Freedom from Search

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that Americans are guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search and seizures; this freedom is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

                Gerard V. Bradley of The Heritage Foundation wrote, “The Fourth Amendment is the most prolific source of constitutional litigation in American history….  Its reach is indescribably broad:  every one of the millions of arrests made annually is a Fourth Amendment event.  So too is every search of every person or private area by a public official, whether a police officer, schoolteacher, probation officer, airport security agent, or corner cross guard.  The Fourth Amendment is the constitutional sentry whenever someone’s privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure.  It protects a person’s `legitimate expectation of privacy.’  Katz v. United States (1967).  `Legitimate,’ the Court declares, means an actual expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.’  In defining that phrase, the reasonableness clause of the Fourth Amendment has spawned a vast amount of litigation” (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 323).

                On Monday, June 3, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority that criminal suspects can be subjected to a police DNA test after their arrest but before a trial and conviction.  According to Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer, this is “a privacy-versus-public safety dispute that could have wide-reaching implications in the rapidly evolving technology surrounding criminal procedure.  At issue in the ruling Monday was whether taking genetic samples from someone held without a warrant in criminal custody for `a serious offense’ is an unconstitutional `search.’ 

“A 5-4 majority of the court concluded it is legitimate, and upheld a state law.  `When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,’ the majority wrote.”

Mears explained that “law enforcement lauds genetic testing’s potential as the `gold standard’ of reliable evidence gathering, especially to solve `cold cases’ involving violent offenders.  But privacy rights groups counter the state’s `trust us’ promise not to abuse the technology does not ease their concerns that someone’s biological makeup could soon be applied for a variety of non-criminal purposes.

“Twenty-six states and the federal government allow genetic swabs to be taken after a felony arrest and without a warrant.  Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created.  About 13 individual markers out of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect’s DNA.  That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person and, officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics.”

Dan Calabrese explained that the Supreme Court decision came in a case from 2009 involving a man named Alonzo King.  He “menaced a crowd of people with a shotgun” and was arrested on first-degree charges.  While being booked at the police station, the “police took a DNA sample” allowed “under a Maryland law that allows collection from suspects taken into custody with probable cause.”

When the DNA sample was run through a DNA data base, it “revealed that King had raped a woman in her home in 2003 on the basis of forensic evidence collected from the victim.  King sued, claiming that without a warrant the test violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, and the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed.”

Calabrese summarized the explanation of Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote for the majority:  “genetic information can be reasonably obtained for the purposes of identifying the person.  People in custody have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and accurately assessing the risks a suspect poses to the public is critical.  That is especially true for criminal history, since violent criminals tend to be recidivists.  Justice Kennedy equates DNA with the routine practice of fingerprinting suspects, which the courts have long upheld.” 

As a self-described “law-and-order type conservative,” Calabrese supports the decision of the Supremes.  He believes “there is no difference [between fingerprinting a person and collecting a DNA sample].  It’s just that one has been an established aspect of police work longer than the other has, because in the case of the latter, the science is newer.  Just as it’s permissible to collect fingerprints as an identifying mark of an individual and to log that information into law enforcement databases, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be permissible to collect DNA in the same way and to the same end.”

Robert Laurie, a Libertarian-leaning colleague of Calabrese, believes that the Supreme Court decision is “atrocious” and listed three reasons for his belief.

“1. It clearly violates the Fourth Amendment…. DNA is both a part of my `person’ and one of my `effects.’  It grew as a part of me and I own it….”  He believes that “simply being accused of a possible transgression” is different than being “convicted of a crime and incarcerated,” the latter causing greater loss of freedom.  He also wonders if the government will “be forced to destroy that evidence, or will it be sitting in a database somewhere, ready to be used against me in the future?”

“2. My fingerprints don’t contain my entire genetic code.  The building blocks of everything I am as a person are contained in every drop of my blood, and in every `swabbed’ cheek cell.  From it, the feds, or government can determine not just my identity, but my health status, my genetic relations, and my entire family ancestry.”  Since scientists are “hard at work to find the `gay gene,’ as well as the `conservative gene’ and the `liberal gene,” he believes that the “potential for abuse is virtually limitless.”

“3. We know we can’t trust the government to handle this information properly....  If we can’t halt our government’s current overreach, why in the world would anyone – right or left – be willing to grant it the tools to expand its intrusion?  This Supreme Court decision does nothing but grease an already slippery slope.”

