Friday, February 26, 2010

Pardon Me While I Check You Out (Hold Still, Please)

From All Tech Considered by Bill Chappell:

In the latest sign that facial recognition is getting more sophisticated than people's ability to cope with it, a new phone app called Recognizr promises to "augment reality" in a new way: using an image of a person to tell you who they are.

Here's a video showing a trial version in action:



It's at the prototype stage now and works only on Android phones. The Swedish company behind it is called The Astonishing Tribe. Which, honestly, I'm just too busy to make fun of properly. Instead, here's a visualization (my own) of how the system would work:

Person A takes a picture of herself, and uploads it to Recognizr.

She then connects the image to her various social "presences" -- Facebook, Picasa, LinkedIn, etc.

At a party, Person B sees Person A -- and points their cellphone at her. They hit the "Recognize" button on their screen, and Recognizr confirms that, yes, Person A is that girl Person B hated in high school -- and from the looks of her online life, she's far more successful.

Now, if Recognizr could then alert everyone else in the room that a big scene was about to go down, that'd be great.
Something like: "Is Person B slamming margaritas? If yes: She's about to put the smackdown on Person A." Bonus points if that text goes to everyone EXCEPT for Person A -- who, let's face it, has had enough good luck in life already.

And that's just one example. The feel-good interpretation of facial recognition is that it would help people connect, to realize that no-one is really a stranger, just a friend you haven't met -- all that stuff.

The noxious side of it ranges from stalker empowerment to the taming of parties and bar scenes. I mean, many of us are already paranoid that some wild photos or online comments might cost us a future job opportunity.

Put actual facial recognition software in the hands of any random stranger, and you'd have a whole new reason to put that lampshade on your head -- to cover your face 'til you've reestablished a sense of decorum.

And this kind of software is not as rare as you might think. As we've discussed before, Google Goggles -- which can identify objects and buildings -- has a similar capability. But faced with privacy concerns -- and a general fear that Google is already involved in our lives enough -- the company disabled the feature before it launched Goggles.

If all of this sounds really complicated and futuristic, consider this: Recognizr, which uses Polar Rose's facial recognition software, require an image of at least 5 megapixels, according to an article in Technology Review -- not exactly a high bar.

And some new cameras are actually shipping with facial recognition ability already embedded in their software. One, from Fujifilm, can even recognize your pet:

Facial recognition is being pushed as a way to help us organize our digital photos, in iPhoto and other image library services -- including Facebook, where Polar Rose is already active. And some new cameras are even coming pre-equipped with the ability.

I'm hearing the privacy advocates loud and clear. This is a scarily rich pool of information that we're still figuring out how to control -- and, often, learning to be comfortable with a lack of total control.

But you can't blame people for trying to find a new way to answer an age-old question, one that dates from the first time Adam looked across the garden at Eve: Who Dat?

Article at NPR can be found here.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Eyewitness Misidentification

Misidentification is the number one cause of wrongful convictions. Whether by perjury or eyewitness/victim error, innocent people are spending time behind bars for crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system puts a lot of faith in eyewitness testimony, but there is no way to guarantee their testimony is fact. Only after innocence is proven is it made evident that eyewitness testimony was erroneous. Due to this fact, it is not possible to know the number of wrongful convictions by mistaken identity, because many who are mistakenly identified will never have a chance to prove their innocence. Furthermore, the scope of the problem cannot be known because of instances where prosecutors drop the case or in cases where people are acquitted after reversals on appeal. While appellate decisions are published and readily available online, the problem with trial acquittals or dropped cases, is that they are not systematically catalogued and made public, so there is no way to be sure of the role of eyewitness testimony in those cases.

