Buyers Rush to Firearms Dealers

From the Spokesman-Review:

Sam Bishop stood Tuesday at the counter of Sharp Shooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop. He was looking at a gun for home security while he felt he still could, he said.

“I want to be just one step ahead of everybody else,” said Bishop, who was checking out the Spokane gun store’s selection of pistols. “I don’t want to come in here to get something left over that nobody wants.”

Bishop isn’t the only buyer rushing to a nearby firearms dealer. Spokane gun stores are reporting increased sales since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre Friday, which has sparked talk in Congress of potential gun control legislation.

Sales already appeared to be up in 2012 before the latest tragedy. The FBI, which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, reports record gun background checks for the year. The FBI ran checks on more than 16.8 million people through November nationwide. Even without December’s numbers, that’s a 2 percent increase from last year. About 444,000 of those were in Washington state.

Several Democratic lawmakers, including Washington’s U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, are promising gun reform in the wake of last week’s school shooting, as well as the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Portland.

The lawmakers say that at the very least they will push to reinstate the Clinton-era ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles often called assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004.

“My biggest fear is what our lawmakers are going to do,” Bishop said. “I just think the future for recreational and self-defense is potentially being jeopardized with the way our lawmakers look at gun ownership.”

Sharp Shooting owner Robin Ball said sales set a store record on Saturday. The most popular seller is the AR-15 style of semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut and Aurora, Colo., shootings. Ball said it’s a sporting rifle, usually used for hunting or competition.

Full article can be found here.

Delta Air Lines Subpoena Compliance

Delta Air Lines, Inc.
1030 Delta Blvd., Dept. 982
Atlanta, GA. 30354
Attn: Judith A. Gorham, Paralegal Specialist


Corporate Office: (404) 715-5212
FAX:   (404) 677-3221

Chief of Change

By Jacob James from the Inlander:

It would seem to take a strange kind of masochist to want to assume responsibility for the Spokane Police Department.

Considered misunderstood at best and dangerous at worst, the Lilac City’s police force remains plagued by widespread public cynicism, ongoing legal entanglements and a fractured sense of purpose.

Who would be crazy enough to take on this mess?

With three brass stars on his collar and a two-month-old badge over his heart, Frank Straub can at first glance appear surly, a bit unenthusiastic. He is not an overly animated public cheerleader, wearing his passion on his sleeve. He asks engaged questions, but rarely smiles. He speaks at a deliberate, analytical pace.

Hardly unpacked in his new city, Straub brings with him broad experience in regional and federal law enforcement. He carries the title “doctor” from a Ph.D. in criminal justice. He also carries a loaded .40-caliber Glock on his hip.

Perhaps surprisingly, considering the task ahead of him, he seems of sound mind.

But before Straub could even take his oath, two potential allies — Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich and the Spokane Police Guild — had already questioned his selection as chief. City officials had eyed cuts to his budget and staffing. Union negotiations had stalled for nearly a year, and the sticky issue of marijuana legalization had gone to voters. Above all, crime rates had continued to spike within a community long estranged from its police force.

Straub took the job anyway.

On this recent afternoon, Straub has called together more than a dozen local mental health experts to discuss cross-agency partnerships. Around the conference table, he asks for their support and expertise, promising them reform in return. Hospital directors, nonprofit leaders and psychiatry professors nod along with his suggestions.

“All I hear is the department sucks at helping the homeless or the mentally ill,” Straub tells the group. “I know we don’t suck. … We need to figure this out collectively because it’s better for all of us.”

They nod again. Not one questions his sanity.

Straub knows he still has much to prove to his own officers and the city they serve. Many local leaders, weary of in-fighting and perceived institutional incompetence, have high hopes for his administration. But they also have little tolerance left for failure.

Revealing a hidden optimist, Straub says he sees only opportunity. He sees officers too long held back from the work they love. He sees a police department too long distracted by politics and tragedy. He sees a city too long divided. But, beyond that, despite its bitter and broken history, he sees a community yearning for a new direction.

