No products in the cart.

News

Anti-Spying Bill Signed Into Law In New Hampshire

NH river

Having previously lived in NH for 55 years, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised to see this pass unanimously, and that Gov. Hassan actually signed it. Great news! Thank you for stepping forward NH.  – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This article comes from the tenthamendmentcenter.com

CONCORD, N.H., July 24, 2014 – New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan has signed into law a bill that not only bans state and local law enforcement from searching an electronic device without a warrant, but also prohibits a small but important category of what the NSA has been doing with the warrantless data it collects.

House Bill 1533 (HB1533) was passed unanimously by both legislative houses and was ultimately sent to Gov. Hassan’s desk last month. It bans government entities from searching “information contained in a portable electronic device” without a warrant “signed by a judge and based on probable cause.”

Any information “obtained in violation” of the new law is banned from use in any “criminal, civil, administrative, or other proceeding” in the state of New Hampshire.

Introduced by Rep. Neal Kurk, HB1533 also sets up a direct legal conflict with federal surveillance programs. It reads, in part:

“Government entity” means a federal, state, county, or local government agency, including but not limited to a law enforcement agency or any other investigative entity, agency, department, division, bureau, board, or commission, or an individual acting or purporting to act for, or on behalf of, a federal, state, county, or local government agency. “Government entity” shall not apply to a federal government agency to the extent that federal statute preempts state statute.

OffNow executive director Mike Maharrey sees the inclusion of federal agencies in this clause as an important part of the bill. “Including federal agencies in this prohibition on obtaining electronic information without a warrant does two important things,” he said. “It will force the federal courts to take a position on the constitutionality of mass federal surveillance programs, since federal statute cannot preempt if it’s not constitutional in the first place,” he said. ‘It also brings to the forefront that each state does indeed have a role to play in rejecting unconstitutional spying programs, whether they’re state or federal.”

Maharrey said that while it would be “highly improbable” for HB1533 to actually stop federal spying programs in the state, there are other parts of the bill that would have an immediate impact on the practice effect of the surveillance.

NSA collects, stores, and analyzes data on countless millions of people without a warrant, and without even the mere suspicion of criminal activity. The NSA tracks the physical location of people through their cellphones. In late 2013, the Washington Post reported that NSA is “gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world.” This includes location data on “tens of millions” of Americans each year – without a warrant.

Through fusion centers, state and local law enforcement act as information recipients from various federal departments under Information Sharing Environment (ISE). ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella covering 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. State and local law enforcement share data up the chain with the feds.

The NSA expressly shares warrantless data with state and local law enforcement through a super-secret DEA unit known as the Special Operations Division (SOD). That information is being used for criminal prosecutions. A Reuters report last fall showed that most of this shared data has absolutely nothing to do with national security issues. Most of it involves routine criminal investigations.

This data sharing shoves a dagger into the heart of the Fourth Amendment. HB1533 signed into law is a big first step towards preventing this from happening in the State of New Hampshire.

0

ldiffey

Oath Keepers Merchandise

5 comments

  1. This is a great that those serving in the state’s (gov) are stepping up to their part.

    We truly are already protected under the US Constitution, the problem is enforcement.

    Who does the US Constitution say is charged with that and other duties that currently governmental professional law enforcement are doing?
    1) US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    2) Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

    3) Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    4) U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Since no where within the US Constitution does it assign the power to create governmental professional law enforcement, where do those who work in that field – state and federal – get LAWFUL authority?

    To all LE’s and ex LE’s; please do not take this personally, this is to educate on why LE’s – federal and state – were maneuvered into becoming the “police state” over time. Why they were maneuvered into following unlawful orders, etc. If those who are in LE would not “just follow orders”, “just do their jobs” they could not destroy the USA. They had to be coerced, bribed (all those great military toys), etc; jobs made “easier” to do: no warrants, little responsibility for their actions against US citizens, “need to know” basis, “professional courtesy”, etc – you get the picture. All of that was needed to USE the LE’s to (mostly unknowingly) assist in destroying America.

    The ONLY lawful authority that governmental professional law enforcement has is the OATH; taking and keeping it because “We the people” let them have those “professions” instead of each state’s Militia doing them based on those lawfully required Oaths. When they do not keep the oath they have the same – and just as unlawful – authority as gangs do – force.

