The Dallas News reported this week that Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle fired another officer involved in the so-called "sheetrock" scandal. Don't give the chief too much credit, though. He didn't pull the trigger until after David Larsen was actually indicted by the grand jury, nearly three years after allegations first surfaced. The District Attorney accused Larsen of evidence tampering and forgery charges that possibly stem from fraudulently drawing down confidential informant payments.
Friday, December 17, 2004
What Do Texas and Fallujah Have In Common?
Grits reported this week that a Texas legislative committee has proposed gathering new biometric facial recognition data on all Texas drivers license and ID card holders. In Iraq, Fallujah residents, too, must now get iris scans and carry biometric identification cards. Those who don't may be shot under the Marines' rules of engagement.
Do you suppose those biometric ID cards are instruments of political control, or perhaps the Marines are protecting Fallujans from fraud?
For more on the Texas proposal, see the Grits series 'Biometric Blues,' first, second, and third stanzas.
Hat tip: Freedom is Slavery. UPDATE: AP coverage of Fallujah ID cards.
Do you suppose those biometric ID cards are instruments of political control, or perhaps the Marines are protecting Fallujans from fraud?
For more on the Texas proposal, see the Grits series 'Biometric Blues,' first, second, and third stanzas.
Hat tip: Freedom is Slavery. UPDATE: AP coverage of Fallujah ID cards.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
TX House Committee: End Drug Task Force System!
UPDATE: This bill passed. See Grits' analysis of the final legislation here.
Terrific news! If the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee in the Texas House of Representatives gets its way, the long saga that began with the infamous Tulia drug stings could end next spring with the abolition of the network of Texas drug task forces paid for by the federal "Byrne grant" funding stream.
The just-released Interim Report (pdf, see pp 39-43) of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee demands an end to Texas' regional narcotics task force system as we know it:
"Continuing to sanction task force operations as stand-alone law enforcement entities - with widespread authority to operate at will across multiple jurisdictional lines - should not continue. The current approach violates practically every sound principle of police oversight and accountability applicable to narcotics interdiction."
Wow! That's strong language condemning Texas' network of drug task forces financed by the federal Byrne grant program. The committee, led by Republican former Travis County Sheriff Chairman Terry Keel, R-Austin, minced few words in its unanimous rebuff of the task force system.
Texas' Byrne grant spending priorities, the committee observed, focus too much on enforcement compared to the national and state drug demand reduction strategies, "which place prevention and treatment programs ahead of enforcement."
Exactly right. Nationally, around 40% of all Byrne grant funds go to pay for drug task forces -- in Texas, that figure was 86% in 2004, the report noted.
What that money has bought the state, though, is a lot of trouble. "The authority of DPS to monitor and enforce [its] policies is questionable," the report finds, and numerous, embarrassing scandals besides the Tulia episode have occurred. "This problem has been exacerbated by a lack of clear accountability for addressing misconduct, with the task force officer often unaccountable to any traditional, local chain of command or accountable elected official."
Reform efforts so far, the report noted, haven't solved the problem.
"Task force operations throughout the state were placed under DPS command [in 2002] in an attempt to instill some professional consistency into task force operations in response to numerous scandals. The Department of Public Safety oversight improved the professionalism of the operations. However, even after the change, scandals continued."
Reading the report, it's easy to see why. "One of the problems has been that participating officers from various agencies are not supervised by their own agency's chain of command, have little or no contact for long periods of time with their superiors, remain in an undercover capacity for periods longer than that recommended for such operations, and thus do not operate under even minimal standards mandated by most law enforcement agencies in the United States for narcotics operations."
In other words, the committee thinks the problems that allowed Tom Coleman to run loose in Tulia have not been resolved.
For all that they're right on their criticisms, the committee's proposed recommendation on task forces strikes me as odd. They want to require that officers operating outside their jurisdiction basically do so operating under the buddy system with local officers, which, the report argues, would effectively end task force operations as they currently exist.
That's well and good, but it doesn't address the failure to spend Byrne grants on prevention and treatment, closer in line with national and state drug demand reduction priorities. The committee said that if the task force system were abolished, Byrne grant money "could" continue to be spent on law enforcement instead of treatment. I wish they'd recommended more strongly that the money be shifted to those other programs.
Overall, though, the committee recommendation represents a tidal shift in thinking at the Texas Legislature regarding drug enforcement. To even contemplate shifting resources from enforcement to prevention and treatment would not have been taken seriously before the Tulia scandals. "Although the Tulia case brought national attention to the issue of task forces," the committee noted, "and prompted the legislature in 2003 to intervene to free the final 13 people who were still behind bars, this case is by no means an isolated incident, a fact which has propelled the debate on the wisdom of continuing to utilize such task forces as a means to enforce drug laws."
It's a testament to how deeply to its core the Tulia case has shaken the Texas criminal justice system, that its reverberations have so transformed public and now legislative opinion.
For more background, see also: Byrne task forces not just a Texas problem; Drug task force support dwindling, Racial Profiling in Palestine, Profile of a Gypsy Cop, and Local officials miss the boat on Byrne grant funding.
Terrific news! If the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee in the Texas House of Representatives gets its way, the long saga that began with the infamous Tulia drug stings could end next spring with the abolition of the network of Texas drug task forces paid for by the federal "Byrne grant" funding stream.
The just-released Interim Report (pdf, see pp 39-43) of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee demands an end to Texas' regional narcotics task force system as we know it:
"Continuing to sanction task force operations as stand-alone law enforcement entities - with widespread authority to operate at will across multiple jurisdictional lines - should not continue. The current approach violates practically every sound principle of police oversight and accountability applicable to narcotics interdiction."
Wow! That's strong language condemning Texas' network of drug task forces financed by the federal Byrne grant program. The committee, led by Republican former Travis County Sheriff Chairman Terry Keel, R-Austin, minced few words in its unanimous rebuff of the task force system.
Texas' Byrne grant spending priorities, the committee observed, focus too much on enforcement compared to the national and state drug demand reduction strategies, "which place prevention and treatment programs ahead of enforcement."