“We need to change the story,” he says.

Full article can be found here.

The House I Live In (2012)

State Drunk Driving Laws

All states define driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08 percent as a crime, although specific laws and penalties can vary substantially from state to state.

Administrative license suspensions allow law enforcement to confiscate a driver's license when he or she fails a chemical test. Several states grant limited driving privileges – such as driving to and from work – to drivers whose license has been suspended if the driver is able to demonstrate special hardship.

All states have some type of ignition interlock law, in which judges require all or a portion of convicted drunk drivers to install interlocks in their cars. These devices analyze a driver's breath and disable the engine if alcohol is detected.

Federal programs transfer surface transportation funding to the Section 402 highway safety grant program for states that fail to adopt open container and repeat offender laws.

Alcohol exclusion laws let insurance companies deny payment for treatment of drunk drivers' injuries, but they have limited doctors' abilities to diagnose alcohol problems and recommend treatment. Some states have repealed such laws.

Highlights of current state drunk driving laws include the following:

• All 50 states and the District of Columbia
 have enacted some sort of ignition interlock legislation.

• 17 states
 (and 4 California counties) have made ignition interlocks mandatory or highly incentivized for all convicted drunk drivers, even first-time offenders.

• 42 states, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands
all have some type of administrative license suspension on the first offense.

• 48 states, the District of Columbia and Guam
 have increased penalties for drunk drivers found guilty of driving with a high BAC (often .15 or higher).

NOTE: GHSA does not compile any additional data on drunk driving laws other than what is presented here. For more information, consult the appropriate State Highway Safety Office.