The Facts
In June of 2000, an analysis by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found that of 51 exonerations by DNA testing in the United States and Canada, 76.1% had been based in whole or in part on eyewitness identification testimony.
Another study of 86 exonerated capital cases by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found:

- Of the 86 cases, eyewitness testimony played a role in 46 (53.5%).
- In 33 cases (38.4%), eyewitness identification was the only evidence.
- Of the 46 cases that involved eyewitness testimony, 32 cases only had one eyewitness (69.6%), while the remaining 14 cases had multiple eyewitnesses (30.4%).
- In 19 cases (41.3%), the eyewitnesses were strangers, in 9 cases (19.6%), they were non-accomplice acquaintances.


Remedies
There are multiple remedies to minimize the number of wrongful convictions by mistaken identification. The most important remedy is to reform eyewitness identification procedures.


Methods of Reform
Sequential lineups is one technique that has been increasingly used in eyewitness identification procedures. In a sequential lineup, the witness is shown lineup members one at a time. The witness has to identify whether or not the person is the perpetrator before they can move on to the next person. This method differs from the traditional procedure of the witness viewing all members at once (simultaneous lineup). The sequential lineup procedure has proven to be more accurate because it forces witnesses to use an absolute judgment strategy rather than a relative judgment strategy (where they compare all the members and simply choose the best match from the group). After all, it is certainly possible that the perpetrator is not in the lineup at all.

Double-blind is another technique in lineup procedures. In double-blind procedures, neither the administrator nor the witness know who the suspect is. This prevents the administrator from influencing the witness by unintentional or intentional clues to the identity of the suspect.

Specific instruction to witnesses includes spoken instructions from the administrator to the eyewitness. These instructions are meant to deter the witness from feeling forced to make a selection from the lineup. Specific instructions also prevent the witness from looking at the administrator for feedback during the procedure; they are made aware that the administrator does not know who the suspect is and that he or she will not be able to assist the witness during the procedure. One recommended instruction is that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup.

Composing the lineup: Photographs of the suspect should be selected that do not bring unreasonable attention to him or her. In addition, it is vital that non-suspect photographs and lineup members are chosen by their resemblance to the description provided by the witness, not by their resemblance to the suspect. The suspect should also not really stand out from the other photographs or lineup members.

Confidence statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the witness should provide, in his or her own words, a statement regarding his or her confidence in making the right identification.

Recorded lineup procedure: Where possible, the lineup procedures should be video-recorded. Audio or written records should be made where this is not possible.

Courtesy of Innocence Project of Minnesota (©2007)

Innocence Project of Iowa

The Innocence Project of Iowa is a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent and remedy wrongful convictions in the State of Iowa through education, advocacy, and litigation. The Project's volunteers provide representation to inmates with viable claims of actual innocence.

Their website provides information about the Innocence Project of Iowa, their work, and the national innocence movement. Learn about them, including their history, structure, and organization. Persons seeking assistance from the Project should follow the instructions in information for inmates. They encourage you to support them financially or to get involved as a volunteer. Check out the latest news and the many resources they have available. Finally, feel free to contact them if you have any questions.

Miranda?


aka We know you asked for an attorney 14 days ago but we decided to check on you and see if you still really wanted an attorney? In the new US Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Shatzer, the majority of the Court ruled that police may reinitiate questioning after a suspect has requested counsel as long as a sufficient period of time passes. What is a sufficient time? 14 days the Court decides...more below from the New York Times (full article here).
The police can take a second run at questioning a suspect who has invoked his Miranda rights, but they must wait until 14 days after the suspect has been released from custody, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The case arose from a second attempt to question Michael B. Shatzer, a Maryland man suspected of sexually abusing his young son. Mr. Shatzer, who was in prison for another sex crime, was first visited by a police detective in 2003. Mr. Shatzer invoked his rights under the 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona and refused to answer questions without a lawyer.

Two and a half years later, still in prison, Mr. Shatzer was approached by a different detective. This time, Mr. Shatzer waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements about abusing his son.

Mr. Shatzer’s lawyer moved to suppress those statements, relying on a 1981 Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Arizona, which said that once a suspect had asked for a lawyer under Miranda, the authorities may not resume questioning.

The issue in Mr. Shatzer’s case, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for seven justices, was whether that prohibition on further questioning was “eternal.”