                Freedom from “unreasonable” search and seizures is much more complicated in our day and age than it was during our Founding.  I will admit that my first thought upon hearing the decision was about the same as that of Calabrese.  I could not see much difference between fingerprinting and taking DNA; besides, I am a law-abiding citizen and do not have any previous “crimes” to be discovered.  Why do I need to worry?

Since I read Laurie’s comments, I have been doing further thinking on the subject.  IF we could trust our government, I would not be concerned about the DNA sampling, BUT our government has proven to be untrustworthy and could make up crimes for even the best citizens!  A rogue government could certainly use our DNA against us.  We have to protect ourselves from our own government, and the Supreme Court has made the task more difficult!

Trust

                Can we truly trust our government to protect us from our foreign and domestic enemies?  Can we trust the government to execute justice fairly when we know that the IRS treated conservative and liberal individuals and groups differently?  The government knows everything about our finances now and will soon know all our health information under Obamacare.  Now we learn that the government has our telephone records and reads our e-mails.  Can we trust the government to use our “data” for our best good or do we need to worry about the government using our information against us?  Can we trust a President and his administration that repeatedly lies to us?

                Columnist Charles Krauthammer explained the situation with NSA:  “Thirty-five years ago in United States v. Choate, the courts ruled that the Postal Service may record `mail cover,’ i.e., what’s written on the outside of an envelope – the addresses of sender and receiver.

                “The National Security Agency’s recording of U.S. phone data does basically that with the telephone.  It records who is calling whom – the outside of the envelope, as it were.  The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope.  It may not be opened without a court order.

                “The constitutional basis for this is simple:  The Fourth Amendment protects against `unreasonable searches and seizures’ and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for what’s written on an envelope.  It’s dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read once again by the letter carrier.  It’s already openly been shared, much as your phone records are shared with, recorded by, and emailed back to you by a third party, namely the phone company.

                “Indeed, in 1979 the Supreme Court (Smith v. Maryland) made the point directly regarding the telephone:  The expectation of privacy applies to the content of a call, not its record.  There is therefore nothing constitutionally offensive about the newly revealed NSA data-mining program that seeks to identify terrorist networks through telephone-log pattern recognition.”

                Krauthammer is more concerned with the “other NSA program … PRISM.”  This program is “designed to read the emails of non-U.S. citizens outside the United States.  If an al-Qaeda operative in Yemen is emailing a potential recruit, it would be folly not to intercept it” since the Constitution is there to protect American citizens and not everyone in the world.  Besides, all nations “spy” on other nations.

                Krauthammer considers the real problem to be “practicality” rather than “constitutionality.”  “Legally this is fairly straightforward.  But between intent and execution lies a shadow – the human factor, the possibility of abuse.  And because of the scope and power of the NSA, any abuse would have major consequences for civil liberties.”

                The bottom line according to the article is whether or not we can trust our President and his administration.  Krauthammer explained that the President “issued a major foreign-policy manifesto” three weeks ago; the major theme of this manifesto was that the “War on Terror is drawing to a close and its very legal underpinning, the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, should be not just reformed but repealed to prevent `keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.’"

                Krauthammer pointed out that while the President was telling us that the War on Terror was ending, the “government was simultaneously running a massive, secret anti-terror intelligence operation.”  He questioned why we have the “vast, ever-expanding NSA dragnet whose only justification is an outside threat” if there is no need for it.

                Common sense tells me that we cannot trust our President, his administration, or many of the members of Congress.  There are too many scandals, too many lies, and too much confusion.  Trustworthiness is an honorable attribute in an individual or a government, but once trust is lost, it is very difficult to regain.

Doug Hagmann

                Doug Hagmann is the founder and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency.  He began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.  He and his son, Joe Hagmann, host The Hagmann and Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

                Hagmann has reported extensively on the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya.  He is now “the target of active telephone monitoring by the National Security Agency (NSA), a branch of the Department of Defense and an agency tasked with monitoring foreign intelligence and communications.”

                We must stand by Hagmann and other reporters who step up to the job of bringing the truth into the open.  Without men and women like Hagmann, the Obama Administration would be free to do whatever they desire.  Please support Hagmann and others like him.

William Jackson

                William Jackson’s main claim to fame is the fact that he served as the secretary to the U.S. Constitutional Convention.  He also served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and did so with distinction.  Following the war, he was one of President George Washington’s personal secretaries.