State	Inc. Penalty for High BAC	Admin. License Susp. on 1st Offense	Limited Driving Privileges During Susp.	Ignition Interlocks	Vehicle and License Plate Sanctions	Open Container Laws*	Repeat Offender Laws*	Alcohol Exclusion Laws Limiting Treatment
						*Meeting Federal Requirements
Ala.	.15	90 days		Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
Alaska	.15 (at judges' disc.)	90 days	After 30 days	Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle impoundment			Yes
Ariz.	.15	90 days	After 30 days	Mandatory for all convictions	Immobilization or impoundment	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ark.	.15	6 months	Yes	Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle confiscation		Yes	Yes
Calif.	.15	4 months	After 30 days	Discretionary Mandatory for all convictions in Alameda, Los Angeles, Tulare and Sacramento counties (pilot project)	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation	Yes		Yes
Colo.	.17	3 months	Yes	Highly incentivized for all convictions		Yes	Yes
Conn.	.16	90 days	Yes	Mandatory for all convictions			Yes
Del.	.16	3 months		Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions	Vehicle sanction and license plate impoundment		Yes	Yes
D.C.	.20 and .25	2-90 days or until disposition	Yes	Discretionary		Yes	Yes
Fla.	.20	6 months for DUBAL	After 30 days	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) convictions	Impoundment, vehicle forfeiture	Yes	Yes	Yes
		12 months for refusal	After 90 days
Ga.	.15	1 year	Yes	Mandatory for repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Guam	From .08 to .10					Yes	Yes
Hawaii	.15	3 months	After 30 days	Mandatory for all convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
Idaho	.20	90 days	After 30 days	Discretionary		Yes	Yes	Yes
Ill.	.16	6 months	After 30 days	Mandatory for all convictions	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes
Ind.	.15	180 days	After 30 days	Discretionary	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes
Iowa	.15	180 days	After 30 days	Discretionary		Yes	Yes
Kan.	.15	30 days		Mandatory for all convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
Ky.	.18	30 - 120 days	Yes	Discretionary	Impoundment	Yes	Yes	Yes
La. 1	.15 and .20	See footnote		Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle confiscation			Yes
Maine	.15	90 days	Yes	Discretionary	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes
Md.	.15	45 days	Yes, under certain circum- stances	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) convictions		Yes	Yes
Mass.	.20 (applies to ages 17-21)	90 days	Yes	Mandatory for repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mich.2	.17	See footnote	After 30 days	Mandatory for high BAC convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Minn.	.20	90 days	After 15 days	Mandatory for high BAC and repeat convictions	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation, special plates/ markings	Yes		Yes
Miss.		90 days		Discretionary	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation		Yes	Yes
Mo.	.15	90 days	After 30 days (restricted)	Mandatory for all convictions (eff. 10/1/13)	Vehicle forfeiture or impoundment (cities w/ 100,000+ allowed to enact ordinance)			Yes
Mont.	.16			Mandatory for repeat convictions	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation	Yes		Yes
Neb.	.15	90 days	After 30 days	Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle immobilization, continuous alcohol monitoring	Yes	Yes	Yes
Nev.	.18	90 days	After 45 days	Discretionary		Yes	Yes
N.H.	.16	6 months		Mandatory for high BAC convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
N.J.	.10			Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
N.M.	.16 (w/ mand. jail on all offenses)	<21: 1="1" br="br" yr.="yr.">>21: 6 mo.	Immediately w/ Ignition Interlock	Mandatory for all convictions	Immobilization of vehicle for driving while revoked	Yes		Yes
N.Y.	.18	Variable	Yes	Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
N.C.	.15	30 days	After 10 days	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes
N.D.	.18	91 days	After 30 days	Discretionary	Vehicle confiscation, license plate removal	Yes	Yes	Yes
M.P.		30 days - <6 months="months" td="td">				Yes	Yes
Ohio	.17	90 days	After 15 days	Discretionary	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation or immobilization, restricted plates	Yes		Yes
Okla.	.15	180 days	Yes	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15), repeat convictions, and refusals		Yes	Yes	Yes
Ore.	.15	90 days	After 30 days	Mandatory for all diversions		Yes	Yes
Pa. 3	.16		See footnote	Mandatory for repeat convictions		Yes	Yes	Yes
R.I.	.15			Judicial discretion on 3rd or subsequent conviction	Judicial discretion on 3rd or subsequent conviction	Yes
S.C.	.15	1 month (for >.15 BAC)	Yes	Mandatory for repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
S.D. 4	.17	See footnote	Yes	Discretionary		Yes
Tenn.	.20			Mandatory for high BAC and repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation		Yes	Yes
Texas	.15	90 days if .08 or greater; 180 days for refusal	Yes	Mandatory for repeat convictions	Vehicle confiscation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Utah	.16	120 days		Mandatory for all convictions	Impoundment	Yes	Yes	Yes
Vt.		90 days		Discretionary	Impoundment, vehicle confiscation	Yes		Yes
V.I.		Variable	Yes		Revoke license plate	Yes	Yes
Va.	.15 and .20	7 days		Mandatory for all convictions	Vehicle confiscation		Yes	Yes
Wash.	.15	90 days	With an ignition interlock driver’s license	Mandatory for all convictions	Mandatory tow and 12 hour impound	Yes
W.Va.	.15	6 months	After 30 days	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions			Yes	Yes
Wis.	.17, .20 and .25	6 months	Yes	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions	Impoundment, vehicle seizure/ forfeiture	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wy.	.15	90 days	Yes	Mandatory for high BAC (>.15) and repeat convictions				Yes
Total States	48 + D.C., 1 Terr.	42 + D.C., 2 Terr.	36 + D.C., 1 Terr.	Mandatory For All (17) High BAC (5) Repeat (6) High BAC & Repeat (9) Discretion-ary: 13 + D.C.	Varies	39 + D.C., 3 Terr.	37 + D.C., 3 Terr.	37

¹ Louisiana requires a 45 day hard suspension of driving privileges for a second DWI conviction.
² Michigan has administrative license suspension for for refusal to submit to chemical test.
³ Pennsylvania uses a program called Occupational Limited Licenses (OLL).
⁴ South Dakota has administrative license suspension for 30 days for refusal to submit to chemical test.

Sources: Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and State Highway Safety Offices.