Justice Scalia said the main reason to forbid repeated attempts at questioning was to prevent badgering of a suspect held in custody while a crime was under investigation. He added that voluntary confessions were “an unmitigated good” and that suspects were always free to invoke their Miranda rights again when approached for further questioning.

Taken to an extreme, Justice Scalia added, the prohibition on further attempts at questioning would confer a sort of immunity on suspects who had once invoked their rights — even if the subsequent questioning concerned another crime in another jurisdiction.

The court could have answered only the question directly presented in Mr. Shatzer’s case — whether a gap of more than two years was sufficient to allow further efforts at questioning. In a concurrence endorsing the result but declining to adopt the majority’s reasoning, Justice John Paul Stevens said that was the route he would have taken.

But in a move that Justice Scalia conceded was “certainly unusual,” the justices in the majority picked a specific time period — 14 days after release from custody — after which the police could restart their efforts.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Breean Beggs to Leave Center for Justice

In a letter sent this week to the organization's board and staff, the Center for Justice's litigation director and chief administrator has announced his resignation.

"Last week marked my sixth anniversary as an employee at the Center for Justice," Beggs wrote. "As I reflect on my remarkable experiences here, I know in my heart and mind that it is time for a change."

Beggs, 47, is a Whitworth University graduate, born in Weaverville, California, who came to the Center from private practice in Bellingham. He is widely regarded as having one of the best legal and policy minds in the Northwest. His numerous awards and recognition include a Local Hero Award from the Washington Bar Association in 2003, Outstanding Young Lawyer from the Washington State Bar Association in 1996, and his selection as an Uncommon Contributor to the Community by the Spokesman-Review in 2008. He has initiated and guided a number of high-profile cases and causes during his tenure as the Center's "Chief Catalyst."

As Beggs acknowledged in his letter, his decision to leave comes in the wake of a difficult year in which the nonprofit law firm has been trying to re-organize its work in light of a declining budget.

"At the same time," he wrote, "my continued development as a catalyst for positive social change seems to be preparing me for more formal public office in the coming years. I believe that both causes will be best served if I step away now as an employee of the Center."

Beggs wrote that he remains "absolutely committed to the Center's missions, its causes and clients," and that he will continue to serve at the Center as the law firm considers whether and how to replace him as its day to day leader. Beyond that, he wrote, "my next step is to join my longtime lawyer friends at the firm of Paukert & Troppmann, where I will continue to represent those of limited means and influence as a legal advocate."

Jim Sheehan, the Center's founder and board president, said he was both surprised and saddened by Beggs's announcement.

"It really is hard to explain to people on the outside just how important Breean has been in guiding the Center's litigation and public policy initiatives over the past six years," Sheehan said. "He really was able to take our work to a whole new level, especially when our community needed a fierce public advocate for open government, government accountability, civil rights and due process. I guess if there's a silver lining here it's that Breean clearly has the gifts to be a dynamic public servant, if that's where he's headed."

Sheehan said the Center's board and staff will be deeply engaged in discussions about whether and how the Center will move to replace Beggs.

"To be honest, these have been trying times for all of us," Sheehan said. "We're deeply committed to being the Community's law firm but, as Breean noted in his letter, we're continuing to wrestle with how best we can do that with our limited resources."

Sheehan said that while Beggs's departure will undoubtedly affect the Center's future litigation strategies, current cases such as the Federal civil rights suit brought on behalf of the estate of Otto Zehm will not be affected.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

National Symposium on Indigent Defense: Looking Back, Looking Forward 2010

The National Symposium on Indigent Defense: Looking Back, Looking Forward 2010 was held in Washington D.C. this past week and was attended by more than 600 public defenders, judges and elected officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder. The Symposium's goal is discuss ways to better defend those without the means to hire their own attorneys. San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi gave a presentation on the crisis in indigent defense funding and discussed how his office has dealt with the increasing demand for legal services created by the economic recession. The San Francisco Public Defender's Office has faced cuts of nearly $1 million dollars which forced the office to refuse appointment of cases and led to outsourcing hundreds of cases to private attorneys due to lack of staffing. Adachi has been a vocal opponent of the budget cuts, saying that it costs the city much more to outsource cases than to have his office provide representation. Adachi’s prediction came true, with more than $3.2 million in private counsel costs being requested by the court to cover cases that the Public Defender could have handled with adequate staffing. As an interesting side-note, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi is a publicly elected official, one of the few publicly elected public defender's in the country.

