Dallas County Sherrif's have purchased a bulletproof, "Mine-Protected" military armored personnel carrier
Texas - Now that the war in Iraq is officially over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the Department of Defense found itself facing a conundrum. It had just spent billions of dollars buying heavily armored personnel carriers designed to stand up to insurgent attacks only to find that it had run out of wars to use them in.
The initial plan was to shove the vehicles, called MRAPS (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) into a warehouse and let them collect dust. That changed when someone (DHS) decided that, having served so admirably overseas, it would be only just to bring the MRAPs stateside and deploy them in the domestic war on crime.
And so, for the past couple of months, news reports have been popping up announcing that places like Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Ohio State University have been receiving their very own military-grade armored SUVs.
See also: District Attorney Craig Watkins' Epic Quest to Use a Former Drug Dealer's Porsche Boxter
Now, it's Dallas' turn. Dallas County sheriff's deputies traveled to Fort Hood earlier this month and picked up their very own International MaxxPro MRAP. This particular truck has never seen any actual combat, having only been deployed stateside for training exercises, so it doesn't have any cool battle scars, but with the dealer's $600,000 price tag knocked down to nothing, and with just 10,000 miles on it, the deal was too good to pass up.
After making the 160-mile drive back to Dallas from Fort Hood, deputy James Blesoe declared that the vehicle "exceeded expectations," according to a memo to Dallas County commissioner's.
"Having a tactical vehicle will not only provide warrants execution with the equipment to assist in performing their jobs but will provide an overall safety arch," Chief Deputy Marlin Suell wrote to commissioners.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_county_now_has_its_very.php
The Idaho police department has acquired an MRAP or armored personnel carrier:
“Potentially there are a lot of uses for this vehicle from deflecting an explosive device to containing or approaching an armed subject without use of greater force. We’re working with Boise Fire and other emergency response agencies throughout the Boise area to see what value this vehicle can bring to public safety. (was that mean as a joke?) We very much appreciate the federal government for providing this vehicle (tank) to our city,” Boise Deputy Chief William Bones said
Preston Police Chief Ken Geddes informed local residents of his department’s acquisition last week, saying the vehicles are essenital to increasing “domestic security” around the country.
“Our department has officers that have been trained and have personally used these armored vehicles in real world operations overseas. They feel this vehicle will be an asset in our area just as it was in combat situations,” Geddes said. “I appreciate our government and our military for the security they give us and for their help to increase our strength here in our schools and at home.”http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/preston-police-chief-touts-acquisition-of-armored-vehicle-for-department/article_9cccbc7c-2742-11e3-8c7e-0019bb2963f4.html
4th. Amend. is dead - Soldiers must show their ID to law enforcement whenever they ask for it:
Fort Hood service members who refuse to show identification to law enforcement officers can face action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to a policy issued by the 1st Cavalry Division commander Sept. 5.
Texas state law requires people to identify themselves to police only if they are legally arrested. But the Fort Hood policy requires soldiers to show their ID to law enforcement whenever they are asked to do so by authorities. (If our military personnel are being told they have to surrender their ID's when a police officer asks for it. What do you think will happen when these soldiers become police officers? What will they will expect from citizens?)
“Soldiers are prohibited from refusing to present a driver’s license or military identification card to any law enforcement officer in the exercise of his or her official duties, upon request by the law enforcement officer,” the memo issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Ierardi reads.
The policy comes after recent incidents in which soldiers openly carrying long guns were asked by police to show identification and they refused.
“The purpose of this policy is to assist law enforcement personnel in determining whether a service member constitutes a threat to the public safety, without confrontation, in order to protect service members and civilians from avoidable accidents or incidents that could result in death or serious injury,” the memo states.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309300005/Fort-Hood-soldiers-can-face-UCMJ-they-won-t-show-ID-cops
The U.S. Department of Justice spent millions of dollars purchasing unmanned aerial drones:
The U.S. Department of Justice spent millions of dollars purchasing small unarmed drones for domestic use over the last decade, but the department lacks a comprehensive policy for the unmanned aircraft -- despite growing concern about their use.