NACDL Restoration of Rights Project

NACDL has put together a resource that profiles the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to relief from the collateral consequences of conviction. The information available includes individual profiles from each of the 54 state and federal jurisdictions as well as a set of charts that allows for side by side comparisons. Included are provisions on loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms privileges, legal mechanisms for overcoming or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment and licensing. NACDL has made this information available to its members as well as the general public to aid in determining the types of relief available from the collateral consequences of convictions. The information is available on NACDL's site available here.

Crime in the United States 2011

Since 1996, editions of Crime in the United States have been available on the FBI’s Web site www.fbi.gov. First released in Portable Document Format (PDF) files, more recent editions have been published in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) files. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program staff are committed to improving their annual publications so that the data they collect can better meet the needs of law enforcement, criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice who use the statistics for varied administrative, research, and planning purposes. For more information about how the UCR Program collects data, see About the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

Data provided

Crime in the United States, 2011, presents data tables containing information on the topics listed below. Data users can download Microsoft Excel spreadsheets of the data tables and Adobe PDFs of most of the text shown.

Offenses Known to Law Enforcement—Includes information about violent crime offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crime offenses (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson).

Expanded offense data—Provides additional data that the program collects on the eight offenses. Depending on the offense, these details may include the type of weapon and the type and value of items stolen. For the offense of murder, expanded homicide data include information about murder victims, offenders, and circumstances that are collected as supplemental homicide data.

Clearances—Furnishes information about crimes “solved” either by arrest or exceptional means.

Persons Arrested—Provides the number of arrests made by law enforcement and the age, gender, and race of arrestees for the 28 offenses (see Offense Definitions) for which the UCR Program publishes arrest data.

Police Employee Data—Supplies information regarding sworn officers and civilian law enforcement personnel.

Agencies contributing data

The table below shows the number of law enforcement agencies contributing data to the UCR Program within each population group for 2011. Information published in Crime in the United States, 2011, reflects data from these agencies.

Population Group	Number of Agencies	Population Covered
I (250,000 inhabitants and more)	75	56,398,148
II (100,000 to 249,999 inhabitants)	209	31,323,512
III (50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants)	473	32,816,692
IV (25,000 to 49,999 inhabitants)	888	30,762,527
V (10,000 to 24,999 inhabitants)	1,929	30,586,844
VI (Less than 10,000 inhabitants) 1, 2	9,499	26,669,678
VIII (Nonmetropolitan County)2	3,049	30,821,138
IX (Metropolitan County)2	2,111	72,213,378
Total	18,233	311,591,917

¹Includes universities and colleges to which no population is attributed.

²Includes state police to which no population is attributed.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) participation

In 2011, 29.4 percent of state programs and the District of Columbia reported all of their crime statistics via the NIBRS. This represented 28 percent of the U.S. population covered by UCR participants and accounted for 27 percent of all crime reported to the UCR Program. Thirty-six states are currently certified to report via the NIBRS. Among agencies within those states, more than 40 percent reported all of their statistics via the NIBRS.

What do you think?

The E-Government Act of 2002 (E-Gov), enacted by Congress, promotes more efficient uses of information technology by the federal government. This Web publication is a result of the UCR Program’s response to that Act. We welcome your feedback via our short evaluation form. Your comments will help us improve the presentation of future releases of Crime in the United States.

What you won’t find in this publication

Rankings by crime levels—Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration numerous other factors besides the areas’ crime statistics. Therefore, the UCR Program does not provide rankings of localities by crime levels. Cautions Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

Information about unreported crime—Crime in the United States features data collected from law enforcement agencies regarding only those offenses known to police. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), another agency within the Department of Justice, administers the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Using data from the NCVS, the BJS publishes information regarding crimes not reported to the police. For more information about the NCVS and how its data differ from information presented in Crime in the United States, see The Nation’s Two Crime Measures.