    When the Oath is not kept then they also move over to another position, terrorism against the USA and the American people: 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    No one said keeping the OATH, and doing the job in a constitutional manner was easy, but it was, and IS, IMPORTANT to our way of government, our way of life; and it IS a requirement of the position that LE’s occupy.

    Here are some facts that you might not be aware of:

    – End of the nineteenth century, police forces took on the role of crime-fighting. The goal of maintaining public order became secondary to chasing lawbreakers. The police cultivated a perception that they were public heroes who “fought crime” in the general, rather than individual sense.

    – This “new” role followed the “bobbie” LE model developed and used in England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people. The “new” law enforcement was incorporating MORE government through LE”s into the affairs of the people AGAINST the US Constitution and our way of government, and changing the USA from our laws to the way things were done in England.

    – The 1920s saw the rise of law enforcements new concepts developed and spread by J. Edgar Hoover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): from it sleuth and intelligence-gathering role, infiltration techniques, intercepted communications, develop integrated repositories of fingerprint/criminal/and fraudulent check records, and gathering intelligence for both law enforcement and political purposes.

    – Here is where the gap between the people and those who served the people in LE widened:

    – – Under the common law, there was no difference whatsoever between the privileges, immunities, and powers of LE’s and those of private citizens who still could be and were called into assistance when needed. LE’s were the same as everyone else facing the same liabilities — civil and criminal — as everyone else under identical circumstances.

    – – One of the first distinctions between the rights of citizen and LE’s was the changes made in the form of increased power to arrest. Early in the history of policing, courts held that an officer could arrest if he had “reasonable belief” both in the commission of a felony and in the guilt of the arrestee instead of they could arrest only if a felony had actually been committed which was an important difference from what the US Constitution allows.

    – – The laws were “relaxed” to allow police to execute warrantless felony arrests upon information received from third parties. Obviously, LE’s could not be required to be “right” all of the time if they were now depending on third party “information”, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was lost against the US Constitution again.

    – – Differences arose between the privileges of citizens and police officers grew more rapidly in the twentieth century when the US Constitution REQUIRES that all people are equal and held to the same standards.

    – – Nothing shows the disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen as much as the modern “law” of resisting arrest. Any citizen was privileged to resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist and/or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed.

    – – – United States Supreme Court held that constitutionally it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Any officers who executed an arrest without the proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the people had – and still constitutionally has – a right to violently resist any officer to evade such arrest.

    – – – Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations

    – – – 1980’s many if not most states had eliminated the constitutional law of the right of resistance against a warrantless arrest.

    – – – Saw that the people were criminalized for the resistance of any officer “acting in his official capacity” which is so far from our US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as to be “Null and Void.

    – – – Eliminated the constitutional requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene.

    – – – Drastically decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required.

    – – – Resisting arrest, defending oneself, or fleeing currently places Americans in danger of being killed by LE’s, yet the law clearly classifies such killings as unlawful. The police are rarely held accountable for such unlawful and unconstitutional conduct in courts of “law”.

    – The elite SWAT-type or paramilitary training reinforces the “military responses” of police and reinforces the concept that the LE’s must “destroy the enemy first” danger in the officers’ own minds.

    Professor Peter L. Davis points out that there is no good reason why police should not be liable criminally for their violations of the criminal code, just as other Americans are.

    The right to resist unlawful arrest is a constitutional one. It cones from the right of every person to being whole, entire, and undiminished and their liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all Natural rights.

    There is so much more, but the important thing to realize is the LE’s are being USED to destroy the USA and our way of life, even though they are mostly innocent “dupes” not domestic enemies or outright traitors.

    It is CRITICAL that LE’s follow the US Constitution, keep the Oath, do not blindly follow orders – your Oath gives YOU personal responsibility for YOUR actions just as it does those within the US military. All LE’s that do not keep the Oath can be held as traitors, murderers, etc when we are back in control of our nation and – because they are constitutional crimes – there is NO time limit on the smallest crime committed. Or, they can at least knowingly become domestic enemies or traitors to the USA and the American people – but at leas let it be YOUR choice, not one forced unknowingly upon you.