Exactly right. Nationally, around 40% of all Byrne grant funds go to pay for drug task forces -- in Texas, that figure was 86% in 2004, the report noted.
What that money has bought the state, though, is a lot of trouble. "The authority of DPS to monitor and enforce [its] policies is questionable," the report finds, and numerous, embarrassing scandals besides the Tulia episode have occurred. "This problem has been exacerbated by a lack of clear accountability for addressing misconduct, with the task force officer often unaccountable to any traditional, local chain of command or accountable elected official."
Reform efforts so far, the report noted, haven't solved the problem.
"Task force operations throughout the state were placed under DPS command [in 2002] in an attempt to instill some professional consistency into task force operations in response to numerous scandals. The Department of Public Safety oversight improved the professionalism of the operations. However, even after the change, scandals continued."
Reading the report, it's easy to see why. "One of the problems has been that participating officers from various agencies are not supervised by their own agency's chain of command, have little or no contact for long periods of time with their superiors, remain in an undercover capacity for periods longer than that recommended for such operations, and thus do not operate under even minimal standards mandated by most law enforcement agencies in the United States for narcotics operations."
In other words, the committee thinks the problems that allowed Tom Coleman to run loose in Tulia have not been resolved.
For all that they're right on their criticisms, the committee's proposed recommendation on task forces strikes me as odd. They want to require that officers operating outside their jurisdiction basically do so operating under the buddy system with local officers, which, the report argues, would effectively end task force operations as they currently exist.
That's well and good, but it doesn't address the failure to spend Byrne grants on prevention and treatment, closer in line with national and state drug demand reduction priorities. The committee said that if the task force system were abolished, Byrne grant money "could" continue to be spent on law enforcement instead of treatment. I wish they'd recommended more strongly that the money be shifted to those other programs.
Overall, though, the committee recommendation represents a tidal shift in thinking at the Texas Legislature regarding drug enforcement. To even contemplate shifting resources from enforcement to prevention and treatment would not have been taken seriously before the Tulia scandals. "Although the Tulia case brought national attention to the issue of task forces," the committee noted, "and prompted the legislature in 2003 to intervene to free the final 13 people who were still behind bars, this case is by no means an isolated incident, a fact which has propelled the debate on the wisdom of continuing to utilize such task forces as a means to enforce drug laws."
It's a testament to how deeply to its core the Tulia case has shaken the Texas criminal justice system, that its reverberations have so transformed public and now legislative opinion.
For more background, see also: Byrne task forces not just a Texas problem; Drug task force support dwindling, Racial Profiling in Palestine, Profile of a Gypsy Cop, and Local officials miss the boat on Byrne grant funding.
No smiling!
Hey, you. No smiling! And quit walking funny. We've got important biometric measurements to take.
As the push toward expanded use of biometric technologies rolls forward, the State Department decrees no smiling in passport photos, while scientists try to identify individuals from their walking gait. For what's going on in Texas, see the Grits for Breakfast series, "Biometric Blues," Stanzas One, Two and Three.
As the push toward expanded use of biometric technologies rolls forward, the State Department decrees no smiling in passport photos, while scientists try to identify individuals from their walking gait. For what's going on in Texas, see the Grits for Breakfast series, "Biometric Blues," Stanzas One, Two and Three.
Biometric Blues, Third Stanza
Do you like to have your picture taken?
Grits wrote Tuesday about two Texas legislative initiatives -- secret government surveillance cameras, which were approved in the 78th Texas Legislature in 2003, and gathering biometric "facial recognition" data about law-abiding Texans, which is the top priority of the House Defense Affairs Committee in their recently released Interim Report (pdf), heading into the 79th Legislature next year.
Kuff has been writing recently about the third leg of the surveillance stool -- the mass proliferation of surveillance cameras in public spaces, often under the pretense of traffic enforcement. Houston's proposal to install traffic cameras to ticket red-light runners is being billed as a traffic safety and revenue generation initiative, but Kuff is right to worry that if biometric data becomes available on average citizens, the cameras also pose major privacy concerns.
Grits wrote Tuesday about two Texas legislative initiatives -- secret government surveillance cameras, which were approved in the 78th Texas Legislature in 2003, and gathering biometric "facial recognition" data about law-abiding Texans, which is the top priority of the House Defense Affairs Committee in their recently released Interim Report (pdf), heading into the 79th Legislature next year.
Kuff has been writing recently about the third leg of the surveillance stool -- the mass proliferation of surveillance cameras in public spaces, often under the pretense of traffic enforcement. Houston's proposal to install traffic cameras to ticket red-light runners is being billed as a traffic safety and revenue generation initiative, but Kuff is right to worry that if biometric data becomes available on average citizens, the cameras also pose major privacy concerns.
After all, if the cameras have resolution high enough to capture license plate numbers from a moving car, they're sharp enough to capture someone's face through the windshield, and once the Texas Department of Public Safety has biometric data on every driver, in theory, government will be able to identify you from those pictures.
I know, it sounds crazy, like a scene from the futuristic movie where Tom Cruise walks through the mall and stores use biometric facial recognition to target him with ads. Just because you're paranoid, though, doesn't mean no one's out to get you. A major European Union study called An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control concluded that, “much of this [surveillance] technology is [in fact] used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders and political opponents.”
For example, “The cameras used in Tiananmen Square were sold as advanced traffic control systems by Siemens Plessey. Yet after the 1989 massacre of students, there followed a witch hunt when the authorities tortured and interrogated thousands in an effort to ferret out the subversives. The Scoot surveillance system with USA made Pelco cameras were used to faithfully record the protests. The images were repeatedly broadcast over Chinese television offering a reward for information, with the result that nearly all the transgressors were identified. ... Foreign companies are exporting traffic control systems to Lhasa in Tibet, yet Lhasa does not as yet have any traffic control problems.”
If the Chinese government had biometric facial recognition technology, like the House Defense Affairs Committee wants, they wouldn't have had to offer rewards, or ever reveal how they were using their traffic cameras. They could have just secretly identified the dissidents from their pictures and rounded them up.