County crime totals and “raw data”—Crime in the United States offers crime data from local and county law enforcement agencies in separate tables. These data, which are also presented individually within a county (Crime by County), and other 2011 “raw data” from the UCR Program’s master files will be available sometime after the release of the 2011 publication. For more information, contact the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division via e-mail at cjis_comm@leo.gov.

Special studies—In previous years, Crime in the United States included special studies analyzing UCR data. Such studies are now released separately from the publication as monographs on www.fbi.gov.

Crime data for 2012—Preliminary statistics for January through June 2012 will be available on the Web in the fall of 2012 and replaced with preliminary data for all of 2012 in the spring of 2013. Crime in the United States, 2012, will be published on the Web in the fall of 2013.

The Central Park Five Trailer

Chris Rock on Gun Control

Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control guns. Fuck that . . . I think we need bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? 'Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars . . . people would think before they shot some. "Man, I would blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man." - Chris Rock

Justice Nice

Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository

Idaho State Judiciary

Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository

Name Search

Case Number Search

Court Calendars

As of May 27, 2008 case information is available for examination from all 44 Idaho Counties. 

This information will be displayed according to Idaho Court Administrative Rule (ICAR) 32.

The status of both pending and closed cases is available to the public. However, to ensure personal privacy, the following information is not provided to the public: 

• the first six characters of social security numbers
• street addresses
• telephone numbers
• any personal identification numbers (including motor vehicle operator's license numbers and financial account numbers)

Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers

Feds Join Shooting Probe

From the Spokesman Review:

A man charged with attempted second-degree murder in connection with a shot targeting three black youths was ordered held in jail Tuesday as federal authorities also indicated that they would investigate the shooting as a possible hate crime.

Jimmy J. Blackburn, 29, pleaded not guilty before Superior Court Judge Sam Cozza, who ordered Blackburn to remain in custody on a $500,000 bond. Cozza set Blackburn’s trial on the three attempted murder charges for Nov. 19.

Blackburn was arrested Sept. 13 as Spokane police officers converged at the Days Inn, at 120 W. Third Ave., to investigate the shooting of Paul A. Haney, 33, who was found dead in the parking lot.

According to court records, investigators believe Kevin M. Heaton, 35, is responsible for that shooting and remains on the loose. Heaton had paid for the room in which Blackburn was found at the Days Inn, but the court records don’t indicate whether Blackburn had any involvement in the Haney shooting.

Outside the hotel, however, investigators found a red 2012 Rocketa Sicily moped that was linked to a shooting the day before near 33rd Avenue and Thor Street.

In that case, three black youths were walking on 33rd Avenue at 4:20 p.m. on Sept. 12 when they heard a white man yelling racial slurs at them. That man was later identified as Blackburn, according to court records.

Blackburn challenged them to fight. “At this time, (Blackburn) asked the victims, ‘Have you guys ever had a gun pointed at you?'” according to court records.

Blackburn then walked over to the moped – which had been reported stolen earlier that day – and grabbed a locked pistol box, the records say. Unable to open it, Blackburn threw it on the ground several times until it opened.

According to one of the boys, Blackburn “pointed the handgun” at them and said “they could have a six second head start before he shoots them,” court records state. Blackburn then began yelling for someone named “Suicide” to come out of the house at 3304 E. 33rd Ave.

Full article can be found here.

SEC Warns on Rise of Affinity Fraud

From AdvisorOne:

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy on Wednesday issued an Investor Alert to help educate investors about affinity fraud, a type of investment scam that the agency is seeing more of that preys upon members of identifiable groups, such as religious or ethnic communities or the elderly.

As the SEC explains, affinity fraud almost always involves either a fake investment or an investment where the fraudster lies about important details (such as the risk of loss, the track record of the investment, or the background of the promoter of the scheme). "Many affinity frauds are Ponzi or pyramid schemes, where money given to the promoter by new investors is paid to earlier investors to create the illusion that the so-called investment is successful," the SEC says.

Fraudsters who carry out affinity scams frequently are (or pretend to be) members of the group they are trying to defraud. “Fraudsters target any group they think they can convince to trust them with the group members’ hard-earned savings,” the SEC says.

