Supreme Court decision to hear Shelby Voting Rights challenge met with praise, worry | al.com

Supreme Court decision to hear Shelby Voting Rights challenge met with praise, worry | al.com

Shelby County's challenge to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing their election procedures.

The decision was greeted with cheers from Shelby County's attorney, who said Southern communities have changed and no longer need such burdensome 1960s-style oversight from Washington. However, it was met with concern by others who argued that things haven't changed that much and the protection for minorities remains merited.

"We're extremely pleased. Section 5 pre-clearance is a burden on local governments and 16 states," said Shelby County attorney Frank "Butch" Ellis.

Ellis said the pre-clearance requirement served a critical function for 40 years, but is no longer justified. Eighty-five percent of Shelby County's residents are white. But Ellis said black residents have been elected as mayor and to other political positions.

"The South is not the same old South that it was," Ellis said.

Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any elections-related change such as redrawing lines or implementing voter identification requirements.

The justices said they will examine whether the formula determining which states are covered is outdated because it relies on data that is now 40 years old.

Alabama was part of a coalition of states that supported Shelby County's challenge.

"Section 5 served a critical and laudable function 40 years ago, and the court held that it was constitutional then. But Section 5 is not justified now, and its re-authorization in 2006 was not constitutional. Section 5 currently serves only to allow federal bureaucrats to block good-faith and nondiscriminatory changes in state law and to impose unjustified costs on state and local governments," said a statement issued by the office of Alabama's attorney general.

The South is not the same old South that it was," said Shelby County lawyer Frank Ellis.

However others took a different view.

Ryan Haygood, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents black residents in Shelby County, said the court's decision to hear the case provides the court an opportunity to review a "very substantial record."

"Congress considered Section 5's utility in 2006 and found discrimination in voting persists and the Act was needed for another 25 years, and Alabama is a very good example of why Section 5 is still needed," Haywood said.

Haygood said Section 5 was used in this election to stop discriminatory redistricting and voter photo identification efforts in Texas, and also in Florida to stop early voting days from being cut in half.

Birmingham's Rep. Demetrius Newton, who served as the first African-American Speaker Pro-Tem of the Alabama House of Representatives, said he was not surprised the high court agreed to hear the Shelby case, but he is concerned about what it could mean.

Newton said he believes there are still efforts to try to limit the voting power of minorities.

"I still see a lot of problems that I believe need to be addressed," Newton said.

Staff writer Brian Lawson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Baltimore police delete personal videos at Preakness

Poll: MTA audio recordings - baltimoresun.com

Poll: MTA audio recordings - baltimoresun.com
The Baltimore Sun is conducting a poll on whether the MTA is infringing on rider's Civil Rights by recording audio in addition to video of MTA riders.
I think so, but feel free to express your opinion by clicking on the link above.

MTA recording bus conversations to eavesdrop on trouble - baltimoresun.com

MTA recording bus conversations to eavesdrop on trouble - baltimoresun.com

A Maryland Transit Administration decision to record the conversations of bus drivers and passengers to investigate crimes, accidents and poor customer service has come under attack from privacy advocates and state lawmakers who say it may go too far.

The first 10 buses — marked with signs to alert passengers to the open microphones — began service this week in Baltimore, and officials expect to expand that to 340 buses, about half the fleet, by next summer. Microphones are incorporated in the video surveillance system that has been in place for years.

"We want to make sure people feel safe, and this builds up our arsenal of tools to keep our patrons safe," said Ralign Wells, MTA administrator. "The audio completes the information package for investigators and responders."


Wells said the system was deemed legal by the state attorney general's office and letters were sent to the American Civil Liberties Union and the union representing bus drivers informing them of the initiative. A spokesman for the attorney general's office confirmed that transit officials were advised by their counsel that based on a 2000 appeals court decision, the audio recordings did not violate the state wiretapping law.

But an ACLU lawyer said he was "flabbergasted" that MTA officials would try to record people's conversations under the guise of a pilot program after a similar proposal was rejected in 2009 by the state's highest-ranking transportation official and by the General Assembly on three occasions.

"People don't want or need to have their private conversations recorded by MTA as a condition of riding a bus," said David Rocah, a staff attorney with the Maryland chapter of the ACLU. "A significant number of people have no viable alternative to riding a bus, and they should not be forced to give up their privacy rights."

Wells said a digital recorder similar to an aviation black box and capable of storing 30 days of audio and video information is locked in an equipment box on each MTA bus. In the event of an accident, an incident involving passengers or a complaint against a driver, investigators can remove the recorder and download the file for review.