Great Britain has become the most surveilled country in the world, largely in response to IRA terrorism. Dr Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong of the Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice at Hull University, UK, authored a study of the British experience called The Unforgiving Eye: CCTV Surveillance in Public Spaces, in which they found:
- 40% of people were targeted for "no obvious reason", mainly "on the basis of belonging to a particular or subcultural group."
- "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population." Thirty percent of targeted surveillances on black people were protracted, lasting 9 minutes or more, compared with just 10% on white people.
- Those deemed to be "out of time and out of place" with the commercial image of city centre streets were subjected to prolonged surveillance. "Thus drunks, beggars, the homeless, street traders were all subject to intense surveillance".
- One out of ten women were targeted for “voyeuristic” reasons by the male camera operators.
- "Finally, anyone who directly challenged, by gesture or deed, the right of the cameras to monitor them was especially subject to targeting."
The Texas House of Representatives resoundingly rejected giving tickets based on red light cameras last year in a 104-33 floor vote. Then, Rep. Linda Harper Brown amended a separate, unrelated bill with language that, the Garland and Houston legal departments believe, allows cities to use cameras for tickets that are civil fines, like parking tickets, not Class C criminal penalties like the ones officers usually give red ligh runners.
Her amendment was pretty sneaky; she should expect a backlash. I watched that vote live, and the Texas House didn't just vote down that bill - members stomped on its grave on the House floor. Some offered humiliating amendments to ridicule it, ultimately including one by Rep. David Swinford that would have only allowed cameras to be used in towns with fewer than 50 residents! I think Rep. Swinford, Gary Elkins, and quite a few others may make it a personal mission to ensure Harper Brown's language doesn't stand.
In many cities, though, like Austin, the cameras are already up, and police may use them for nefarious purposes, even if the Legislature disallows using them to ticket drivers.
See also Biometric Blues, and Biometric Blues, Second Stanza. Thanks to Laurel for research done to oppose this bill in 2003.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Texas papers with RSS feeds
Grits tries to be a good source for Texas criminal justice news and analysis, but information doesn't drop out of the sky. More of it should, though. The ever-useful ResearchBuzz! pointed me to a list compiled by The Media Drop of 154 newspapers with RSS feeds. It includes several in Texas, and shows the whole RSS idea is moving way beyond blogs, really quick. Texas papers need to get in the game.
For starters. the Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston Business Journals all have RSS feeds. Of the major Texas dailies, though, only the Dallas News has RSS set up. Theirs are broken up into smaller feeds by city, but there was no Metro feed, which is what I was really looking for -- if I want to click on something different for each city, that's what their web page does!
The Denton Record-Chronicle, like the Morning News, a Belo Corp. affiliate, also has feeds. So does the Galveston Daily News, though the feed link for news wasn't working when I checked this a.m. A&M's school paper, The Battalion, has an RSS feed; so does The Daily Texan, but it wasn't on the list (I left a comment with The Media Drop).
The Austin Statemsan, the Houston Chronicle, the San Antonio Express-News and the El Paso Times need to get on the ball. Ditto for the Austin Chronicle, Dallas Observer and Houston Press, which are free, anyway, for God's sake. Now that more Americans are getting their information from the web, those information sources that don't make their stuff accessible are getting left behind.
For my non-geeky friends who don't know what I'm talking about, RSS feeds provide streaming content from blogs and now news sources to other websites or to personal RSS feed readers. Grits' site feed is linked here, and in the column on the right. If you have a personalized MyYahoo! account, you can add RSS feeds using their beta reader by going here. Adina turned me onto Bloglines, an RSS reader with great plug-ins that work with the Mozilla Firefox browser.
Another research note: Search Engine Watch reported a new service last month called reCap that allows searchable access to Congressional debates ten minutes after they occur (SEW also listed searchable transcripts of other TV news sources like PBS NewsHour and Washington Week in Review). Texas legislative debates and committee hearings are televised, the video already gets on the web live, and surely it's already closed captioned for the hearing impaired (I looked on the site, though, and maybe not); why couldn't the website for the Texas Legislature do the same?
For starters. the Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston Business Journals all have RSS feeds. Of the major Texas dailies, though, only the Dallas News has RSS set up. Theirs are broken up into smaller feeds by city, but there was no Metro feed, which is what I was really looking for -- if I want to click on something different for each city, that's what their web page does!
The Denton Record-Chronicle, like the Morning News, a Belo Corp. affiliate, also has feeds. So does the Galveston Daily News, though the feed link for news wasn't working when I checked this a.m. A&M's school paper, The Battalion, has an RSS feed; so does The Daily Texan, but it wasn't on the list (I left a comment with The Media Drop).
The Austin Statemsan, the Houston Chronicle, the San Antonio Express-News and the El Paso Times need to get on the ball. Ditto for the Austin Chronicle, Dallas Observer and Houston Press, which are free, anyway, for God's sake. Now that more Americans are getting their information from the web, those information sources that don't make their stuff accessible are getting left behind.
For my non-geeky friends who don't know what I'm talking about, RSS feeds provide streaming content from blogs and now news sources to other websites or to personal RSS feed readers. Grits' site feed is linked here, and in the column on the right. If you have a personalized MyYahoo! account, you can add RSS feeds using their beta reader by going here. Adina turned me onto Bloglines, an RSS reader with great plug-ins that work with the Mozilla Firefox browser.
Another research note: Search Engine Watch reported a new service last month called reCap that allows searchable access to Congressional debates ten minutes after they occur (SEW also listed searchable transcripts of other TV news sources like PBS NewsHour and Washington Week in Review). Texas legislative debates and committee hearings are televised, the video already gets on the web live, and surely it's already closed captioned for the hearing impaired (I looked on the site, though, and maybe not); why couldn't the website for the Texas Legislature do the same?
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Oppose FBI Spying
Last week Grits described two Texas cases of government spying on peaceful activists, and a recent spate of open records requests in ten states by the American Civil Liberties Union on the topic. Now, ACLU has put out an action alert this afternoon encouraging Congress to reject new FBI spying powers that were assumed under outgoing U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Use it, then come back here and read about biometrics and secret police cameras, below.