Here is an excerpt from Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks given at the Symposium (full remarks here).

As we all know, public defender programs are too many times under-funded. Too often, defenders carry huge caseloads that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fulfill their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients. Lawyers buried under these caseloads often can't interview their clients properly, file appropriate motions, conduct fact investigations, or spare the time needed to ask and apply for additional grant funding. And the problem is about more than just resources. In some parts of the country, the primary institutions for the delivery of defense to the poor – I'm talking about basic public defender systems – simply do not exist.

I continue to believe that if our fellow citizens knew about the extent of this problem, they would be as troubled as you and I. Public education about this issue is critical. For when equal justice is denied, we all lose.

As a prosecutor and former judge, I know that the fundamental integrity of our criminal justice system, and our faith in it, depends on effective representation on both sides. And I recognize that some may perceive the goals of those who represent our federal, state, and local governments and the goals of those who represent the accused as forever at odds. I reject that premise. Although they may stand on different sides of an argument, the prosecution and the defense can, and must, share the same objective: Not victory, but justice. Otherwise, we are left to wonder if justice is truly being done, and left to wonder if our faith in ourselves and in our systems is misplaced.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Fake Pot that Acts Real Stymies Law Enforcement

From MSNBC:

There may be nothing like the real thing, but some industrious marijuana users have seized on an obscure but easily accessible substance that mimics the drug's effects on the brain —creating a popular trade in legal dope that has stymied law enforcement authorities.

The users are buying a product known as K2 — or "Spice," Genie" and "Zohai" — that is commonly sold in headshops as incense. Produced in China and Korea, the mixture of herbs and spices is sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Users roll it up in joints or inhale it from pipes, just like the real thing.

Though banned in most of Europe, K2's key ingredients are not regulated in the United States — a gap that has prompted lawmakers in Missouri and Kansas to consider new legislation.

Full article can be found here.

Greyhound Bus Lines Subpoena Compliance

Greyhound Bus Lines
Mark Southerst
15110 Dallas Pkwy
Dallas, Texas 75266

PH: 214.849.8000

The Greyhound Law Department which handles subpoenas is now run out of a company called FirstGroup in Cincinnati. FirstGroup also handles Greyhound media relations. Here's the latest info on how to serve Greyhound.

Josh Welker (513)419-3386 is the person who runs the database searches. He can provide passenger itineraries, copies of tickets, and payment information. For recent years, he can provide all three. For older dates, he may only be able to provide passenger itineraries. Fax subpoenas to him at 513-684-1698 or 513-362-4537.

Mike Petrucci is an attorney at Firstgroup in the Law department. Petrucci can be reached direct at 513-684-8740. His email is Mike.Petrucci@firstgroup.com. Petrucci’s fax is also 513-684-1698.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Brain Scans Make for More Accurate Lie Detector Tests

NPR's Ira Flatow, host of Talk of the Nation Science Friday, joins NPR's Noah Adams to discuss how brain scans could provide a more accurate lie detector test. Researchers announced this week that brain scans of people telling the truth look very different from those who are lying. The study was conducted by researchers at Temple University in Philadelphia, Penn.

Episode can be found here.

Microsoft Subpoena Compliance

MSN Custodian of Records
Global Criminal Compliance Response Team
MSN Security Operations

Phone: 425.722.1299
FAX: 425.708.0096

MSN Hotmail
1065 La Avenida, Building #4
Mountain View, California 94043

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Password Protected Phone: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?