                Jackson was born on March 9, 1759, in the county of Cumberland in England and was sent to Charleston, South Carolina, following the death of his parents.  He was reared by Owen Roberts, a family friend and prominent merchant.  Roberts was also the commander of a militia battalion and joined the Patriot cause of liberty after the war broke out in 1775.  Jackson was only a teenager, but he followed his benefactor.  He probably benefitted from his relationship with Roberts because he became a cadet in the First South Carolina Regiment and was commissioned a second lieutenant in May 1776.

                Lieutenant Jackson saw his first action near Charleston in June 1776 in a battle against British General Sir Henry Clinton’s attempted attack on Fort Sullivan.  After fighting off the British, his regiment garrisoned Charleston for a long period of time; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney became the commander of the First South Carolina during this time.  Jackson’s detachment had the unfortunate luck to be “part of the detachment that made an ill-conceived and worse conducted expedition against St. Augustine in British East Florida under Major-General Robert Howe.  The expedition was a colossal failure, and the American force was struck down by disease.  Jackson survived and returned to South Carolina in 1778.”

                Sometime after Jackson returned to South Carolina, Major-General Benjamin Lincoln of Massachusetts assumed command of the Southern regiments.   Pinckney convinced Lincoln (a Northerner) that Jackson could assist Lincoln in relating better with his Southern troops.  Jackson was promoted to the rank of Major temporarily.  As an aide to Lincoln, Jackson “saw action in the Battle of Stono Ferry and the Siege of Savannah in 1779.  In 1780 General Lincoln surrendered his troops after the lengthy Siege of Charleston.  As a captured officer, Jackson was shipped to Philadelphia to be held by the British.  He was part of an exchange of prisoners and returned to the Continental Army after a few months.

                Jackson was a “skilled staff officer” and was assigned to the staff of General Washington; as such, he served as secretary to John Laurens, son of Henry Laurens of South Carolina and aide to General Washington.  Laurens took Jackson with him when he “was sent to France in 1781 to buy supplies with money loaned by the French Government.  “Laurens returned to America after a short and undiplomatic stay in France;” upon his departure, Jackson took over the job.  When he made “extensive purchases, beyond his budget” with money reserved to pay unpaid bills, Benjamin Franklin and Jackson had “a discussion.”

                Upon Jackson’s return to America in February 1782, he became assistant secretary of war to Benjamin Lincoln.  “The Confederation’s Department of War, like the British, was a financial liaison with the Army; Jackson helped settle the Pennsylvania Mutiny in 1783.”  He resigned his office and commission in October 1783 and became an agent for Robert Morris in England for a year.  After his return to America, he studied law with William Lewis, a lawyer in Philadelphia.

                Even though he had little money, Jackson wrote to George Washington in 1787 to apply for the position of secretary to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Alexander Hamilton nominated Jackson to the position on May 25, 1787, the first business day of the Convention; the delegates chose Jackson over William Temple Franklin, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, who had served as secretary to his grandfather during the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris.

                Jackson’s duties as secretary of the Convention included maintaining the secrecy of the proceedings of the Convention, keeping official minutes, and destroying many of the other records kept at the Convention.  He signed the Constitution of the United States “Attest William Jackson Secretary” to “attest to the delegates’ signing” of the document.  By doing so, Jackson became the fortieth signer of the document.

                Following the Convention, Jackson was sent to the Congress of the Confederation, which was assembled in New York City; there he read the document to Congress “just days after the signing, on September 20, 1787.”

                Jackson was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1788 but waited two years, according to the customs of the day, to practice before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  He was also a volunteer with the Second Philadelphia Light Horse unit.  He applied for the position of secretary to the U.S. Senate but was not selected; then he applied for the position of personal secretary to President George Washington.  In his letter of application, he wrote that “he had unpaid expenses as a Continental officer, and that business was `not congenial to [his] temper.’”

                Resigning as Washington’s secretary in 1791, Jackson restarted his law practice and became an agent for William Bingham and Henry Knox (then Secretary of War).  Bingham and Knox “were selling off a large land grant in Maine.”  “Jackson’s job was selling land on commission in England and France; among his potential customers was the Committee of Public Safety.  They declined to invest their scanty funds in Maine land, but that did not keep Jackson from writing a very favorable report about them back to the United States.

                Jackson returned to the United States in the summer of 1795 and married Elizabeth Willing, the sister of Mrs. Bingham, in November of that year.  Elizabeth and Mrs. Bingham were the oldest daughters of Thomas Willing, who was a rich merchant in Philadelphia and related to the Shippens.  George Washington and Thomas Jefferson attended the wedding.  After his marriage, Jackson became “a leader of society" with “Charleston manners” and the wealth of his father-in-law. 