Biometric Blues, Second Stanza
Earlier today, as near as I can tell, Grits broke the story that the Texas House Defense Affairs Committee made gathering biometric data during driver's license applications its #1 recommendation in its Interim Report (pdf), headed into the 79th Texas Legislaure.
To understand how bad that would be, you have to understand what civil libertarians LOST in the 78th Legislature. Together with bad laws already passed, legislative plans for instant one-to-many facial recognition systems would expand large-scale, secret government surveillance of Texans beyond the realm of science fiction to full-blown reality.
"Biometric identifiers" are statistical data about your face, body or voice that can be used to identify you from a photograph, video, or tape recording.
Developments in digital video, infrared, x-ray, wireless, global positioning satellite systems, biometrics, image scanning, voice recognition, DNA, and brain wave fingerprinting provide government with new ways to "search" individuals and collect vast databases of information on law-abiding Texans.
The founding fathers never thought about these kinds of "searches" when drafting the Fourth Amendment, but we have to think about them now.
Meanwhile, since 9-11, the use of surveillane cameras has skyrocketed. Last year, DPS and the University of Texas pushed for an amendment to make "locations, specifications and operating procedures" related to security cameras closed records. That means the public can't know where government cameras are, whether the camera can zoom, rotate or see through clothing, who has access to it, or what the government does with video it collects.
University of Texas lobbyists pushed the amendment, which is worded precisely like an open records request from the Daily Texan that UT fought in court. UT sued Attorney General Greg Abbott unsuccessfully to keep secret the locations of surveillance cameras it uses to monitor students. Failing in court, UT turned to the Legislature, spending taxpayer and tuition money to lobby for secret surveillance.
The House passed the bill without making camera locations secret, but Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, the Senate bill sponsor, added UT's language and wrapped the whole thing into HB 9, the governor's homeland security bill.
The only hat tip toward openness: The Senate voted for an amendment so that LEGISLATORS and government bureaucrats in private offices could know if THEY were being surveilled. Really, I couldn't make this stuff up.
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst's homeland security task force recommended that anti-terrorism efforts must be "consistent with the protection of all civil liberties." Secret government surveillance cameras that identify individuals from videotape using massive, centralized databases surely don't fit that description. Given the alleged speed of biometric identification software and the proliferation of cameras at intersections and elsewhere, literally every Texan with a driver's license could be identified and tracked everywhere we go in our daily lives, without any pretense of probable cause.
If the Defense Affairs Committee recommendation passes, current law won't stop this privacy invasion -- the only way to keep such systems from being abused is to never create them.
In Michigan, police used video cameras to spy inside public restrooms, and used a law enforcement database to stalk women, threaten motorists and settle scores. The database was improperly used to check out attractive women officers spotted on the road, along with ex-wives and even colleagues.
In Washington DC, an officer responsible for investigating extortion plots used surveillance databases to gather information on people visiting gay bars, then blackmailed them with threats to inform their employers and cuckolded spouses.
With camera information already secret, the biometric identifiers needed to spot an individual from video, and instant "one-to-many" image search capability via government databases, what's to stop similar or worse abuses in Texas?
Unless the Legislature revisits the question, secret surveillance cameras are the current legal reality. By collecting biometric identifiers on every driver and ID card holder - Texans suddenly will live in a place where law enforcement can monitor and track individuals virtually wherever we go in public. No longer will surveillance videos be anonymous - a database could match faces, fingerprints or even voiceprints to names, addresses or even credit reports as we go through our daily lives.
The only reason such proposals are remotely viable is sort of a latent, baseline level of public fear still lingering after 9-11. Speaking for the biometrics bill on the floor of the 78th Legislature, Rep. Warren Chisum declared, "This is Big Brother watching over your safety." The line received guffaws in the House, but that's really the only argument you hear from the Big Government Conservatives pushing biometrics.
George Orwell coined the term "Big Brother" to describe a futuristic vision of Eastern Bloc totalitarianism at the height of the Cold War. But changes in technology have made possible a world where Big Brother isn't just a story. It could become a day-to-day reality for Texans. And it could happen quietly, easily, without much fanfare and commotion - with just a few tweaks to the law.
Want a glimpse of the future? This web site is marketing $150 cameras called the "Police Force" that see through clothing; the picture is on a page marketing directly to police:
If the Defense Affairs Committee proposal passes, an officer could see this woman on a secret camera then look up her home address and phone number, or even information with which to blackmail her. Creepy.
See Biometric Blues
UPDATE: See also Biometric Blues, Third Stanza
Biometric Blues
Should Texans have to give up "facial recognition" data and all ten fingerprints -- just like they were being booked into the county jail -- in order to get a driver's license?
Chairman Frank Corte, Rep. Leo Berman, and a majority of the Texas House Defense Affairs Committee say ''Yes." That committee's #1 recommendation in its Interim Report (pdf) heading into the 79th Legislature is to allow the Texas Department of Public Safety to gather new "biometric data" – or new types of measurements about your physical body – as part of driver’s license applications. The Committee admitted the issue is "controversial," and that not even all committee members agree with the recommendation.
The vast majority of the Texas House of Representatives opposed a similar bill by Chairman Corte last year. SB 945 passed without debate in the Senate, but died in the House after a vigorous debate over the effect it would have on civil liberties. In a dramatic bipartisan 111-26 vote, the Texas House of Representatives rejected SB 945 in the 78th Legislature, which would have required drivers to give “biometric data” in order to get a license.
In particular, that bill would have required drivers to give all ten fingerprints instead of just a thumbprint – just like they were being booked into the county jail. Plus, drivers would have to let DPS gather “facial recognition” data, which in theory would allow individuals to be identified from videotapes and photographs. As originally written, SB 945 would have also allowed iris scans and voice recordings that could be matched with information from wiretaps.
The Interim Report this time doesn't exclude those other technologies, but seems especially focused on allowing facial recognition from video, insisting that DPS needs technology that allows them to quickly match "one to many faceprints."
