Blog

Uh-oh, you might wanna think twice before posting those party pictures on Facebook:

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student Adam Bauer has nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.

He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.
…
He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites. [LaCrosse-Tribune]

First things first, there’s certainly nothing good to be said about these sorts of law-enforcement tactics. Police always have better things to do than roam the Internet looking for pictures of naughty college kids and there’s no excuse for invading people’s privacy to make a couple petty arrests. The very notion of officers assuming fake identities on Facebook is just inherently repugnant and serves only to destroy their relationship with the very people they’re supposed to be protecting.

That said, it’s also worth keeping in mind that you have a 5th Amendment right not to post incriminating pictures of yourself on Facebook. It’s just an unfortunate reality that police do creep around on the web an awful lot for no particularly good reason and you never know where their prying eyes might land. This means you should think about what you’re posting, and keep an eye out for other people incriminating you as well. Simply untagging yourself from a couple questionable photos could be all it takes to save you a huge hassle down the road.

In my experience, this issue goes beyond what may or may not have taken place in one photo on one particular night. I’ve known people who got passed over for a job because their prospective employer found unflattering photos online. Worse, I know of instances in which online photos were used to attack someone’s character in an otherwise unrelated criminal case. The bottom line is that posting pictures online has much broader implications than simply showing your friends what a kick-ass weekend you had.

Finally, remember that if you’re ever confronted with a photo that shows you in a compromising situation, you don’t have to incriminate yourself. Rarely will the photo itself be sufficient evidence to convict you of anything. What they’re really looking for is the confession that they hope will come spilling out of your mouth after they show you what they’ve got. If you keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer, chances are they’ve got nothing. … Continued

Gotta love the ACLU for fighting for the First Amendment rights of a jackass motorist who gets arrested cited for flipping a cop the bird.

So says Sara Rose of the ACLU…

“The law is clear that using one’s middle finger to express discontent or frustration is expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment.”

Finger Flinger David Hackbart will likely get a $50,000 payment from the city of Pittsburgh. But after lawyers fees, he’ll probably net about $10,000.

I wonder what Peter Griffin thinks about this?

… Continued

Hours after I met Phil Mocek at the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Albuquerque, he was arrested at the local airport after he refused to show Transportation Security Authority officials his identification.

While we at Flex Your Rights start by educating folks on how to avoid arrest, we admire the Flex experts (Flexperts?) like Phil who know their rights and are prepared to take an arrest in order to test bad laws in court.

And this is where things get weird with the shadowy world of the TSA: Phil didn’t break any written laws. Refusing to provide ID to TSA agents isn’t a crime — yet he was charged with disorderly conduct, concealing identify, resisting arrest and criminal trespass.

Presumably, most or all of these charges will be dropped. And Phil is likely to fight things out in court if they are not.

Regardless of the outcome, Flex gives major props to freedom fighters like Phil and John Gilmore who put their freedom on the line to expose new and strange limitations on everyone’s personal freedoms.

… Continued

If you don’t enjoy being searched anytime you enter a government building, you’re not alone:

Chicago aldermen with their noses out of joint Friday demanded to know why they are searched along with the masses at the city’s central headquarters for administrative hearings.
…
[Administrative Hearings Director] Bruner initially defended the policy, telling aldermen, “It’s not my intention to offend anyone. It’s only our intention to make sure that people coming through are searched. . . . We’re trying to treat everyone equally.” [Sun Times]

Apparently, the idea of “treating everyone equally” didn’t sit very well with those in positions of political power:

Budget Committee Chair Carrie Austin (34th) was so “offended,” she warned Bruner what might happen if he fails to “take another look at your policy.”

“It’s not a matter of giving anybody any preference. But us that are aldermen — we are the ones who set your budget. If we’re the ones setting your budget maybe we’ll take an adjustment” downward, if the policy is not rescinded, Austin warned.

She says she doesn’t want special treatment, then in the same breath she threatens to defund the department if it doesn’t surrender to her demands. Unbelievable.

Maybe instead of demanding new privileges for themselves, Chicago’s aldermen should do more to deal with the city’s rampant problems with police abuse. If you don’t like being searched at security checkpoints in city buildings, then maybe you should show more sympathy for all the innocent people who don’t like being illegally searched on the street.

… Continued

Each frisk is an ordinary injustice. One million frisks is a national tragedy disgrace.

… Continued