                Jackson was appointed as Collector for the Port of Philadelphia in January 1796, just months before Washington left office; he was dismissed by Jefferson in 1801 “for politicizing his office.”  He started the Political and Commercial Register, a Federalist newspaper, in Philadelphia and continued to edit it until 1815.  In 1799 he became president of the Society of the Cincinnati, a group of former Continental Army officers, and in 1816 led an “unsuccessful effort to lobby Congress to grant half-pay for life for all veteran Revolutionary officers.”  In 1826, fifty years after our nation achieved independence, Congress passed a similar bill, but Jackson was not connected to it.  Jackson “remained titular president of the Cincinnati until his death.”

                The last public appearance of William Jackson was to welcome the Marquis de Lafayette to Philadelphia in 1824.  He passed away on either the 17^th or the 18^th of December 1828 in Philadelphia at age 69.

Cases Involving Diplomatic Officers

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article III, Section 2, and Clause 2:  “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls …, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction….”

                “Because of the delicate relationships with foreign powers, this provision gives any top diplomatic officer the RIGHT to have immediate access to the highest tribunal in the land in order to settle any legal problem.

                “The traditional protocol between nations has always allowed a diplomat representing the ruler or leaders of a sovereign nation to deal with the top leaders of the host nation.  The same principle applies where an ambassador or minister of a foreign country has become entangled in some legal problem which might affect the relationship between the United States and the country he represents.  Alexander Hamilton gave the following explanation:

                “`Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns.  All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation.  Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet, as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them” (As quoted by W. Cleon Skousen in The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 607).

Father's Day

                I have spent many hours over the past few weeks pondering what I should write for Father’s Day.  I do not yet have any concrete ideas about what I want to share, but I will start typing and see what happens.  The thought that keeps coming to me is the fact that God, with all His power and knowledge, could have chosen any name for us to call Him, but He chose to be called Father. 

I marvel often about this fact, and I truly appreciate the video entitled “Earthly Father, Heavenly Father.”  because it illustrates so well the connection between our Father in Heaven and our earthly fathers.  An annotation accompanying this video states:  “Men on Earth have the opportunity to become fathers and experience some of the same joys that our Heavenly Father feels for us.  Fatherhood is a divine responsibility to be cherished.”

                Being in the younger half of a family of twelve children, I did not know my father as a young man.  He was thirty-eight years old when I was born and in his mid-forties before I was old enough to know much about him.  Then I knew him as the disciplinarian of the family and thought he was gruff.  In fact, I thought he was downright mean when I was a child, but as I matured I realized the difficulties of life in general as well as parenthood.  My father worked long and hard hours as a farmer, and then he also worked the graveyard shift at a Sinclair service station in town.  I now understand that he was probably exhausted most of the time and simply worn out with all his many responsibilities; then I was so self-centered that I thought my mother should get a divorce so we could move away from him.  Then I grew up.

                About 1977-1978 I wrote the following poem as a gift to my father and a similar one for my mother.  They were probably gifts for Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, but I do not remember.  Both of my parents were pleased with my efforts and shared their poems with people who came to visit them.  My poem illustrates my growing appreciation for my father and the man he became.

                I used to think he was old and mean,

                But as I grew up, I became more keen.

                Hard work and lectures and spankings too

                Were what I needed to be good and true.

                He set the example, working hard all day.

                He always told us, “Work before play.”

                This is a lesson I’m glad I learned.

                Now I can teach it in return.

                He tilled the soil and planted the seed,

                “If we don’t sow, we cannot reap.”

                Life on the farm was hard and long,

                But twelve little children grew up strong.

                Although he was busy, he worked for the Lord.

                He held many positions in our ward.

                Genealogy and weekly temple work

                Are some of the duties he does not shirk.

                He sets good examples for our family.

                And he always counsels, “Be better than me.”

                With a father like mine, it’s easy to see

                Just how much my Heavenly Father loves me.

                I had a spiritul experience that taught me so much about how my earthly father was a mortal example of my Heavenly Father.  My mother died suddenly of a heart attack at age 70, and my father thought he would soon follow her.  He decided to distribute Mom’s earthly belongings and as much of their joint property as he could, particularly the family heirlooms.  He kept only his personal belongings and the furniture he needed to be comfortable.  He told us – his twelve children – to each make a list of the things we wanted.  We spent the afternoon going through the house and making our lists.  That evening Dad gathered us all together and divided his goods.  We received whatever was on our lists unless someone else wanted a particular item.  In such a case – such as with the family heirlooms - Dad decided who received the item, and we each accepted his decision.

