Tweet
Think Progress reports that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that police can secretly videotape the inside of your home without a warrant.
The case involves an undercover officer who entered a suspect’s home under false pretenses (claiming to be an interested buyer of contraband bald eagle feathers and pelts), carrying a concealed video camera. The footage from that camera was used as evidence in the suspect’s prosecution.
The suspect claimed that the method for gathering the footage constituted a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and that the evidence should have been suppressed. The court ruled that because what was revealed to the undercover officer during his visit was in plain sight, the fact that he was secretly recording it is irrelevant.
Earlier this year, Iowa and Utah became the latest states to approve “Ag Gag laws” that criminalize undercover investigations of animal abuse on factory farms. When activists enter a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation under false pretenses (usually by getting hired) for the purpose of secretly videotaping the daily gratuitous atrocities committed against pigs, cows, chickens and other livestock, their conduct in states with Ag Gag laws is criminal. The FBI has recommended they be prosecuted as terrorists.
So:
Cops lying about their identities and shooting undercover videos in your house = no problem.
Animal rights activists lying about their identities and shooting undercover videos of animal abuse on factory farms = terrorism.
That is all.
Photo by pursuethepassion under Creative Commons license.
17 Comments
I haven’t followed these court cases. Were there juries? I ask because a comment in hotflashcarol’s recent diary Saving the Redwoods, Saving Ourselves sent me on a trip to Judi Bari’s trial. Who was she? Bari and others were organizing in 1990 to save the redwoods from logging, and a bomb went off in her car, severely injuring her, and instead of looking for the bomber the FBI arrested her and said she and her passenger were terrorists transporting bomb material. Like– what? So Bari and her passenger filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the FBI and the Oakland police. And the jury found… well, here’s a link: http://www.judibari.org/jurors_talk.html “FBI and cops lied”
I remember reading the same thing about Kent State. After the National Guard killed the students, the FBI investigated Kent State students for civil rights violations.
Something’s wrong. Is a jury the only way in the system to check and correct abuses of the police and federal investigators? Abuses which are, after all, done in the name of and using the authority of the people?
I haven’t followed these court cases. Were there juries? I ask because a comment in hotflashcarol’s recent diary Saving the Redwoods, Saving Ourselves sent me on a trip to Judi Bari’s trial. Who was she? Bari and others were organizing in 1990 to save the redwoods from logging, and a bomb went off in her car, severely injuring her, and instead of looking for the bomber the FBI arrested her and said she and her passenger were terrorists transporting bomb material. Like– what? So Bari and her passenger filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the FBI and the Oakland police. And the jury found… well, here’s a link: h t t p : / / w w w . j u d i b a r i . o r g / j u r o r s _ t a l k . h t m l “FBI and cops lied”
I remember reading the same thing about Kent State. After the National Guard killed the students, the FBI investigated Kent State students for civil rights violations.
Something’s wrong. Is a jury the only way in the system to check and correct abuses of the police and federal investigators? Abuses which are, after all, done in the name of and using the authority of the people.
Just want to say, that when I don’t put all the spaces in that link, the comment disappears when I hit submit. What authority would the FBI or police or whoever use to disappear comments on an internet board like this?
More on Judi Bari from this post last month: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/11/01/50000-reward-for-information-leading-to-arrest-of-who-bombed-judy-bari/
Given that RaggMopp is known to be snide, facetious, sarcastic, and condescending, I nevertheless, hope this comment will help. To your remark,
“Something’s wrong. Is a jury the only way in the system to check and correct abuses of the police and federal investigators? Abuses which are, after all, done in the name of and using the authority of the people.”
I reply, yes.
Why do you think the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is such a precious part of your heritage?
Leighton, do we seem to smell the influence of money in these Ag. Gag laws in Iowa and Utah?
Oh, “The FBI has recommended they be prosecuted as terrorists.” seems very out of character for the FBI. Doesn’t it?
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling sets a precedent that can be used to challenge the Ag Gag laws.
Want to know what they do to your meat before it dies? Too bad!
Those reasons why it’s good to be a vegetarian keep piling up!
(assuming that this comment shows up) Awesome diary entry, thanks for keeping us informed!
I also tried the same thing as thatvisionthing (in terms of posting the link given in comment #1, and I got the same result. I copied and pasted it back in and retried, then got a database error. I’m going to try a different link to see if other links are working here.
Other link test:
http://www.austinwildliferescue.org/index.html
What it be is. Undercover ops against private citizens – fine.
Undercover ops against capitalist – not fine.
thank you for this post.
this censorship + repression of free speech is truly grotesque -
as grotesque as factory farms.
Fascism by another name. Texas, a few years back, passed a law that said disparaging beef was a crime.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com
Excellent report, thank you!
Not sure how I feel about the ag-gag laws; but in any case, I think there is a difference in an officer of the law doing an undercover investigation, and an individual invading your privacy while acting on their personal values and agendas.
Forward!
yep.
Forwarded. Great diary.
Could you elaborate a little for your comment. The policeman was looking for evidence and lied to get it by invading the defendants home under a false reason. If there was actual reason to do that, a search warrant could have been issued. The outcome is that if the police accuse you, you have no rights. Again, please explain your comment.