The committee's arguments focus on the need to verify identities of people getting a driver's license, but DPS is more ambitious. Language the agency supported in SB 945 went far beyond confirming identities of renewing licenseholders. It would have removed all restrictions on how biometric information could be used, granting access to the information for any law enforcement purpose.
After the embarrassingly lopsided vote on the House floor last year, I'm surprised Chairman Corte still wants a piece of this bill. There must be powerful interests pushing it behind the scenes.
UPDATE: See Biometric Blues, Second Stanza
Chairman Frank Corte, Rep. Leo Berman, and a majority of the Texas House Defense Affairs Committee say ''Yes." That committee's #1 recommendation in its Interim Report (pdf) heading into the 79th Legislature is to allow the Texas Department of Public Safety to gather new "biometric data" – or new types of measurements about your physical body – as part of driver’s license applications. The Committee admitted the issue is "controversial," and that not even all committee members agree with the recommendation.
The vast majority of the Texas House of Representatives opposed a similar bill by Chairman Corte last year. SB 945 passed without debate in the Senate, but died in the House after a vigorous debate over the effect it would have on civil liberties. In a dramatic bipartisan 111-26 vote, the Texas House of Representatives rejected SB 945 in the 78th Legislature, which would have required drivers to give “biometric data” in order to get a license.
In particular, that bill would have required drivers to give all ten fingerprints instead of just a thumbprint – just like they were being booked into the county jail. Plus, drivers would have to let DPS gather “facial recognition” data, which in theory would allow individuals to be identified from videotapes and photographs. As originally written, SB 945 would have also allowed iris scans and voice recordings that could be matched with information from wiretaps.
The Interim Report this time doesn't exclude those other technologies, but seems especially focused on allowing facial recognition from video, insisting that DPS needs technology that allows them to quickly match "one to many faceprints."
The committee's arguments focus on the need to verify identities of people getting a driver's license, but DPS is more ambitious. Language the agency supported in SB 945 went far beyond confirming identities of renewing licenseholders. It would have removed all restrictions on how biometric information could be used, granting access to the information for any law enforcement purpose.
After the embarrassingly lopsided vote on the House floor last year, I'm surprised Chairman Corte still wants a piece of this bill. There must be powerful interests pushing it behind the scenes.
UPDATE: See Biometric Blues, Second Stanza
Monday, December 13, 2004
Nice compliment, long work day
It's been quite a long workday today (just finished!), so no blogging, but thought I'd mention that Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff paid Grits a nice compliment with a nomination for Best Single Issue Blog in Wampum's Best-Of-The-Left Koufax Awards. Thanks Kuff!
You can use the same link to make your own Koufax Award nominations.
You can use the same link to make your own Koufax Award nominations.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Moooooo
Ann points to an Austin Statesman editorial calling the Texas prison system a "sacred cow with a high-decibel moo." Entitled, "Even hardline conservatives seeing prisons differently," the Statesman declares that Texas runs the "largest penal system in the free world," and argues for shifting more nonviolent and drug offenders onto probation. (What's this free world stuff -- maybe I missed something but I thought Communism fell like 15 years ago?) I see differing numbers on the question of who has the world's largest prison system, but Texas is always in the top three. The editorial follows a report earlier in the week by reporter Mike Ward.
The paper's analysis, if not their proposals, echo the budget dilemmas Ann outlined earlier this week in her notes from the Texas elected prosecutors' conference on state sentencing options.
The paper's analysis, if not their proposals, echo the budget dilemmas Ann outlined earlier this week in her notes from the Texas elected prosecutors' conference on state sentencing options.
Sunday Odds and Ends
Usually gypsy cops move on to other departments, not to city council! Police officer Ron Segovia retired last year from San Antonio PD to successfully run for City Council District 3. Now it turns out he resigned in the middle of a misconduct investigation. The SA police chief received a staff recommendation that Segovia be "indefinitely suspended," which is bureaucratese for "fired," but Segovia resigned before the chief could act on it and declared his candidacy. State civil service laws prevented the chief from making the information public, so Segovia was elected without voters knowing the investigation details, which involve allegedly buying and selling stolen property and lying to the police. Segovia made headlines earlier this year when his girlfriend, a local TV reporter, filed for a restraining order against him.
Meanwhile, the Statesman reports that a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper was reprimanded after he stopped a gay couple from kissing on the capitol grounds in Austin. (DPS is in charge of capitol security.) "We won't have you doing this on capitol grounds," he told the two men. Apparently this trooper doesn't watch the U.S. Supreme Court, but Texas' seldom-enforced sodomy law was struck down last year in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Tarrant County, the North Richland Hills police chief was suspended for driving under the influence of prescription drugs, though he was not ticketed nor arrested by the officer who stopped him. Would you or I get the same treatment?
A county jail inmate is suing the Port Lavaca, TX Police Department for excessive force, racial profiling, false arrest and imprisonment, and violating constitutional and civil rights. Prosecutors appear to be enhancing small-time charges in retaliation.
Dallas police are cracking down on people who steal electricity to keep warm, claiming some of them are using it to power crack houses. Sometimes, though, electricity thieves are simply homeless people trying to survive the cold, like the man killed with a Taser recently by Fort Worth police. TXU, a private electric company, is behind Dallas PD's new push.
The new Dallas police chief recently announced officers can buy their own AR-15 semi-automatic weapons and carry them in their cars. They'd damn well better carry them in their trunks, because the same article cites a problem with officers attacked in transit because there's no cage between the front and back seats in DPD police cars.
Panhandle Truth Squad has the story about a Republican sheriff Kansas voters can't seem to oust, despite his losing two elections.
Though it's been well-covered in the blogosphere, it's worth mentioning that the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of a Mexican national on Texas death row that will determine police obligations to non-citizen arrestees under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That's the treaty Alberto Gonzales said didn't apply to Texas. The case has implications far beyond the death penalty, as it will affect how many thousands of foreign nationals are treated -- those here legally and those who are not -- during interactions with the criminal justice system, giving the Mexican government an opportunity to intervene.