The cost is negligible, Wells said, since the six cameras inside each bus are capable of recording audio and all new buses will have audio-video systems as standard equipment.

MTA police dispatchers receive 45 to 100 daily calls for assistance from bus drivers for everything from an unhappy rider to criminal activity, said Capt. Burna McCollum, commander of the MTA police technical services division.

Video is a critical tool for investigators sorting out the details of an incident, but when witnesses walk away, are reluctant to cooperate or give conflicting accounts, an audio recording can fill in missing information, McCollum said.

Surveillance policies in the region vary widely. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority use security cameras on their buses but draw the line at audio recordings of passengers. Montgomery County's 335-bus Ride On system is about to add audio surveillance to its video capability. Baltimore's nearly three-year-old Circulator buses record both video and audio.

Two members of the state Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee say the MTA's decision to record passengers without their consent is troubling.

"It's an end run and ripe for a court challenge," said Sen. James Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat. "They have absolutely no grounds to do this. If we can't get them to listen and change their minds, we'll deal with this ... and make them defend what's indefensible."

Sen. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat and a constitutional law expert, said that while he understands the need to protect public transportation customers, "this sounds kind of Big Brotherish to me."

Raskin said bus patrons should have been consulted, and a clear policy on who has access to the recordings and how long they are kept should have been spelled out to the public before the program was initiated.

"This is such a giant step forward in dissolving the privacy expectations of people who ride the bus," he said. "Legislators are going to want to know what the compelling reason is for initiating this now."

In 2009, the acting secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation derailed a similar MTA proposal and asked for more review, calling privacy matters "the ultimate test of people's trust in government."

In each of the last three legislative sessions, bills filed on behalf of MTA to authorize recording devices and establish ground rules for their use were rejected in committee.

"When House and Senate committees individually look at a proposal and nearly unanimously reject it, you know it's bad public policy," Brochin said.

But one of the bills' sponsors, Del. Melvin Stukes, an MTA customer service investigator, said state officials have been "gun-shy" in dealing with the ACLU and unions. The intent of the legislation, he said, was to eliminate bad language that often sparks violence.

"This is not your bathroom. This is not your bedroom. Buses are public spaces and people are elbow to elbow," Stukes said. "I'm not trying to punish people. I'm just trying to clean up problems I hear about every day so that people realize that MTA is trying to provide a more congenial, more cordial ride."

The chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee predicts that the entire matter will have to be resolved by the legislature.

"If this is something that's necessary and useful, standards must be set for oversight and accountability," said Sen. Brian Frosh, a Montgomery County Democrat. "The job of figuring this out definitely should not be left to the agency doing the listening."

Woman In Jail Because Authorities Thought She Was Illegal

FREEDOM? We like to think we are the beacon of freedom in the United States, but are we really!?

What Happens AFTER You Refuse a Police Search?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iXNhL2pkb0s
Some very good information to know! 
Remember you're not guilty until a judge and or jury convicts you, so be smart & most importantly know your rights! 

How To Handle the Police! Know Your Rights so they don't violate em!

How to Handle a Police Stop

A large part of a police officer’s job is to develop evidence that will lead to a conviction. At every stage of your encounter with the officer, you must assume that they are seeking evidence from you or your surroundings that could land you in jail.

If you believe that you may be stopped by the police in the near future, or if you believe that you may be a suspect, you should enlist my aid as soon as possible by calling (301) 556-8709. I can give you specific advice relevant to your particular situation, and I may sometimes even be able to stop a prosecution before charges are filed.

Be Polite, Remain Silent, and Assert Your Legal Rights

An initial “Hello, Officer” without more is polite and will not hurt you – but after those two words, there are only two categories of responses to an officer that are useful:

1. Silence, and
2. An assertion of your legal rights that you have memorized beforehand, or carry with you.
• “I do not consent to any search.”
• “I am not comfortable answering any questions without an attorney present.”
• “Am I free to leave?”

The officer has a plan for his interaction with you. You also need to have a plan if you want to be successful.

You playing a game against a much more experienced adversary with your freedom at stake. The Officer will likely be more levelheaded than you and will remain capable of following a complex plan, because your interaction with him is relatively ordinary. He knows that there is no possibility that he will go to jail if he loses. You will be acutely aware that your freedom is on the line, and will be, at best, somewhat anxious. If your interaction with the officer becomes complex, the officer’s superior experience and other advantages will result in near certain victory. Therefore, you must follow simple rules that will minimize your interactions with the officer.