    This destruction could not happen without your participation.

  2. Sorry, forgot to list sources:

    “Second Thoughts About First Principles”, Carol S. Steiker

    US Constitution, the Constitution grants authority to the federal government to define and punish criminal activity in only five instances. Article I grants Congress power (1) “[t]o provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States,” art. I, § 8, cl. 6; (2) “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations,” id, cl. 10; (3) “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id. at cl. 14; (4) “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over” the District of Columbia and federal reservations. id. at cl. 17; see also Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 426 (1821) (“Congress has a right to punish murder in a fort, or other place within its exclusive jurisdiction; but no general right to punish murder committed within any of the states”). Likewise, (5) Article III defines the crime of “Treason against the United States” and grants to Congress the “Power to declare [its] Punishment….” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 3.

    “Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, James Bovard; Revolution-era perception that the law was a means to restrain government and to secure rights of citizens

    “Legal and Social Aspects of Arrest Without A Warrant”, Jerome Hall

    “A History of American Law”, L.M. FRIEDMAN and “Introduction: James Madison’s Ninth Amendment, in The Rights Retained By the People”, Randy E. Barnett:
    The Constitution has provisions for criminal procedure. The Bill of Rights is basically an outline of criminal procedure. The Bill of Rights provisions are enshrinements of individual liberties rather than governmental powers. The only constitutional provisions with regard to criminal justice are all barriers to governmental power. Tthe Founders’ intent to protect individual liberties was made clear by the language of the Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in state constitutions of the founding era. The Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) provides a clear indication that the Framers assumed that persons may do whatever is not prohibited by the Constitution rather than that the government may do whatever is not prohibited to it.

    “Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force”, Jerome H. Skolnick & James J. Fyfe

    18 U.S.C. § 925 (a)(l) (2000) – exempting government officers from federal firearm disabilities.

    Cal. Penal Code § 468 (West 1985) – releasing police from liability for possession of sniper scopes and infrared scopes).

    People v. Curtis, 450 P.2d 33, 35 (Cal. 1969) – the “general acceptance” by courts of the elimination of the right to resist unlawful arrest.

    Rex v. Gay, Quincy Mass. Rep. 1761-1772 91 – acquitting assault defendant who beat a sheriff when sheriff attempted to arrest him pursuant to invalid warrant. And Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 30 n. 1, 31 n. 2 – citing cases upholding right to resist unlawful search and seizure.

    State v. Kutchara, 350 N.W.2d 924, 927 (Minn. 1984) – saying Minnesota law does not recognize right to resist unlawful arrest or search; People v. Curtis, 450 P.2d 33, 36 (Cal. 1969) – holding California law prohibits forceful resistance to unlawful arrest. {Me – Notice the word “unlawful” before the word “arrest”.}

    CAL. PENAL CODE § 243 (criminalizing the resistance, delay or obstruction of an officer in the discharge of “any duty of his office”). CAL. PENAL CODE § 834(a) (1957) – “If a person has knowledge … that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest”.

    Thor v. Superior Court, 855 P.2d 375, 380 (Cal. 1993) – saying the developing consensus “uniformly recognizes” a patient’s right to control his own body, stemming from the “long-standing importance in our Anglo-American legal tradition of personal autonomy and the right of self-determination.” (citations omitted). “For self-determination to have any meaning, it cannot be subject to the scrutiny of anyone else’s conscience or sensibilities.”

    “Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units”, Peter B. Kraska & Victor E. Kappeler

  3. Sorry, this “The right to resist unlawful arrest is a constitutional one. It cones from the right of every person to being whole, entire, and undiminished and their liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all Natural rights.”

    Should have read “”The right to resist unlawful arrest is protected in the Bill of Rights, it is a constitutional one in that respect. It comes from the NATURAL right of every person to being whole, entire, and undiminished and their liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all Natural rights.”

  4. CAL…..You always leave me with a sense of hope every time you spread your vast knowledge on these pages. Are you sure you are not one of the drafters of the constitution reincarnated…????

    Thank you for your outstanding input….always…

  5. Im actually surprised that Hassan signed this bill. I saw her proclaim that the colonists fought for democracy at the Exeter NH independence festival last year. I just turned and walked away.

Comments are closed.