From the Drug Policy Alliance:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced a House version of the RAVE Act (HR 5519). The House Subcommittee on Crime will be considering the bill on Thursday (the 10th). If it passes out of Committee as is, the RAVE Act could become law THIS YEAR, which means federal prosecutors will have the power they need to shut down raves, hemp festivals, hip hop concerts, and other events they don't like. If your Representative is on the House Subcommittee on Crime, please urge him or her to vote against the bill. Call your representative today, then follow up with a fax:

What to Do:

1) Use the list below to see if your Representative is on the Subcommittee on Crime. Not sure who your Representative is? Find out here. If your Representative is on the Subcommittee on Crime call your Representative today and tell him or her to VOTE AGAINST THE RAVE ACT. THE RAVE ACT IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, FREE SPEECH, AND INNOCENT BUSINESS OWNERS.

2) Follow up your phone call with a fax. If your Representative is on the Subcommittee on Crime, fax your Rep (If your Representative is not on the Subcommittee, you will not be able to fax).

3) While our campaign to defeat the RAVE Act and protect musical events, marijuana rallies, and innocent business owners has been very successful, it hasn't been cheap. Please consider giving the Drug Policy Alliance a tax-deductible contribution, so we can continue fighting to defeat the RAVE Act, protect civil liberties and end the war on drugs.

4) Please forward the permalink to this blog post to friends, family, and co-workers. Unless people speak out, the RAVE Act could become law this year.

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME MEMBERS

Barr, Bob (R-GA, 7th) (202) 225-2931
Chabot, Steve (R-OH, 1st) (202) 225-2216
Coble, Howard (R-NC, 6th) (202) 225-3065
Delahunt, William (D-MA, 10th) (202) 225-3111
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA, 6th) (202) 225-5431
Green, Mark (R-WI, 8th) (202) 225-5665
Keller, Ric (R-FL, 8th) (202) 225-2176
Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-TX, 18th) (202) 225-3816
Meehan, Marty (D-Ma, 5th) (202) 225-3411
Schiff, Adam (D-CA, 27th) (202) 225-4176
Scott, Bobby (D-VA, 3rd), Ranking Member (202) 225-8351
Smith, Lamar (R-TX, 21st), Chair (202) 225-4236

For more on the "Rave Act", see our prior posts here and here. For the text of the Act, go here. For Law Professor Glenn Reynold's ( Instapundit's) commentary on the Rave Act at Fox News, go here.

MyDD reports that the medical pot initiative in Arizona is up 53-33 in the polls.

It is Proposition 203 (Marijuana Decriminalization/Medical Marijuana)

Summary: Should the State of Arizona decriminalize the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, marijuana drug paraphernalia, or two or fewer marijuana plants if the possession is for personal use only? Should the State of Arizona Department of Public Safety be required to provide not more than two ounces of marijuana free of charge to each person who is qualified to use marijuana for medical purposes?

Here is a news article on the initiative via NORML. And the text of the initiative is here.

"Protecting America's Freedom in an Information Age," is a 173 page bipartisan report scheduled to be released today, "by some of the nation's leading information technology and national security experts" that recommends information sharing among intelligence and state and local law enforcement agencies.

The report "recommends that the Bush administration develop a system to share intelligence gathered in the United States and abroad among local, state and federal agencies while developing guidelines to protect against abuses."

The Report calls for all such information to be analyzed by a "new domestic intelligence center inside President Bush's planned Department of Homeland Security" instead of the F.B.I.

"The study also calls upon President Bush to devise new guidelines on what information federal agencies may and may not collect about individuals in the United States and with whom, and under what circumstances, such data may be shared."

The task force that drafted the report was co-chaired by Zoë Baird, now the president of the New York-based Markle Foundation, and James L. Barksdale, a businessman and former chief executive of Netscape.

The Republicans are pleased with the report. We're don't know enough about it yet to give an opinion. But we are pleased with at least two reported findings: first, that the report affirms the need for the "fundamental separation " of criminal investigation and domestic counterintelligence activities.

And second, that "the people running criminal investigations should not be seeking all kinds of information from businesses, state and local officials all over the country."

From the New York Times article today, Law Bars a National System for Tracing Bullets and Shells:

"The technology exists to create a national ballistic fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement officials to trace bullets recovered from shootings, like those fired by the Washington-area sniper, to a suspect."

"Such a system would have been of great use in the Washington case, in which six people were shot to death, because so far bullet fragments are virtually the only evidence."

"But because of opposition by the gun industry and the National Rifle Association, only two states have moved to set up a ballistic fingerprint system, and Congress has prohibited a national program, experts say."

A relatively new system " known as the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, optically scans the markings on bullets or shell casings, converting them into an electronic signature. This information is stored in a database and can be retrieved by computers in 235 police departments around the nation."

Many in law enforcement as well as gun control advocates want to require "gun manufacturers to keep an electronic record of the markings from bullets and shell casings when new guns are test fired. This data would be kept with the serial numbers of the guns. With this information, the agency would be able to trace bullets and shell casings found at a shooting site to the gun maker and eventually to the buyer."