You must resist with your silence, and your forceful but polite memorized assertions of your rights. If the officer orders you out of the car, or arrests you, or orders you to get out of the way, cooperate with them physically while saying, “I do not consent to any search.”

Do not physically resist or unnecessarily antagonize the officer – it will only make things worse. To you, the officer is a threat to your freedom that you must politely resist. To a police officer, your encounter is just part of the job. Try not to take the encounter personally – the officer likely has no personal feelings toward you whatsoever.

Officers will often use their own expressions of annoyance with you in order to encourage you to speak, to consent to a search, or to remain present when you are free to leave. They may make it seem if you do not “cooperate” with them, you will go to jail, when the exact opposite is true. Remember that the officer is asking you to “cooperate” in your own conviction. If you are effectively handling the situation by remaining silent and asserting your rights, the officer may become frustrated by that alone, as the vast majority of people are not disciplined enough to remain silent when actually confronted by a police officer. In these situations, the officer’s annoyance may be genuine, but it means that you are performing well, not badly.

Remember that the officer has been professionally trained to manipulate and lie to suspects in order to induce them to incriminate themselves. The officer also has had the opportunity to practice on a daily basis for years. If a police officer speaks to you, irrespective of what he may say to the contrary, you must assume that he is doing so because you are a suspect.

Your Normal Social Reflexes Will Not Help You

You have been culturally conditioned to behave in certain ways when interacting with other human beings. Police officers know this, and will use social and cultural norms against you in your encounters with them. You will have to engage every ounce of will to resist your day to day tendencies in interacting with others.

Social Reflexes:

1. Walking away is either rude or cowardly.
2. Stone faced silence is a bizarre or cowardly response.
3. When someone asks you a question, or talks to you, you are expected to talk back.
4. If you are disgusted by a comment or question, you are frequently expected to express that disgust.

Effective Interaction With A Police Officer:

1. If you can walk away, or leave, do so as soon as possible. It is safe to say “I’m sorry, but I’m very busy right now”. Do not elaborate or say anything else, particularly about what you might be busy doing. You do not owe the officer any justification.
2. If you can’t leave, the only good response is silence, intersped with the nonresponsive answer of “I’m sorry officer, but I’m not comfortable answering any questions without an attorney present. I do not consent to any search.” And that is all. All other responses, no matter how helpful they may seem to you at the time, are not helpful. Feel free to repeat either of those sentences, especially the second one if the officer appears to be conducting some sort of search or test on you.
3. If you are not sure whether or not you can leave, ask, “Officer, am I free to leave?” Repeat the question if necessary, insist on an unambiguous answer. If you can’t get an unambiguous answer, say that you wish to leave, and that you will leave unless ordered to stay. Then leave.

There are a some cases where you are required by law to do something, or may be punished if you do not. Some examples are below.

When You May Be Punished for Noncompliance:

1. You may have to sign a ticket. It must say something to the effect that your signature is not an admission of guilt, which is usually in fine print near where you sign it. You are signing the ticket to indicate that you received the ticket, and that you will appear in court as required. If you do not sign, the officer may arrest you.
2. If you are driving, produce your valid license, registration, and/or insurance information when asked.
3. If you are cited for a crime, produce valid identification.
4. In Maryland, where there is no federal jurisdiction, you are allowed to refuse a breath test or blood test, but you will face severe administrative penalties for doing so. It is sometimes advantageous to refuse the test. You can and should ask to consult an attorney before making this decision. The police are required to allow you to do so, as long as it will not unreasonably delay the test.
5. Within Federal Jurisdiction, you are required to consent to a breath or blood test.

You Are Not Required to Perform Field Sobriety Tests in Maryland

An officer may ask you to perform one or more field sobriety tests in order to collect evidence necessary for an arrest, and eventually a conviction. The Walk and Turn, One-Leg Stand, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests are standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) that you may have heard of, but there are also a variety of other field sobriety tests that the officers sometimes use, including math problems, counting, or finger exercises. The officer may also ask you to submit to a portable breath test using a small hand-held device. You do not have to perform any field sobriety tests. They are not required by Maryland law, and you should generally refuse to participate in any of them. Please note, however, that while declining to perform a field sobriety test will help prevent the officer from acquiring evidence necessary to lawfully arrest and convict you, the officer will often arrest you anyway.

You can do a great job handling the situation and still get arrested. The officer may have decided that he was going to arrest you before you even saw him. It isn’t over. At every step, you need to avoid giving the authorities anything that can be used against you in court.

What to do After You Have Been Arrested