For instance, a recent SEC action was against a Ponzi scheme promoter who sold promissory notes bearing purported annual interest rates of 12% to 20%, telling primarily African-American investors that the funds would be used to purchase and support small businesses such as a laundry, juice bar, or gas station. The promoter, the SEC says, also sold “sweepstakes machines” that he claimed would generate investor returns of as much as 300% or more in the first year.

At its core, the SEC says, “affinity fraud exploits the trust and friendship that exist in groups of people who have something in common.” And “because of the tight-knit structure of many groups, it can be difficult for regulators or law enforcement officials to detect an affinity scam.” Victims often fail to notify authorities or pursue legal remedies. Instead, they try to work things out within the group. This is particularly true where the fraudsters have used respected community or religious leaders to convince others to join the investment.

Full article can be found here.

IRS Boosts Staff in Tax Refund fraud

Tampa Bay Online:

The Internal Revenue Service is tripling the number of staff members nationwide who are dedicated to addressing the issue of identity theft tax refund fraud, U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor said.

Castor, the Tampa Democrat, said she was briefed Friday by IRS officials regarding progress the agency is making to tackle the epidemic of fraud in which the Tampa area leads the nation.

Thieves use stolen personal information — such as names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers — to file tax returns with fake income information and obtain fraudulent tax refunds.

According to a recent inspector general report, thieves in the Tampa area alone stole more than $400 billion last year from federal taxpayers this way. Nationwide, identity thieves are stealing billions from the federal government through refund fraud.

Castor said the IRS assured her it is increasing its screening filters, designed to detect fraudulent returns before refunds are issued. Across the board, law enforcement officials have repeatedly said the fraud is so pervasive, it cannot be stopped by arrests and prosecutions — that the IRS needs to stop sending "refunds" to thieves.

The IRS told Castor that so far this year, it has prevented 2.3 million fraudulent refunds from being issued, totaling $15 billion. That's compared to 1.4 million fraudulent refunds stopped in 2011, worth $11 billion.

Part of that effort apparently involves increasing scrutiny of tax filings originating from Tampa, Castor noted.

"I said, 'Geographically, where you know there is an epidemic, like the Tampa Bay area and the state of Florida, I assume filters are place.' They said yes.

"They say they're on the cusp of instituting many, multiple new filters to prevent the fraud from happening in the first place," Castor said.

"So they will flag, for example, multiple returns coming to the same address. That's a question I keep getting. How can it be that the IRS is sending multiple debit cards and returns to the same address over and over?"

Castor also noted something police have been saying: often crooks will use the same fake numbers repeatedly on numerous returns. For example, two suspects indicted this week were accused of filing 17 tax returns, each seeking refunds of $1,453.

The new filters, Castor says she was assured, "will flag that."

While Castor was encouraged by the new IRS approach, she added, "I know from the folks coming to my office with checks and calls and people I see in the grocery store, this is still a huge problem and we've got to continue to press the IRS until Tampa no longer is number one for tax fraud."

Full article can be found here.

Iowa State Nice

Iowa Launches Website Listing Blood Alcohol Tests

A website recently launched by the state will allow the public, as well as law enforcement, to search for breath alcohol test results, certification records on breath test machines and officers’ alcohol training status.

Criminalist Jim Bleskacek of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said he proposed the idea to ensure the breath-testing equipment is working and accurate because those results can determine whether someone will be charged and possibly convicted of operating while intoxicated.

The DCI is responsible for making sure the breath alcohol equipment is maintained properly and certification is updated,” Bleskacek, said. “The equipment is certified once a year, according to Iowa code, but we probably check the calibration and do maintenance about every 10 months.”Criminalist Jim Bleskacek of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said he proposed the idea to ensure the breath-testing equipment is working and accurate because those results can determine whether someone will be charged and possibly convicted of operating while intoxicated.

Bleskacek said while the intent of the site is to provide complete transparency, it also protects the rights of individuals, who in many cases have only been arrested and not charged and convicted. The names and driver’s licenses are not included in the statistics or results.