The National Rifle Association opposes such a measure saying it would be the equivalent of a national gun registry. The NRA was successful in having a provision included in the 1968 federal Gun Control Act banning a national gun registry.

Here's an update on the Nevada marijuana referendum on the ballot this November--if it passes, Nevada will be the first state in the country to legalize marijuana. Businesses seem mostly thrilled--it will be great for tourism.

Democrats are also happy because they believe the measure will draw liberal voters to the polls.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, the state's largest newspaper, endorsed the measure as a means to "bring compassion and common sense to drug laws." The Republican Governor Kenny Guinn has not taken a position. The Sheriff's organization initially supported the measure but now opposes it.

"Pro-marijuana activists acknowledge that they targeted Nevada because it is a small state with a libertarian bent where voters amended the constitution through votes in 1998 and 2000 to legalize medical marijuana."

For once, the money is on the side of the (former) underdog: "The group promoting the constitutional change, Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, or NRLE, is flush with money -- it has almost $500,000 on hand -- and has run TV ads since September 12. " Opposing groups got a late start and have no money, not even for mailers.

"The petition effort that placed the initiative on the ballot garnered more than 109,000 signatures or nearly double the required number. A September 26 poll by the NBC affiliate in Las Vegas showed a majority of voters supporting the measure, with 55 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed."

Our view: Nevada rocks...It's time to end the laws criminalizing possession and use of personal amounts of pot. We hope the youth in Nevada register to vote because this is a great opportunity for them to demonstrate their voting power and that every vote counts.

Clarence Page joins us and many others who see the Central Park Jogger case as a prime example of the wisdom of requiring police to videotape the interrogations of suspects as well as their confessions.

"After all, if the police are speaking truthfully when they say they used no unfair coercion, the tape would show it. A judge and jury would be impressed. The complainants would have no case."

"That's the side of the videotape argument that gets too little attention. While videotape acts to protect the rights of defendants, it also helps protect police and the prosecution's case from charges like coercion that sometimes sway jurors to decide against an otherwise solid case."

As we've said before, videotaping is clearly the most recommended remedy to police misconduct.

Videotaping leads to real improvements in police interrogation practices that protect the rights of suspects. Officers now know that everything they do in the interrogation room could be viewed one day in a courtroom.

Videotaping interrogations and arrests is good for the police too. It protects them against baseless claims of coercing a confession or violating a suspect's constitutional rights. Frivolous claims by suspects will diminish once they know that judges and jurors can see the interview and decide for themselves whether detectives intimidated the suspect.

Police and prosecutors have little to fear from a requirement to videotape all interrogations and traffic stops. It's a win-win situation. Videotaping can protect the innocent, help convict the guilty and uphold the public's faith in our criminal justice system.

Congress is running out of time. Many key pieces of legislation are falling victim to the calendar.

Among the bills likely to perish due to either a real shortage of days left on the calendar or "the two parties' skillful manipulation of it to advance their own political and policy objectives" are Bush's faith-based charity inititiative, terrorism-releated measures, health reforms, and measures to protect pensions.

"Other initiatives that appear in varying states of peril are protections for managed-care patients, a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, incentives for production of generic drugs, a minimum wage increase, an energy package, tighter bankruptcy rules, updating election machinery and procedures, anti-terrorism insurance, reauthorization of the 1996 welfare overhaul bill (a stop-gap extension is planned), renewal of national service programs, new rules for stem cell research and embryonic cloning and improved insurance coverage for mental health. "

What might survive? Drought relief for farmers and increased subsidies for Medicare providers. Some believe the energy bill has a fighting chance.

The article doesn't mention the one bill we care most about: The Innocence Protection Act. It now has 246 co-sponsors in Congress. For every seven people executed since the death penalty was resinstated in 1977, one person on death row is eventually exonerated by new evidence. 3,700 prisoners are on death row now--undoubtedly, some are innocent. We need to pass this law that will allow inmates with claims of factual innocence access to biological evidence for testing.

Write your representative in Congress today.

The Justice Department has filed a new brief with the secret Appeals Court that is reviewing the lower FISA Court 's rejection of Ashcroft's revised and expanded physical and electronic search guidelines this past May.

The Government, through Attorney General Ashcroft is arguing that the lower FISA court exceeded its authority in rejecting its rules. You can access the brief here.

We disagree for reasons we have stated here.

Once again Justice is attempting an end-run around our contstitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourth Amendment's and Title III's strict warrant requirements.

Their claim that the Patriot Act allows them to seek wiretap and search warrants where the main purpose of the warrant is investigating crime rather than intelligence gathering is a twisted interpretation of the Act. The FISA Act required that intelligence gathering be a "primary purpose" for the issuance of the warrant. Congress rejected Ashcroft's initial draft of the Patriot Act which would have reduced "primary purpose" down to "a purpose." After Congress balked, a compromise was worked out. Intelligence gathering now has to be a significant purpose (as compared to a primary purpose ) of the warrant.

