Tag Archives: Fourth Amendment

Help Me Stop Mandatory Biometric ID!

Facial Recognition black white

Kaye Beach

Dec. 9, 2013

My name is Kaye Beach.  If you don’t know me, here is the short story;  I’m an ordinary woman, a Christian, a mom, and a wife.  I was a small business woman for about 20 years but for the last six years I have been an activist with one mission – to stop mandatory biometric ID.

I have filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma to challenge the requirement of my biometric data in exchange for a state driver’s license.  I believe that this requirement is a violation of my right to religious freedom and my right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures both of which are protected under Oklahoma law.  (You can read my Motion for Summary Judgment here)

Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.

The simple truth is that all of us are being enrolled into a single, global system of identification and control that links our bodies through biometrics to our ability to buy sell and travel (and more!)

My lawsuit is based on the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and Article II Sec. 30 of the Oklahoma constitution, our state’s reiteration of the Fourth Amendment which says we have a right to be free of searches and seizures without just cause. When it comes to biometric ID, It makes no difference whether you are a Christian who is preaching the Gospel, an activist protesting injustice, or merely an ordinary person trying to work and feed your family – mandatory biometric ID means ultimate control by government.

Information is power.

As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.

In the US, enrollment is being accomplished largely through state driver’s license and ID cards.  For example, the current Immigration reform bill seeks to build upon the existing DMV biometric databases and use our biometrics to control our ability to work for a living.

And as Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has testified,

‘The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) database represents the most robust effort to introduce and streamline multimodal biometrics collection.  FBI has stated it needs “to collect as much biometric data as possible . . . and to make this information accessible to all levels of law enforcement, including International agencies.” Accordingly, it has been working “aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.”’

The state biometric DMV databases are the foundation for corporate and government tracking and control. This is why I am fighting the state’s mandatory biometric ID but I need your help in order to win.

The Constitutional Alliance writes, “Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”

My lawsuit is challenging the compulsory nature of biometric ID.  I want to know – do we have the right NOT to be enrolled?  That is the question that has not been asked, that must be asked in a court of law, and this is why I am asking for your help.  We have one more deposition to complete and then the case should proceed on to the courtroom.  My legal representation is not free and my case will only go forward if people are willing to support it.  I need to raise $20,000 for my legal fees in order to keep my agreement with my legal team and keep my case moving forward.

There are no longer any technical or political barriers to implementing this unprecedented system of global identification and financial control. The only obstacle now is you and I. 

If you want to help me win this first, crucial fight against mandatory biometric enrollment I ask you to please consider contributing whatever you can, to my legal fund.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Kaye Beach

Follow the developments in my legal case at http://constitutionalalliance.org

Contact me at AxxiomForLiberty@gmail.com


Oklahoma Action Alert! SB618 DNA Collection Before Conviction

dna prison

Kaye Beach

March 6, 2012

SB618 by Sen. Clark Jolley and Rep. Leslie Osborn will be heard as early as today tomorrow in the OK Senate.

SB618 would require mandatory collection of your DNA following arrest for felony and even some misdemeanor offenses. 

If there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is connected to other crimes, law enforcement can get a warrant for the sample.  Collecting and databanking of DNA on arrestees as a matter of course and not upon any particular suspicion of a connection to a specific crime, negates the principle of innocent until proven guilty which is the cornerstone of our justice system.

The original mandate of DNA databases – to record genetic markers from convicted offenders, on the dual theories that convicts are;

1) likely to reoffend


2) their diminished expectation of privacy legitimizes the search.