Finally, I received several learned email responses to my post about the Senate Criminal Justice Committee's arguments for drug courts, including from somebody who runs one (I'm reading what you sent me, Judge!). Folks interested in that subject should also look at the resources compiled recently by Professor Berman at the Sentencing Law and Policy blog.
Meanwhile, the Statesman reports that a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper was reprimanded after he stopped a gay couple from kissing on the capitol grounds in Austin. (DPS is in charge of capitol security.) "We won't have you doing this on capitol grounds," he told the two men. Apparently this trooper doesn't watch the U.S. Supreme Court, but Texas' seldom-enforced sodomy law was struck down last year in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Tarrant County, the North Richland Hills police chief was suspended for driving under the influence of prescription drugs, though he was not ticketed nor arrested by the officer who stopped him. Would you or I get the same treatment?
A county jail inmate is suing the Port Lavaca, TX Police Department for excessive force, racial profiling, false arrest and imprisonment, and violating constitutional and civil rights. Prosecutors appear to be enhancing small-time charges in retaliation.
Dallas police are cracking down on people who steal electricity to keep warm, claiming some of them are using it to power crack houses. Sometimes, though, electricity thieves are simply homeless people trying to survive the cold, like the man killed with a Taser recently by Fort Worth police. TXU, a private electric company, is behind Dallas PD's new push.
The new Dallas police chief recently announced officers can buy their own AR-15 semi-automatic weapons and carry them in their cars. They'd damn well better carry them in their trunks, because the same article cites a problem with officers attacked in transit because there's no cage between the front and back seats in DPD police cars.
Panhandle Truth Squad has the story about a Republican sheriff Kansas voters can't seem to oust, despite his losing two elections.
Though it's been well-covered in the blogosphere, it's worth mentioning that the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of a Mexican national on Texas death row that will determine police obligations to non-citizen arrestees under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That's the treaty Alberto Gonzales said didn't apply to Texas. The case has implications far beyond the death penalty, as it will affect how many thousands of foreign nationals are treated -- those here legally and those who are not -- during interactions with the criminal justice system, giving the Mexican government an opportunity to intervene.
Finally, I received several learned email responses to my post about the Senate Criminal Justice Committee's arguments for drug courts, including from somebody who runs one (I'm reading what you sent me, Judge!). Folks interested in that subject should also look at the resources compiled recently by Professor Berman at the Sentencing Law and Policy blog.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Tyler Lee wins state football championship
My alma mater, Robert E. Lee High School in Tyler, won its first ever Texas 5A high school football championship today against Spring Westfield 28-21. Congratulations guys!
Keller, Hervey, can't stand in way of innocence claim, but try
"The system works," said state district judge Sharen Wilson after John Michael Harvey was released on a 5-4 vote of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Maybe so, maybe for this one day, but even then just barely. Wilson had ruled that Harvey was "actually innocent" of child molestation after his accuser recanted 12 years after the fact. No other evidence supported his conviction. Still, four CCA judges would have kept Harvey incarcerated. Thankfully, he walked free yesterday over their objections.
Chief Justice Sharon Keller, Judges Barbara Hervey, Cheryl Johnson and Michael Keasler dissented in the case. Keller and Hervey are both up for re-election in 2006.
In Herveys' dissent, she noted that the alleged victim had been coached to make her original statement:
So, the child victim initially said the defendant didn't do it, only accused him after coaching by adults, then later claims no independent recollection of the crime. No other evidence pointed to Harvey's guilt, but Keller, Hervey, et. al. would have let Harvey rot in prison, anyway.
Harvey's glad to be out, but he knows that Texas' worst court didn't do him any favors. He told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Maybe so, maybe for this one day, but even then just barely. Wilson had ruled that Harvey was "actually innocent" of child molestation after his accuser recanted 12 years after the fact. No other evidence supported his conviction. Still, four CCA judges would have kept Harvey incarcerated. Thankfully, he walked free yesterday over their objections.
Chief Justice Sharon Keller, Judges Barbara Hervey, Cheryl Johnson and Michael Keasler dissented in the case. Keller and Hervey are both up for re-election in 2006.
In Herveys' dissent, she noted that the alleged victim had been coached to make her original statement:
"During jury arguments at applicant's 1992 trial, the prosecution also addressed the complainant's 'initial statements that no one has ever touched me anywhere.'
"I say that obviously because of [the complainant's] initial statements that no one has ever touched me anywhere. But she came around with a little help. So please don't have unrealistic expectations that she should simply walk in here like a trooper and rattle off. Once again, those horrors which have occurred in her past. She can't do it without help. And we're asking for your help for the rest of the way of this case.
"The most critical finding that the habeas judge made, in recommending that relief be granted on applicant's 2004 'actual innocence' claim, states:
"'The Court finds [the complainant] to be a credible witness in her testimony at the subsequent writ hearing. Whether [the complainant] was sexually assaulted by a big man with a tatoo or was not sexually assaulted at all, the common factor in her statements is that the applicant did not sexually assault her. The court finds as a matter of fact, that applicant did not sexually assault [the complainant] and is factually innocent.'
"The record does not support this finding either. The common factor in the complainant's 2004 writ testimony and the only finding that a fair reading of the 2004 writ record supports is that the eighteen-year-old complainant has no independent recollection of what happened to her 15 years ago when she was three years old. This does not constitute a recantation of her trial testimony and it clearly should be insufficient to sustain applicant's burden to unquestionably establish his innocence."
So, the child victim initially said the defendant didn't do it, only accused him after coaching by adults, then later claims no independent recollection of the crime. No other evidence pointed to Harvey's guilt, but Keller, Hervey, et. al. would have let Harvey rot in prison, anyway.
Harvey's glad to be out, but he knows that Texas' worst court didn't do him any favors. He told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
I hope he can. Judge Hervey has been making hay calling for the creation of "innocence clinics" at Texas law schools, where law students would help try to prove innocence claims. But what good will that do if, when actual innocence claims are proven, judges just ignore them?"'I thank Sharen Wilson for overturning this conviction, but it took an awful long time, before her and after her,' Harvey said.
