements with major U.S. and other service providers. By entering exclusivity and loyalty agreements with key customers at two levels of the supply chain, Broadcom created insurmountable barriers for companies trying to compete with Broadcom."

The charges follow similar accusations in Europe. As we've long noted, the cable set box market has long been a monopolized mess on several layers. One, on the way Broadcom controls chipsets. But also in the way that cable giants generate $21 billion annually forcing consumers to rent cable boxes that would be far cheaper to buy outright. Fortunately streaming has put a dent in at least some aspects of this problem, even though cable TV with a traditional set top box remains the dominant delivery avenue for television for now (Broadcom also provides chipsets for streaming hardware).

According to the FTC Broadcom won't be seeing any financial penalty for its efforts to monopolize the modem and cable box chipset market, but a new FTC order (pdf) bans the company from doing so moving forward (for however long the FTC can bother to pay attention):

"Under the proposed consent order, Broadcom will be prohibited from entering into certain types of exclusivity or loyalty agreements with its customers for the supply of key chips for traditional broadcast set top boxes and DSL and fiber broadband internet devices. Broadcom also must stop conditioning access to or requiring favorable supply terms for these chips on customers committing to exclusivity or loyalty for the supply of related chips. And the proposed order prohibits Broadcom from retaliating against customers for doing business with Broadcom’s competitors."

The 4-0-1 vote (new FTC boss Lina Khan did not participate) is just a small dent in a larger problem in both telecom, cable, and the shifting cable TV market. Namely the lack of overall competition in broadband (which opens the door to unnecessary usage caps and other dodgy efforts to hamstring streaming competitors), as well as persistent gatekeeper issues, like the ongoing practice of forcing consumers to shell out thousands in rental fees for crappy cable set top boxes and streaming hardware alike.

Filed Under: antitrust, cable modem, cable set top box, competition, ftc, monopoly

Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'

from the this-deputy-should-be-neutered-and-assigned-a-caretaker dept

Let us gaze again in shock at the pathetic weakness of powerful people, unable to handle targeted criticism without resorting to violating people's rights. That's right, we're talking about cops again.

Certain states have added law enforcement officers to the list of protected groups that can benefit from hate crime laws. Cops are historically a very powerful group. They have not been oppressed in any way since the inception of law enforcement -- an idea that really took off when slave owners wished to see their dehumanizing, minimal investments protected.

Hello, Utah. What the actual fuck? (via C.J. Ciaramella and Reason)

A 19-year-old Utah woman has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign in front of a police officer, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

According to an affidavit obtained by the Tribune, a Garfield County Sheriff's deputy was conducting a traffic stop at a gas station in Panguitch, Utah, on Wednesday when he saw the woman "stomping on a 'Back the Blue' sign next to where the traffic stop was conducted, crumble it up in a destructive manner and throw it into a trash can all while smirking in an intimidating manner towards me."

"Crumbled [sic] it up in a destructive manner." YE GODS! Surely the anarchist apocalypse is upon us. Behold this deputy and their inability to handle being "smirked" at in an "intimidating manner."

After reading the woman her Miranda rights, the officer stated she gave “inconsistent stories” about where she found the sign, eventually stating she found it on the ground.

“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.

OMFG. This is the reaction prompted by the "defacement" of a sign that contains nothing more than a pithless catchphrase popular with the nation's bootlickiest demograph. Grow up, Deputy Dawg. If you're intimidated by crumpled signs and smirks, you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun and enforce laws. Bad things will happen. This bullshit arrest might be, unfortunately, the best case scenario.

Destroying property to "intimidate or terrorize" is a crime in Utah. But it doesn't appear offended cops are specific beneficiaries of this law.

According to the code, the act “must be accompanied with the intent to cause or has the effect of causing a person to reasonably fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

I doubt this act infringed on the deputy's constitutional rights. The officer could not have possibly felt threatened to the extent their rights would have been curtailed. The evidence is right there. If the deputy felt so threatened they could not exercise their rights, this arrest wouldn't have happened. The perp (as it were) would have left the scene, still smirking and commenting on the ineffectual nature of this 21st century Barney Fife.

This pathetic horseshit all began with a traffic stop, as law enforcement horseshit normally does.

On Wednesday, a Garfield County sheriff’s deputy pulled over a car at a gas station in Panguitch for speeding. After the driver was issued a ticket and the traffic stop was completed, the deputy noticed several friends consoling the driver, according to a police booking affidavit.

Looks like someone unlawfully extended a stop to exact revenge on people the deputy felt weren't properly respectful of law enforcement.

“I stated to (the woman) that our sheriff’s office produced those specific signs and that I believed she had acquired it in our community,” the deputy wrote, adding that he checked with gas station employees who said the sign was not theirs. After reading her Miranda rights, the deputy said the woman provided “inconsistent stories” and eventually said she had found it on the ground.

Hey, maybe get out of the sign-making business, you clods. This sounds like the misuse of taxpayer funds. The sheriff is there to enforce the law, not ensure the populace is properly cowed by artisanal bootlickery. That this ever resulted in criminal charges is ridiculous. That these charges came with hate charge enhancements because of some crumpling and smirking is farcical.

Hopefully, the charges will be dropped before any other Garfield county government agencies embarrass themselves any further. But who knows? This is Utah, a state where legislators want to strip protections from social media services and consider porn to be something as harmful to public health as the coronavirus.

This is a lawsuit in the making. Given the courts' full-blooded support for criticizing police officers via even the crudest of gestures, this deputy appears headed for a reckoning that can't be swatted away with invocations of qualified immunity.

Filed Under: back the blue, free speech, hate crime, police, utah