The expansion of circumstances from which DNA can be collected, analyzed and indexed to people arrested but not convicted of a crime goes well beyond the purpose and intent of creating a criminal DNA database

Please Contact your Senator and ask them to please VOTE NO! on SB618.

e-mail block.  Use bcc and send out one e-mail;
aldridge@oksenate.gov, allen@oksenate.gov, anderson@oksenate.gov, ballenger@oksenate.gov, barrington@oksenate.gov, bass@oksenate.gov, bingman@oksenate.gov, boggs@oksenate.gov, branan@oksenate.gov, brecheen@oksenate.gov, brinkley@oksenate.gov, brooks@oksenate.gov, brownb@oksenate.gov, burrage@oksenate.gov, coates@oksenate.gov, crain@oksenate.gov, dahm@oksenate.gov, david@oksenate.gov, ellis@oksenate.gov, efields@oksenate.gov, fordj@oksenate.gov, garrisone@oksenate.gov, griffin@oksenate.gov, halligan@oksenate.gov, holt@oksenate.gov, ivester@oksenate.gov, johnsonc@oksenate.gov, johnsonr@oksenate.gov, jolley@oksenate.gov, justice@oksenate.gov, loveless@oksenate.gov, marlatt@oksenate.gov, mazzei@oksenate.gov, mcaffrey@oksenate.gov, newberry@oksenate.gov, paddack@oksenate.gov, schulz@oksenate.gov, sharp@oksenate.gov, shaw@oksenate.gov, shortey@oksenate.gov, shumate@oksenate.gov, simpson@oksenate.gov, sparks@oksenate.gov, standridge@oksenate.gov, stanislawski@oksenate.gov, lewis@oksenate.gov, treat@oksenate.gov, wyrick@oksenate.gov,

Senate Members http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=0

Here is the letter I wrote to the Senators;

Dear Senator,

Our DNA contains our most private information.

SB618 would require mandatory collection of your DNA following arrest for felony and even some misdemeanor offenses. Our Constitution guarantees your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Taking DNA prior to conviction is a warrantless search.   If there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is connected to other crimes, law enforcement can get a warrant for the sample.

One of those *misdemeanor offenses that SB618 would require a DNA sample for is for urinating in public (outraging public decency) It ought to be a banner opportunity for bolstering the *CODIS system with DNA samples from harmless Oklahoma college kids.  And that is exactly the purpose of SB618-to populate the CODIS database in the hopes of raising the number of hits on unsolved crimes.

*The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a software system that  allows for state, local and federal authorities to share DNA profile information.

*See page 26 SB618 for a complete listing of offenses that will require DNA sampling and inclusion into the CODIS database.

Right now the Supreme Court is debating a case (Maryland v. King, 12-207) that may overturn as many as 29 state and federal laws that allow the collection of DNA samples when a person is arrested.  The Court’s decision on this case will be rendered in June of this year.

The original mandate of DNA databases – to record genetic markers from convicted offenders, on the dual theories that convicts are;

1) likely to reoffend


2) their diminished expectation of privacy legitimizes the search.

The expansion of circumstances from which DNA can be collected, analyzed and indexed to people arrested but not convicted of a crime goes well beyond the purpose and intent of creating a criminal DNA database

Whether or not collecting DNA samples from arrestees is an effective way to solve crimes is a moot point.  The ends do not justify the means.

On this point Supreme Court Justice Scalia agrees;

“I’ll bet you if you conducted a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too,” Scalia said. “That proves absolutely nothing.”

Source: Bloomberg, February 26, 2013, DNA Collection Questioned as Court Weighs Privacy Rights http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/dna-collection-questioned-as-court-weighs-privacy-rights.html

This bill should receive a NO vote on its lack of constitutional merit alone.

But if that isn’t enough for you, there is more to consider. Once we cross the threshold of DNA collection prior to conviction and without a warrant what is next?

I will let Greggory LaBerge, Director, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Denver Police Department tell you exactly where we are heading.

“I’ll give a brief talk on forensic genetics of DNA database expansion, and specifically the CODIS database as it sits today, and where we think it will go in the future.

. . . We talk in the near term about how this database can be expanded. . . .There are states also looking at all arrestees legislation. . .”


SB618 is a critical step towards mass DNA databasing of non-criminal
citizens and  DNA familial searches.  Eventually the ‘vision’ is DNA samples for roadside traffic stops, and merging our property records and financial profiles, workand medical history files, demographic data along with other biometric data including DNA.

The ultimate goal is a universal database of DNA profiles thatcan be used to predict our propensity for criminal behavior before any crime is committed.