"'When I was falsely accused and falsely convicted, the Court of Criminal Appeals didn't ask for any written arguments and oral arguments. They just upheld my conviction.
"'They were much easier in letting my life slip away and finding me guilty than they were in finding me innocent,' he said. 'I'm not really bitter, but I'm ready to put it behind me.'"
Friday, December 10, 2004
Another one bites the dust
The Independence Narcotics Task Force will break up next year, joining the growing list of failed Byrne-grant funded drug task forces in Texas, starting with the one from the infamous Tulia drug stings. In the wake of the INTF break-up, Burleson County plans to join the Brazos Valley Narcotics Task Force, leaving Washington County no longer benefitting from Byrne grant funds.
The Brenham Banner Press reported that the Texas Department of Public Safety pressured the two counties to merge with the Brazos Valley task force based in Bryan. That task force needed bolstering after College Station PD pulled out earlier this year.
Local officals balked. The drug task force concept in Washington County began with a partnership with Brazos County, the Brenham chief told the Banner-Press, and it was "one which didn't work well." Instead, Washington County will operate its own freestanding drug unit without federal funds. The chief said it will work better to have officers under local control: "Now we'll have more flexibility in using our people -- officer's [sic] (tied to the INTF grant) weren't available for other assignments."
Governor Perry ordered DPS nearly three years ago to assume "command and control" over the task forces as a result of the Tulia case and other scandals, but to date that hasn't really happened. The push for small task forces to merge into regional ones was the agency's first concrete attempt exert its authority statewide, along with new and widely ignored rules that would organize drug interdiction efforts around targeting criminal organizations instead of low level users.
Many local agencies resisted these moves toward professionalization, choosing insteead to forego Byrne grant funds. So far, around 50 Texas counties that received Byrne grant funding for task forces last year won't receive any next year, including 25 of the 26 from the Tulia task force. (The only county in the entire High Plains region any longer benefitting from Byrne grant funds is Swisher County, where the Tulia stings occurred. They'll receive $57,000 to prosecute former undercover task force cop Tom Coleman for perjury.)
Washington County should apply in January for Byrne money to open a drug court.
Another one bites the dust.
The Brenham Banner Press reported that the Texas Department of Public Safety pressured the two counties to merge with the Brazos Valley task force based in Bryan. That task force needed bolstering after College Station PD pulled out earlier this year.
Local officals balked. The drug task force concept in Washington County began with a partnership with Brazos County, the Brenham chief told the Banner-Press, and it was "one which didn't work well." Instead, Washington County will operate its own freestanding drug unit without federal funds. The chief said it will work better to have officers under local control: "Now we'll have more flexibility in using our people -- officer's [sic] (tied to the INTF grant) weren't available for other assignments."
Governor Perry ordered DPS nearly three years ago to assume "command and control" over the task forces as a result of the Tulia case and other scandals, but to date that hasn't really happened. The push for small task forces to merge into regional ones was the agency's first concrete attempt exert its authority statewide, along with new and widely ignored rules that would organize drug interdiction efforts around targeting criminal organizations instead of low level users.
Many local agencies resisted these moves toward professionalization, choosing insteead to forego Byrne grant funds. So far, around 50 Texas counties that received Byrne grant funding for task forces last year won't receive any next year, including 25 of the 26 from the Tulia task force. (The only county in the entire High Plains region any longer benefitting from Byrne grant funds is Swisher County, where the Tulia stings occurred. They'll receive $57,000 to prosecute former undercover task force cop Tom Coleman for perjury.)
Washington County should apply in January for Byrne money to open a drug court.
Another one bites the dust.
Byrne Task Forces Not Just Texas Problem
Often people consider scandals with drug task forces like in Tulia, Hearne and Palestine to be simply a Texas problem, further evidence of our backward criminal justice system, like our death-penalty-happy courts. Once you start to pay attention nationwide to the federal Byrne grant program, though, it becomes apparent many Byrne task forces run into similar problems with incompetent investigations, rogue elements and gypsy cops popping up all over.
Last month, the Portsmouth PD in New Hampshire pulled out of their Byrne task force, which is run out of the Attorney General's office, after task force officers started two separate fights with Portsmouth officers in a restaurant. No criminal charges have been filed.
A former task force officer in Tennessee was arrested last week for pulling a gun on her colleagues.
In Colorado, a lawsuit has been filed against a task force for a botched raid looking for meth.
And a judge in Kentucky may throw out several task force cases because of officers operating outside their jurisdictions. That's been a problem in Texas, too.
Congress recently slashed Byrne grant funding nationally by 24 percent. Grits mentioned other non-Texas task force scandals here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Last month, the Portsmouth PD in New Hampshire pulled out of their Byrne task force, which is run out of the Attorney General's office, after task force officers started two separate fights with Portsmouth officers in a restaurant. No criminal charges have been filed.
A former task force officer in Tennessee was arrested last week for pulling a gun on her colleagues.
In Colorado, a lawsuit has been filed against a task force for a botched raid looking for meth.
And a judge in Kentucky may throw out several task force cases because of officers operating outside their jurisdictions. That's been a problem in Texas, too.
Congress recently slashed Byrne grant funding nationally by 24 percent. Grits mentioned other non-Texas task force scandals here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Pickering Out; Fifth Circuit 'Cheeky,' Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 'Icky'?
The question remains unanswered, mostly: Which court is worse -- the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas' highest criminal court?
Both have been the subject of repeated U.S. Supreme Court smackdowns (though not enough).
President Bush could make that question harder or easier to answer now that Charles Pickering, Sr. has stepped down from the Fifth Circuit. President Bush filled Pickering's old Distict judge's slot with Keith Starrett, a former drug court judge who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, Pickering received an interim appointment to the Fifth Circuit over the objection of fillibuster-threatening Democrats who would not have approved his nomination next year.