“You would have to know a date of birth in order to bring up a specific person’s results,” Bleskacek said.

The site allows the public to search for breath alcohol tests by county, date range, gender or name of officer, Bleskacek said. The 170 breath test machines in the state automatically download the data for the site via the Internet. Bleskacek monitors the site every day to ensure everything is properly uploading and there are no malfunctions.

The test results are usually posted within 12 to 24 hours of the arrest, Bleskacek said.

Mike Lahammer, Cedar Rapids defense attorney, said he checked out the site and doesn’t see any privacy issues.

“It’s interesting information and would be a good resource to look at certification (of equipment) and history of an officer,” Lahammer said.

“The statistics of average blood alcohol content levels are interesting but not really valuable for a defense,” Lahammer said. “In a defense, you look at the individual and the circumstances like their weight, height, age, how much they drank over a period of time, what time of day was it.”

Full article can be found at the Gazette here.

Warrantless wiretap bill passes in US House, Authorizes 5 More Years of Domestic Spying

From the Verge:

In a 301 to 118 decision, the US House of Representatives has voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, a bill which will extend the US government's previously established warrantless wiretapping programs for the next five years. The bill preserves far-reaching and highly controversial enhancements to government surveillance powers granted under amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2008, and has been met with considerable resistance from privacy groups and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

FISA was originally tasked with preventing American citizens from being spied on following a 1978 scandal that found Richard Nixon's administration using US intelligence agencies to target activists and political opponents. But those protections have since been severely eroded, first by the USA Patriot Act in 2001, and again by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, greatly expanding government surveillance powers to allow warrantless wiretapping of phone, email, and other communications.

Full article can be found here.

“A Criminal Justice System for Spokane That Works"

The Smart Justice Campaign Presents

“A Criminal Justice System for Spokane That Works"

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

Thursday∙ September 13, 2012 ∙ 6:30 pm ∙ FREE

The Bing Crosby Theater  ∙  901 W. Sprague Ave.

Dr. Marlowe will describe what alternatives to incarceration and other programming have been proven to be more effective than incarceration in reducing crime, and how these Smart Justice programs could benefit Spokane County.

For more information contact:

Anne Martin - anne@spokaneprogress.org 

Julie Schaffer - jschaffer@cforjustice.org

Oregon Federal Defender Search and Seizure Update

Every year the Oregon Federal Public Defender publishes a search and seizure update. The free download, available here, is a free fifty-two page summary of federal search and seizure law. A great place to get your research started.

FBI launches $1B ID search program

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is stepping up in its quest to exploit new technology to hunt down criminals, investing in a new system steeped in biometrics.

The FBI's $1 billion Next Generation Identification (NGI) program's aim is to significantly improve the existing fingerprint identification service. The ambitious project may raise the hackles of privacy advocates, but the FBI is intent on including facial recognition, iris scanning, DNA analysis and voice identification tech as the new face of criminal investigation -- reliability and accuracy concerns aside.

The NGI program is also reported to include rolled and latent finger and palm prints.

A pilot scheme is currently being run by the agency compiles all of this information for different purposes. As an example, one test matches up headshots in crowd photos which are then compared with database-stored images from security footage.

Through the NGI, an algorithm would conduct an automatic search and return potential 'hits' to officers. In an additional advancement, a database will store visuals of scars, tattoos and other physical marks.

The FBI has collected this kind of information for a long time. For example, voice recognition can be matched when a recording is sent from another group, as can facial images. However, the new scheme is being rolled out nationwide -- a first for the organization.

In addition, the FBI plans to provide access to the new databases to state law enforcement agencies. In an age of security systems like Trapwire and torrent swarm poisoning, perhaps privacy advocacy groups have a right to be worried -- as the database may also capture and store images of the general public. However, it may also streamline services and make criminal investigations easier for the FBI to conduct.

It is expected to be implemented nationwide by 2014.

Full article can be found here.