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the committee's ranking Republican, said this week "it was clear to us" that a search or wiretap would be allowed even if the investigation's primary purpose was collecting criminal evidence, as long as gathering foreign intelligence also was a "significant purpose."

"But Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has complained that Ashcroft is wrongly interpreting the changes Congress approved."

"It was not the intent of these amendments to fundamentally change (the surveillance law) from a foreign intelligence tool into a criminal law enforcement tool," Leahy said at an oversight hearing this month. "We did not intend it to obliterate the distinction between the two and we did not do so."

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers , which filed an amicus brief in the case this week, adds:

"Now, the Justice Department's interpretation of the amendments to FISA allow supervision of the relaxed-standard searches by regular criminal investigators if they can claim any non-trivial connection to foreign intelligence. It allows for greatly broadened use of FISA searches in cases where normal Fourth Amendment protections should apply."

"To ordinary citizens, particularly those who do business internationally, that means that criminal investigators can eavesdrop on their conversations or search their businesses, homes, phone records, and e-mail correspondence without the requirement that investigators convince a judge that there is some reason to suspect criminal activity. "

The bipartisan Innocence Protection Act has picked up another four co-sponors in Congress:

Joel Hefley (R-CO)
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Scott McInnis (R-CO)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA)

There are now 246 co-sponsors of the bill.

Yesterday, the Justice Project's Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform delivered more than 135,000 petitions to all 100 U.S. Senators urging them to enact laws protecting the innocent from wrongful conviction and execution.

The petitioners ask their senators to ensure that every person accused of a capital crime has competent, experienced counsel and that those convicted of a crime have access to DNA testing of evidence. Both of these safeguards are provisions of the pending bill.

The legislation was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 12-7 vote in July. The counterpart House bill is now cosponsored by 246 members of Congress, including 64 Republicans - more than half the membership of the House. Representatives William Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) and Ray LaHood (R-Illinois) are the lead House sponsors of the bill.

In addition to the petitions, the Justice Project reports that 18,392 faxes were sent to Senators over the last two years by supporters of the Innocence Protection Act, bringing the overall number of petitions to 154,302. For a breakdown of the numbers, as well as a full listing of the bills' cosponsors by state, the legislation overview, and endorsements from prosecutors, victims groups, and other organizations, go here.

These petitions demonstrate that the American public wants their elected representatives to act to correct our nation's flawed capital punishment system.

Speaking at a press conference yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the bill's leading Senate sponsor, said: "The death penalty system is broken, and reforming it should be a priority for this Congress and for the administration. Waiting another year to finish this work might not seem like a long time for those of us in Congress, but for an innocent person on death row, it can be a lifetime."

If you want to add your voice, here's how.

If only they would do this in restaurants and on airplanes. Actually, the only place we've ever seen it happen is in a courtroom.

According to this article in the Hartford Courant, the marijuana legalization movement is quiet but gathering steam. While medical marijuana captures all the headlines, the drive to legalize recreational usage of pot is making steady gains.

Three states, Nevada, Arizona and Ohio will be voting on some form of legalization in November.

Nevada's measure has the most attention. It would allow adults to possess up to three ounces of marijuana in their homes. How much is three ounces? The article quotes Keith Stroup, Executive Director for NORML, as saying it's enough "to roll about 90 joints the thickness of a pencil."

"Arizona will consider scrapping arrests for possession and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana. In Ohio, where possession of up to 100 grams of pot was decriminalized in the 1970s, voters will decide whether all non-violent drug users should get treatment instead of prison for their first two offenses."

[comments now closed]

Attorney General John Ashcroft released new guidelines yesterday for sharing information between federal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. intelligence gathering community. The Guidelines apply to Sections 203 and 905 of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

From the Justice Department Press Release:

"Before passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, a prosecutor was not permitted to disclose federal grand jury and electronic, wire, and oral interception information to federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials, even if that information indicated that terrorists were planning a future attack, unless such officials were assisting with the criminal investigation itself. "

"Section 203 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the dissemination of that information to assist these officials in the performance of their official duties, such as protecting the nation's security, even if unrelated to the criminal investigation. Today's guidelines establish procedures for the disclosure to the intelligence community of grand jury and electronic, wire, and oral interception information that identifies a United States person, as defined by federal law."

"Section 905(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act requires federal law enforcement agencies, pursuant to guidelines developed by the Attorney General, to disclose expeditiously to the Director of Central Intelligence foreign intelligence acquired in the course of a criminal investigation."

"Today's guidelines formalize the procedures and mechanisms already established for the Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies that may acquire foreign intelligence in the course of a criminal investigation. "

"The Attorney General also announced guidelines pursuant to section 905(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, which address the procedures by which the Criminal Division of the Justice Department notifies the Director of Central Intelligence of its intent to commence or decline criminal investigation of possible criminal activity involving foreign intelligence sources or potential foreign intelligence sources."