Meanwhile, already in a funk over work dilemmas, Article III Groupie at Underneath Their Robes notes Grits' question, and finds herself verklempt that it might be necessary to raise it. After all, state courts are "icky." A3G's blog presents itself as the People magazine of the federal judiciary. It's a wonderfully written gossip column that usually concerns itself with topics such as who is a judicial "hottie" or what car does Clarence Thomas drive? Even as a self-described "federal judicial starf***er," though, A3G's writerly integrity forces her to admit she finds some 5th Circuit decisions "cheeky," and that they might be giving the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals "a run for its money in the category of 'most badly bench-slapped by the Supreme Court.'" "Cheeky"!! I love that!
It'd be easy for President Bush to find a nominee, like he did with Judge Starrett, who could be easily confirmed -- maybe even a nominee who could bring some sorely needed stature and respectability to the flailing Fifth Circuit. I can tell you one thing, though: It ain't Priscilla Owen.
Both have been the subject of repeated U.S. Supreme Court smackdowns (though not enough).
President Bush could make that question harder or easier to answer now that Charles Pickering, Sr. has stepped down from the Fifth Circuit. President Bush filled Pickering's old Distict judge's slot with Keith Starrett, a former drug court judge who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, Pickering received an interim appointment to the Fifth Circuit over the objection of fillibuster-threatening Democrats who would not have approved his nomination next year.
Meanwhile, already in a funk over work dilemmas, Article III Groupie at Underneath Their Robes notes Grits' question, and finds herself verklempt that it might be necessary to raise it. After all, state courts are "icky." A3G's blog presents itself as the People magazine of the federal judiciary. It's a wonderfully written gossip column that usually concerns itself with topics such as who is a judicial "hottie" or what car does Clarence Thomas drive? Even as a self-described "federal judicial starf***er," though, A3G's writerly integrity forces her to admit she finds some 5th Circuit decisions "cheeky," and that they might be giving the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals "a run for its money in the category of 'most badly bench-slapped by the Supreme Court.'" "Cheeky"!! I love that!
It'd be easy for President Bush to find a nominee, like he did with Judge Starrett, who could be easily confirmed -- maybe even a nominee who could bring some sorely needed stature and respectability to the flailing Fifth Circuit. I can tell you one thing, though: It ain't Priscilla Owen.
Supreme Smackdown Too Late for Willingham
The next time someone asks you if Texas ever executed an innocent person, tell them about Cameron Todd Willingham, who died by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. The Chicago Tribune ran a great piece analyzing the case, and concluded that, in the end, the conviction rested upon disproven forensic science conclusions.
It's hard to prove a negative, and it's possible the arson investigator cited by the Tribune is wrong and the fire that killed Willingham's children was set intentionally. What we do know, though, is that Texas' criminal justice system, especially Governor Rick Perry and Texas' worst court, didn't care whether Willingham was innocent or not.
I'm glad the Supreme Court is starting to take charge of Texas' capital sentencing mess. It comes too late for Mr. Willingham, though.
It's hard to prove a negative, and it's possible the arson investigator cited by the Tribune is wrong and the fire that killed Willingham's children was set intentionally. What we do know, though, is that Texas' criminal justice system, especially Governor Rick Perry and Texas' worst court, didn't care whether Willingham was innocent or not.
I'm glad the Supreme Court is starting to take charge of Texas' capital sentencing mess. It comes too late for Mr. Willingham, though.
Prosecutors see writing on wall
Ann from Solutions for Texas attended the Texas elected prosecutors' conference in Austin yesterday, and put her notes online from a presentation by Texas County and District Attorneys Association lobbyist Shannon Edmonds regarding sentencing issues in the 79th Texas Legislature, which begins in January.
Edmonds' Power Point presentation sounds like it could have come from a Grits analysis of Texas' precarious budget situation (which is probably because we all work off of the same handful of information sources for public safety data). They want Texas to build a new prison, but recognize that in the current budget climate that may not be an option. So,
Yup, that's pretty much the deal. Whatever the outcome of this legislative session regarding sentencing reform, the terms of debate are clear: Raise taxes to build or rent more prison space, or incarcerate fewer people.
Go to Solutions for Texas to check out the rest. For more Grits coverage of non-capital Texas sentencing issues in the coming 79th session, see Houston driving incarceration train, Lege addicted to enhancements, Pay as you go prisons, and Prisons or Healthcare for Kids?.
Edmonds' Power Point presentation sounds like it could have come from a Grits analysis of Texas' precarious budget situation (which is probably because we all work off of the same handful of information sources for public safety data). They want Texas to build a new prison, but recognize that in the current budget climate that may not be an option. So,
- If the Legislature will not increase prison beds there are only three options:
- Send fewer people to prison,
- Release more people from prison, or
- Both.
Yup, that's pretty much the deal. Whatever the outcome of this legislative session regarding sentencing reform, the terms of debate are clear: Raise taxes to build or rent more prison space, or incarcerate fewer people.
Go to Solutions for Texas to check out the rest. For more Grits coverage of non-capital Texas sentencing issues in the coming 79th session, see Houston driving incarceration train, Lege addicted to enhancements, Pay as you go prisons, and Prisons or Healthcare for Kids?.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
'Gypsy cop' in Wikipedia
I've been using the Wikipedia service recently, and while they had a good entry on the Tulia drug stings (I have no idea who wrote it), they didn't have the phrase "gypsy cop," so I added one. Let me know what you think:
Gypsy Cop
Gypsy Cop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The phrase "gypsy cop" is law enforcement slang for a peace officer who floats from department to department regardless of, or because of, misconduct or poor job performance. The phrase entered public parlance after the infamous Tulia drug stings, where gypsy cop Tom Coleman allegedly set up innocent people, most of them black, as part of a long-term undercover operation. There are many other examples of gypsy cops, though, often associated with smaller departments and drug task forces funded by the federal Byrne grant program.
For those who've never seen it, Wikipedia is a free, collaborative encyclopedia, meaning if you don't like the definition, or any definition, you can edit it yourself.
For more information see Profile of a Gypsy Cop Part One, and Part Two, Trailing Gypsy Cops, and ACLU of TX Testimony vs. Special Police Forces. Here's an academic article from a Canadian police chief on the subject of "gypsy cops."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