Don’t believe me?   Believe Director LaBerge.

Source: The Forensic Genetics of DNA Database Expansion http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/LaBerge-National_Press_Club_07.pdf

LaBerge lays out law enforcements vision for the CODIS DNA database;

Near Term DNA database Expansion (slide 8)

  • All convicted felons-current
  • All felony arrestees-currently expanding
  • All arrestees
  • Some misdemeanors

He lists the following near term desired uses of the CODIS DNA databases in the United States (slide 19)

  • Familial DNA searches
  • All military personnel DNA collected (now) and run (later) and searched against national CODIS as condition of enlisting
  • DNA databases based on privilege like DNA from teachers, driving, government and law enforcement jobs etc.

And eventually- (slide 21)

Relational databanks-biometric data merged with:

– DNA,

– fingerprints,

– photos,

– vehicle registrations,

– facial and body index/structure characteristics,

– Accurate ethnicity, race prediction

– demographic data,

– work and medical history,

– financial profiles,

– behavior modeling

– Criminal history,

By 2022 LaBerge predicts (slide 22);

laberge outer limits 1

  • Rare allele databases that relate genotype to geographical data
  • Predictive databases for crime propensity
  • Integrated police forensic intelligence databanks
  • Medical condition databases and DNA markers that characterize conditions-Research database access?
  • Roadside DNA profiling at every police stop
  • Universal databases

Read more Envisioning the future of the CODIS DNA database final

SB618 is moving us closer to this dystopic future.  Forced DNA testing should stop with people convicted of crimes.

Please vote NO on this unconstitutional and inhumane bill!

Oklahomans concerned about unmanned aircraft attend state Capitol rally

idp13 capitol 1

Photo by Dana Lawhon

Kaye Beach

Feb.24, 2013

From the Oklahoman, Michael McNutt, Feb. 23, 2013

Nearly 200 people attend a rally Saturday at the Oklahoma Capitol in Oklahoma City to support Oklahoma House Bill 1556 by Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, that would place regulations on the use of drones in the state.

Joanne Francisco, one of several people who came to a state Capitol rally Saturday with a face mask, said the encroachment of government on
her 4th Amendment right to privacy, such as the possible use of drones to spy on individuals, is a growing concern.

“Government is getting too intrusive, nosy,”
said Francisco, of Tulsa. “How do we know when our rights have been infringed upon? We can see a peeping Tom outside our window, but we
can’t necessarily see when we’re being spied on by a drone.”

The article highlights statements by Ryan Kiesel, Director of the Oklahoma ACLU, Amie Stepanovich, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center and an expert in government surveillance, and Amanda Teegarden, Exec. Director of OK-SAFE, Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise.

Read more

Oklahoma has three important privacy protecting bill active this session.  All of them need some grassroots support to help ensure that they become law.

Please see our action items on HB1556, HB1557 and HB1559 covering privacy protections regarding drones, phones and RFID chips;

Okla. Legislative Action: Three Important Privacy Protection Bills and What You Can Do to Help

The Latest in Irrational Oklahoma Lawmaking-Urine Tests for Welfare Recipients (and political candidates)

Kaye Beach

March 15, 2012

From 23rd and Lincoln the JRLR’s Insiders’ Report;

House passes bill requiring drug testing of TANF recipients; Shelton amendment extends to political candidates

A measure requiring welfare recipients to be drug tested passed the House Monday morning, with a floor amendment that would expand the requirement to include political candidates.

HB 2388, by Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, would require drug tests of individuals who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, within three months of being approved for benefits, with the applicant bearing the cost of the test. In a two-parent household, both parents would have to be tested.

Read more

First of all, I do not relish the idea of my tax dollars going to support people who are doing drugs.  But here is my problem.  I have an attachment to our Bill of Rights and I know that these rights apply to all of us or they apply to none.