                I spent a couple of weeks with my family in Utah before returning to my home in Alaska.  My first Sunday back home, I went to sacrament meeting and sat down near the back of the room.  I was doing okay until we sang the closing hymn, “Sweet Hour of Prayer” (Words attributed to William W. Walford with music by William B. Bradbury).  I started to sing this hymn, but I lost my composure near the beginning of it.  The words of this hymn reminded me too much of my recent experience with my earthly father.

Sweet hour of prayer!  Sweet hour of prayer! 

That calls me from a world of care

And bids me at my Father’s throne

Make all my wants and wishes known.

                I became so emotional at this point that I could no longer sing!  In my mind I saw myself kneeling at Heavenly Father’s throne to make my requests – just as I had recently sat near my earthly father and waited for his decision.  I knew in that moment that Heavenly Father listens to me when I come to him with my wants and needs just as my dad had done.  The video “Earthly Father, Heavenly Father” shows how earthly fathers act in similar ways to our Heavenly Father, and my experience with divinity taught me how much my Heavenly Father loves me. 

                We honor our earthly fathers at least once each year on Father’s Day.  Heavenly Father commands us to remember Him always and has designated the Sabbath Day as the day we give honor to Him.  Every Sunday is Heavenly Father’s Day!

Honoring Fathers

                We commemorate Father’s Day on Sunday, the third Sunday in June.  Father’s Day was created to compliment Mother’s Day and to honor fathers and fatherhood as we honor mothers and motherhood.  On this day we will honor fathers and celebrate fatherhood; we will also recognize paternal bonds and the influence of fathers in our society.

                Fathers hold an important role in our society, but the influence of fathers in our society is fading.  Wise people understand that being a father is much more than being a sperm donor, but not all of us are wise. 

                Dr. Liz Hale is a licensed clinical psychologist; she said that parents can give children four things that they need in order to thrive and develop.  She calls these four things the “Four T’s.”

Time:  “When you spend a lot of time with a child, they get this message that `Wow, I must be really important to my dad.’”

Touch:  “Don’t be afraid to touch and hug.  You know, do `Atta boys’ for your sons, tussle their hair.”

Talk:  “Be willing to talk to your child.  Also, be willing to be quiet.  We can’t understand a child by talking to them.  We understand by them talking to us, so have a back-and-forth conversation.”

Truth:  “Their peers will not tell them the truth about drugs, alcohol, premarital sex even.  Be willing to share your values, whatever those values are.  But, tell the truth so they can always depend on you to give them the straight scoop.”

                Elder A. Theodore Tuttle, then serving as President of the First Council of the Seventy, said, “Fathers, draw close to your children.  Learn to communicate.  Learn to listen.  This means giving a father’s most valuable commodity – time!  Only good results occur when a father interviews his sons and daughters regularly.  He can know their problems and their hopes.  He can align himself with them as their unconditional friend.  To the extent we become friends with our children in unconditional love, to that extent we become like our Heavenly Father.”

                Elder Tuttle told the story of “an elementary teacher who had students write essays in hopes that it would motivate the fathers to attend a PTA meeting.  The fathers came in $4,000 cars and $400 cars – bank president, laborer, clerk, salesman, meter reader, baker, etc. – `every man with a definite estimate of himself in terms of money, skill, and righteousness or looks….’  The children’s essays were read at random.

                “`I like my daddy, … he built my doll house, took me coasting, taught me to shoot, helps with my schoolwork, takes me to the park, gave me a pig to fatten and sell.’  Scores of the essays could be reduced in essence to:  `I like my daddy.  He plays with me.’

                “Not one child mentioned his family house, car, neighborhood, food, or clothing.

                “The fathers went into the meeting from many walks of life; they came out in two classes:  companions to their children or strangers to their children.”  (“The Savior, the Priesthood, and You,” Melchizedek Priesthood quorums’ course of study for 1973-74, p. 226).

                I am grateful for sons and sons-in-law who understand the importance of being fathers.  My husband called one of our sons recently and asked him what he was doing.  Our son answered, “Fathering” when he could have said “babysitting.”  Our grandchildren are all fortunate to have fathers who spend quality time with them, touch them appropriately, talk with them, tell them the truth, and teach them appropriate behavior.  I am grateful for good and righteous fathers!