In a report released Thursday, the DOJ's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, said the department's agencies had an "uncoordinated approach" to their use of drones.
Horowitz noted that the use of small drones by law enforcement raises concerns about privacy, in part because the aircraft are able to "maneuver covertly in areas where individual expectations of privacy are not well-defined, such as in the immediate vicinity of residences."
"No agency, including the FBI, should deploy domestic surveillance drones without first having strong privacy guidelines in place," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in a statement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/doj-drones-dea-atf_n_3997550.html
Map: Is your state a no-drone zone?
Only nine states have passed laws restricting drone use.
In less than two years, the United States will open its commercial airspace to drones, allowing these "unmanned aerial vehicles" to zip over American cities along with planes and helicopters. Tech enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, and law enforcement agencies are intrigued by the possibilities—burrito drones! And the roughly $6-billion-a-year drone industry has launched a lobbying offensive to ensure Federal Aviation Administration regulations are as broad and permissive as possible. But lawmakers and civil liberties groups are concerned about the privacy implications and potential safety issues, and at least nine states have passed laws restricting drone use by law enforcement, private citizens, or both.
Click here to view the map.
While drones were never banned in the United States, up until now their use has been strictly limited, with the FAA distributing a few hundred permits to researchers and law enforcement. But Congress has ordered the agency to open commercial airspace to a wide variety of unmanned vehicles by late 2015. And when it does, drones are bound to proliferate. The FAA anticipates there could be as many as 30,000 drones hurtling through US airspace by 2020.
Civil liberties advocates worry this trend could lead to abuses, with law enforcement agencies conducting unnecessary surveillance, especially given the lack of federal regulation governing the use of drones for law enforcement purposes. (At this point, it's not even clear whether police need a warrant to collect data on people using drones). "It's a core value in our society that the government doesn't watch us and collect information about innocent people," says Allie Bohm, an advocacy and policy strategist for the ACLU. "We need rules so that we can enjoy the benefits of this technology without becoming closer to a surveillance state."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/map-are-drones-illegal-your-state
Woman is suing Estelline,Texas, its former police chief & a police officer over illegal cash seizure:
An Azle woman on Thursday filed a federal wrongful arrest lawsuit against the city of Estelline, its former police chief and a former officer, alleging they violated her Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop last year.
The suit names the city, former Police Chief Chris Jolly and former officer Jayson Fry as defendants and claims the arrest humiliated and embarrassed Laura Dutton, who was arrested on a money laundering charge Nov. 28 after a traffic stop in Estelline.
The suit said Dutton was traveling from Azle to Amarillo to visit a friend when Fry pulled her over for a suspected speeding violation. Fry claimed he smelled marijuana in the vehicle and asked to search it, but Dutton refused.
Dutton told the officers that the money they found inside the vehicle, still wrapped in bank wrappings, was the proceeds from a recent real estate transaction.
Later, Jolly arrived with a drug dog that alerted on Fry’s vehicle and the officers seized more than $31,000 in cash from the pickup, the suit said.
In January, District Attorney Luke Inman’s office refused to accept charges in the case “due to the fact that the currency seized still contained U.S. mint/bank wrappings at the time of seizure” and because Dutton provided evidence she received the money from a property sale in Van Zandt County.
“In sum, plaintiff Dutton was arrested, searched, and her money was seized, despite the fact that she is a law-abiding citizen who had done nothing worse than speeding — simply because she chose to carry with her lawfully obtained money,” the suit said.
Estelline officials returned most of Dutton’s money in January, the suit said.
The suit seeks unspecified damages for loss of liberty, emotional distress, bond fees, among other claims.
http://amarillo.com/news/2013-09-19/woman-sues-estelline-former-officers-over-cash-seizure