Now,  I’m no lawyer but it seems clear that these programs strike a potent blow to our Fourth Amendment.  You know the one that prohibits search and seizure without a warrant?  Number 4, if you haven’t noticed, is hanging by the barest of threads as it is. I will admit, it is not my concern over poor pot smoking welfare recipients that motivates me on this (Nevermind that alcohol which is perfectly legal but causes terrible damage to individuals and families is not at issue here.  Ask yourself would you prefer an alcoholic parent or a pot smoking one?  Hands down, if I am a child, I am praying for a pot smoking parent as opposed to an alcoholic any day of the week! ) No.  My concern is for how this will effect me.

Legal experts have said that allowing this type of program in order catch a few illegal drug users on the public dole is too high a price to pay as it would weaken  our rights under the Fourth Amendment.

I have done some research and no matter which way I look at it, drug testing for welfare recipients just seems to be poor policy as well.

On Oct. 24, 2011,  a federal judge in Florida, Judge Scriven (appointed by GW Bush) halted the Florida drug testing of welfare recipients program which was challenged by a 35 year old Navy veteran, Luis Lebron,  a full time student at the University of Central Florida.
The Florida judge found that the drug testing program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Judge Scriven writes; “The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply.”
The Florida federal judge found that there was no “special needs”  to justify this program.

The “special needs” doctrine is another exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Special needs cases generally arise from searches by government actors other than police officers, such as school officials, public employers, and probation officers.

The doctrine applies when the government can demonstrate that:

(1)     it is impracticable to obtain a warrant;

(2)     the governmental interest outweighs the intrusion;

(3)  the immediate objective of the search is one other than to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes, even if the ultimate goal is non-criminal in nature.  link

There was also a  study done before implementing this program which showed  a very low incidence (5.1%) of illicit drug use among welfare recipients.

“In this litigation, the State provides scant evidence that rampant drug abuse exists among this class of individuals,” writes Judge Scriven.

**Around 8% of the general population uses illicit drugs. http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7State/Ch2.htm#Fig2-1

That same study produced these facts;

Evidence from the Florida demonstration project showed very little difference between drug users and non-users on a variety of dimensions. Users were employed at about the same rate as were non-users, earned approximately the same amount of money as those who were drug free and did not require substantially different levels of governmental assistance.

Read the 37 page ruling here.

The Florida drug testing program in it’s first month  found 2% of TANF applicants tested positive for illicit drug use. There were a number of applicants that did refuse the test and that is certainly a money saver but, are all of those refusers taking illicit drugs?                                                                                       Well,  there is the fee for the test that some may have been unable to pay, transportation to the clinic to do the test may have been lacking and it is even possible that some of those that refused although poor, might also be too proud to relinquish their rights by submitting to a pee test as in the case of the Navy vet who brought the case against the state in the first place.  A urine test is legally considered to be a search and there was no reasonable suspicion that this gentleman was doing drugs therefore his rights were being violated.

Potential candidates for office might be relived to know that the same grounds that have repeatedly sunk the drug testing for welfare recipients also applies to them.  The Georgia Supreme Court sunk the drug testing for political candidates based on no substantial special need.

What we do know from the facts is that only 2-5% of potential recipients test positive for illicit drugs and previous studies show that those who do test positive show no measurable difference in employment rates or amount of assistance required than non users.

All in all, from a public policy perspective, there seems to be no pressing need for this program.  Emotionally however, it is a different story.  No one like the idea that we are using tax dollars to support lifestyles we don’t approve of.  So the question is, do we push forth policy based on moral indignation even if the facts don’t support our concerns?  Do we push forth policy not supported by the facts for emotional gratification even though there may be negative repercussions on all of us as in weakening the Fourth Amendment?

Judge Scriven writes;

Conversely, imposing an injunction would serve the public interest by protecting TANF applicants from the harm caused by infringement of their constitutional right, a right here that once infringed cannot be restored. “Perhaps no greater public interest exists than protecting a citizen’s rights under the constitution.” (Emphasis mine) Marchwinski, 113 F. Supp. 2d at 1144 (quoting Legal Aid Soc. of Haw. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 961 F. Supp. 1402, 1418 (D. Hawaii 1997))  link

And yes.  Someone will sue and that will cost the state beaucoup bucks to defend against and the state will lose. No cost savings, less freedom-what’s not to love about this bill!?  