A California Court in People v. Taylor is considering whether police should have applied for a warrant prior to bypassing the password on an I-Phone and searching the data contained therein. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked a judge to suppress all evidence collected from the phone as a result of the warrantless search, and to quash the warrant that was issued in part on the basis of the information illegally accessed on the phone. The phone was seized as part of an arrest; back at the police station, officers worked to bypass the phone's security and cracked the code. After police realized that the data contained in the phone was more extensive than originally anticipated, officers then applied for a warrant. The case is scheduled to be argued on February 18th in Riverside, California.

Given the data capacity of smart phones, people store far more than just numbers in a telephone. Private communications, text messages, emails, notepads, internet favorites, contacts, and the like are just some of the things people store in their phones. The phone involved in this case had the added "expectation of privacy" manifested in the password protection feature(!) This case is one in a trend of cell-phone privacy issues that are cropping up more and more as cell phones are increasingly woven into the fabric of our lives.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

This Must Be Why the Police Don't Usually Videotape the Stop

Look at this case:
The video of defendant’s stop was inconclusive on the question of whether defendant consented. The officer’s actions were not indicative of a true consent. United States v. Paul, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7994 (M.D. La. January 29, 2010)*:

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The Black Rock:the African American Experience at Alcatraz



For Black History Month here is a clip from "The Black Rock" a 2009 film that explores the largely undocumented history of the African American prisoner experience on Alcatraz. Filmmaker Kevin Epps has shifted his documentary lens from previous subjects like life in Hunters Point, and the Bay’s Hip Hop underground, to life in SF’s notorious offshore federal lock up.

United States Probation Publication 107

When preparing for that all important Presentence Investigation Report (aka the PSI), it is important to consult "Publication 107". Published by United States Probation, it has sections for how the investigation is to be conducted, how the interview should proceed, and limitations on the information that should be included. An example of some gems(from FDEWI Blog, full post here):

Standard of Proof: Consider pointing out that the report fails to articulate that the information is alleged or inferred. Publication 107 states, “while the court may consider a vast amount of information in determining an appropriate sentence, it is important that the probation officer distinguish between information that is factual, inferred, or alleged. The court is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence at sentencing in considering whether a fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, but information should have a “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” [Pub107, III-2]

Supporting Documentation: Probation officers should have supporting documentation to back up challenges by counsel. “Attorneys for opposing sides may aggressively contest the accuracy of facts contained in the presentence report or application of the guidelines to those facts. Officers should be prepared to respond to these situations professionally by having all supporting documentation readily at hand. [Pub107, I-1]. “Every effort should be made to provide the court with reliable information, since inaccurate information that is relied on by the court or others may lead to unfair or unintended results.” [Pub107, -2]

The hearsay evidence, however, must have some indicia of reliability. When evaluating potentially damaging allegations obtained during the course of the presentence investigation, the officer must consider factors such as the relationship between the defendant and the individual making the allegation, the nature of the allegation, the time frame in which the alleged conduct occurred, and the presence or absence of corroborating information. [Pub107, III-3]

Monday, February 1, 2010

Fredo

Who's A Rat - Website Identifies Informants

Many state and Federal law enforcement agencies are concerned about the existence and the use of web sites that identify informants and law enforcement officers. One such website is www.whosarat.com. WhosARat was created in 2004 to identify informants who provide information to law enforcement agencies. The site publishes the names of confidential informants, along with the names and photographs of law enforcement officers. It is also believed that this site captures and displays information about everyone who visits it.

When accessing this website from an IP address associated with a government or law enforcement agency and performing a search for an informant or a law enforcement officer, the informant’s or officer’s identity can be automatically cross-referenced to the agency initiating the inquiry. Searching or viewing any site content can give the impression that the informant or officer is involved in an active case. The assumption may or may not be correct but the implication could impede an active investigation. The Department of Homeland Security has warned its employees to stay away from the site, because visiting it could provide website administrators information about government computer networks.