Seriously, can we stop implementing irrational policies that just come back to bite us in the butt?


‘Stingray’ Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash

Kaye Beach

Sept. 28, 2011

The Wall Street Journal and Fox News reports on the latest revelation of extra constitutional tracking.

‘Stingray’ Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash


What Ever Happened to REAL ID?

Kaye Beach

Sept 23, 2011

What did ever happen to the REAL ID Act?

In a word-NOTHING.

Remember when roughly half the states in the US said NO! by passing either a law or resolution against participating in DHS’s national ID program?  Most of us assume that “no” means “no” and breathed a sigh of relief when so many states took a stand against it.

“. . .many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks.” http://tinyurl.com/4rgrv87

The fact is that  little has changed.

The world is being enrolled into a single global system of identification and financial control.
One’s body is now directly linked to the control of financial transactions through biometric ID, an international ID system that uses computers to automatically identify individuals based on unique physical characteristics, such as a facial image. Facial recognition and digital fingerprinting are common forms of biometrics.  Almost all states and nations now use biometrics to identify their residents.  From Your Body Is Your ID

On Tuesday Sept. 21, 2011 my legal council filed suit against the state of Oklahoma for the violation of my religious freedoms and right to privacy (Okla. Constitution Article II Sec. 30) on my behalf.   You can read the petition as filed here (top left)

I have watched with dismay as comment after comment in response to the  news of this lawsuit express surprise even outrage that Oklahoma is collecting biometrics as they then wonder if their state is doing the same.

The answer?  I know of no state that is not doing so.

Real ID and that little gold star on your driver’s license

Here are two updates on the ever forward march of Real ID across the US.

Public Safety to launch STAR I.D. pilot project

Sept. 22, 2011

Alabama will launch a pilot project Oct. 3 for a new, secure form of identification created to comply with the REAL-ID Act of 2005.

The Alabama Department of Public Safety has developed the STAR I.D. program, with STAR standing for Secure, Trusted and Reliable.

The IDs will be available at driver license examining offices in Montgomery, Autauga and Chilton counties as part of the pilot project. There will be a statewide launch at the start of the year.

Read more

Connecticut about to begin controversial ‘Real ID’ program | The Connecticut Mirror

Sept. 22, 2011

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a driver’s license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states.
How to create a global, biometric system of identification;

To create a global biometric system, states and nations must:
1. Enroll their citizens (DL/ID cards, passports, national ID, school ID, etc.)
2. Adopt international standards for documents, photos and data sharing
3. Link databases for global information sharing, global ID-tracking and surveillance

Read more

Find out more about REAL ID and Biometric Identification

D.C. Circuit on the New “Advanced Imaging Technology” Airport Searches

Kaye Beach

July 16, 2011

Analysis by Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy

The new airport screening measures involving millimeter wave technology and backscatter technology — together with the opt-out of a pat-down — have received a great deal of public attention. Back when the new measures were first widely introduced, I blogged about why a Fourth Amendment challenge to the new practices was an uphill battle. Today, the DC Circuit handed down an opinion in EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security holding that the new practices comply with the Fourth Amendment. I believe this is the first clear court ruling on the question, and it’s certainly the first from a federal court of appeals.

Read More

Read EPIC’s review (it’s a bit more encouraging)

Patriot Act Extensions-here’s what our leaders voted for

Photo Enforcement Uninsured Motorists is a Red Herring

Kaye Beach

Feb. 21, 2010

I received this from Chad Dornsife of Best Highway Safety Practices. He is hearing from people victimized by State Mandatory Insurance Laws and the proposed remedies for enforcing those laws. What Mr. Dornsife is hearing combined with what he knows about the insurance industry’s involvement in the creation of a disturbing system of laws and penalties, has got him steamed!

I asked Mr. Dornsife this question;

Because of new insurance verification laws, do the insurance companies now have access to personal information that they normally would not and do they charge rates differently due to this knowledge? An unequivocal “Yes!” is his reply.

In other words, the laws supposedly designed to lessen the number of those driving while uninsured actually makes it possible for discriminatory charging of the poorest among us. It is beyond question that a significant portion of uninsured motorists are uninsured due to financial reasons.

There are privacy concerns with the ALPR cameras and data sharing as well as the expansion of police power but we will now be criminalizing the poor and taking their property to the benefit of the insurance industry, the tech companies and the government.

Chad Dornsife writes;

The proposed photo enforcement for no insurance is at best a red herring; it’s the prelude to a predatory system that no free person would want to live under.

On the surface to the uniformed it looks like a good idea, but that will soon change if enacted, because the nature of any technology is its abuse the day after the initial approval.

What part of private industry and foreign entities that are willing to front millions of dollars to be franchised to access the wallets of citizens sounds like a good idea?

I have 2 briefs I have to write first but I think I am going submit an editorial opinion piece to the LVRG.


Are mandatory insurance laws constitutional – NO!

1. Government requires citizens to purchase service form private company whose practices are protected from anti-trust – monopoly;

(*American antitrust laws are state and federal laws created to prevent monopolies. Antitrust laws apply to both businesses and individuals. The philosophy behind the laws is that trusts and monopolies can stagnate markets and prevent others from engaging in healthy market competition. –wisegeek.com)

2    Premium methodologies (underwriting practices) trade secret – not open to cross examination;

3    Since Nevada mandated insurance – monopoly increased premiums and surcharge justifications, which now include increased premiums if you are poor per your credit rating, double in some instances if you are late making payments etc. and the poor is where these new taxes (photo enforcement fines) are targeted; those who cannot defend themselves but need transportation to live even at a basic level, combined with new reinstatement premium levels that they clearly do not the funds of entry into, even if they were able to find work;

4    Under the color of federal law Nevada penalizes citizens and impounds vehicles for not buying or maintaining protection from monopoly (Godfather sequel?);

5    RICO, Nevada in new proposed photo enforcement program is going to contract with private vendors (out of state and country) to set up enforcement programs within Nevada for a percentage of the take, with a naked statement that the program is for revenue;

6    Under a ‘We the People’ system of government we empower the government to regulate us with conditions, and when the only beneficiary is the government itself, that is NOT a constitutional reason;

7    In this case they primary beneficiary are private corporations and foreign sovereigns outside of Nevada, not the citizens of Nevada and how much of the money collected pays for the property damage caused by uninsured motorists of those in Nevada with insurance; and

8    It violates the 4th amendment and worse, for several decades now the NHP has been predatory in nature because 80 plus percent of their funding and focus has been targeted at those motorists otherwise driving safely – speed traps by any definition. Maybe we should return them to a public safety entity rather than a predatory state agent for the State’s self interest. (remember, WAY WAY back in 1991 and 1993 I tried to pass law in Nevada that would have returned their charter and primary duty to public safety and emergency/incidence response triage, not revenue)

9    There are mechanisms wherein an equitable system could be created, but its focus would have to be centered on a pay-go basic coverage system trust where the citizens could purchase additional coverage from private insurance companies, a version of no fault. Piling an additional burden on the poor in an economic disaster for an insignificant financial gain is ill advised at best… and unconscionable.

Chad Dornsife, Executive Director

Best Highway Safety Practices Institute

2879 Champlain Drive

Portland, OR 97205-5833



503.223.5447 Portland Office

858.673.1926 San Diego Office

775.332.0600 Reno Office

775.721.2423 Cell

Skype cdornsife

California Office

PO Box 270708

San Diego, CA 92198


Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned

Wired News Reports;

The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-2 decision offered Miranda-style guidelines to prosecutors and judges on how to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights while conducting computer searches.

Kagan, appointed solicitor general by President Barack Obama, joined several U.S. attorneys in telling the San Francisco-based court Monday that the guidelines are complicating federal prosecutions in the West. The circuit, the nation’s largest, covers nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.


Read More;