Posted on 01/22/2016 7:59:38 AM PST by grumpygresh
And administrative subpoenas would be issued without any judicial oversight, based on the wider standard of "reasonable cause," not probable cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at watchdog.org ...
Would be interested to hear Governor Scott’s take on this.
Is it you that always posts half the information about Wisconsin legislation? And what’s with altering the title?
I see that this law to attack child predators has already been adopted by 19 states.
The model legislation is named after Alicia Kozakiewicz. Now 27, Kozakiewicz was 13 when she was lured from her Pittsburgh home by an online predator, who kidnapped her, then raped and photographed her for four days.
I think you have some personal axe to grind about Schimel and don’t care if a few child predators rape a few children along the way.
Oh, and you left out the part where it says it is only about IP addresses - not any internet content.
And the part where they were able to get the predator’s IP address and rescue kidnapped the poor victim who WAS BEING “—raped and photographed ... for four days.â€â€”
I am posting the article
in full, without biased ad hominems, so that members will have the opportunity to discern for themselves whether this law is an unjust infringement upon Constitutional rights:
Schimel: There’s nothing wicked about AB 666, ‘Alicia’s Law’
http://watchdog.org/254651/brad-schimel-bill-unconstitutional/
MADISON, Wis. - Attorney General Brad Schimel insists there is nothing unconstitutional about a bill that would give his agency administrative subpoena power to help agents track down online predators.
Assembly Bill 666, also known as “Alicia’s Law,” does not require judicial oversight over the subpoenas, a fact that is unsettling for public defenders and others concerned the law would leave the door open for prosecutorial mischief.
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM: Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel says a bill known as ‘Alicia’s Law’ has been tested and proved constitutional. Critics are concerned the bill, which gives the AG’s office administrative subpoena power, could open the door to abuse.
Schimel tells Wisconsin Watchdog that 19 other states have full administrative subpoena authority, and three others use a kind of hybrid form. Federal prosecutors also have used the tool for years.
“This has been tested in the courts, because it doesn’t involve content, it doesn’t authorize police to search and seize anything,” the attorney general said. Therefore a “lower standard is acceptable.”
The intention of the subpoena power is to compel Internet service providers to turn over online addresses of suspected predators and child pornographers.
But the wording of the bill raises questions about how far investigators would be allowed to go in their search for a suspect.
As the legislation was originally written, an Internet service provider would be compelled to “produce documents or records helpful to an investigation of an Internet crime against a child.”
And administrative subpoenas would be issued without any judicial oversight, based on the wider standard of “reasonable cause,” not probable cause.
The Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office has raised concerns about the potentially far-reaching nature of the subpoena power, asserting at a hearing last week before the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice & Public Safety that, “no matter the worthiness of the goal,” such investigative tools would expand the “government’s ability to obtain information on people, who, at that moment, are still presumed innocent by law.”
Schimel said the bill’s documents and records provision would only relate to online addresses and the names of individuals on those accounts. He said it’s a “phonebook” measure. Besides, the AG said, federal law makes it illegal for ISPs to turn over content without a search warrant, and the administrative subpoena is not a search warrant.
The bill includes an amendment that removes language compelling ISPs to hand over a customer’s “records, information and documentary evidence,” but discretion on when to issue the subpoena remains in the hands of the Attorney General’s office.
Schimel said he is open to having language that clearly states the subpoenas are to be used for Internet address searches, not for obtaining online content.
The model legislation is named after Alicia Kozakiewicz. Now 27, Kozakiewicz was 13 when she was lured from her Pittsburgh home by an online predator, who kidnapped her, then raped and photographed her for four days. Law enforcement agents were able to track the perpetrator online, crash into his home and rescue her.
To pay for the increased costs to administer the initiative, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor would be assessed a $20 surcharge. Those convicted of a felony pay an extra $40.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau this week estimated the surcharges could generate about $1.62 million in annual revenue. That figure assumes 70 percent of surcharges are paid.
A 2012 report by the Legislative Audit Bureau found the addition of surcharges and increasing court costs and fines decreased the likelihood the state would collect the full bill.
Another amendment would assess surcharges only on those convicted of Internet and child-related crimes. That, of course, would bring in less money. Some lawmakers have suggested Schimel ask for a boost in the Department of Justice budget to cover the costs. The AG said he would welcome that funding source, but isn’t counting on it.
Schimel doesn’t have much sympathy for convicts forced to help pay for the cost of crimes.
“The question comes down to, is it going to be taxpayers who pay for (the initiative) or people who commit the crimes,” the attorney general said.
AB 666 had been on a fast track to the Assembly floor. It now awaits scheduling from the Rules Committee.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Gov. Scott Walker will weigh in when it reaches his desk. I believe he still has the power of the “Frankenveto” where he can change a word, or two, or delete a whole provision in a bill before signing it, if there is any part he doesn’t agree with.. He does not use that power often.
Here’s more from the organization that has been advocating for Alicia’s Law from Right Wisconsin.
When people find out that our organization, PROTECT, goes state by state with a campaign called “Alicia’s Law †to secure resources for law enforcement to rescue children from sexual exploitation, they always think we must have the easiest job in the world “Who would ever be against that?†they ask incredulously.
You’d be surprised.
After 14 years of this work, I’ve found that politicians break down their opposition into two camps.
Conservatives want to be tough on crime, but it’s harder to get them to actually pay for it. Liberals will spend money on kids, but too often they value civil liberties over the human rights of children.
To understand the intellectual and moral failure on both sides of the debate it’s important to understand what PROTECT is fighting for. That means understanding what child pornography is and what it is not.
Child pornography is not pictures of babies in the bathtub and it is not teenagers sexting nude selfies to each other.
Child pornography is an actual recording of a crime scene which depicts the actual rape and degradation of a child. The majority of these images include very young children, often infants and toddlers who are bound, gagged, and penetrated. Law enforcement professionals on the front lines often say their faces are disturbingly expressionless, as if the abuse they are enduring has gone on so long that their eyes have become emotionless and vacant from years of trauma. Others cry and scream in pain.
Most offenders who advertise, trade and search for this material online do so openly online, in plain view of the public and police. Imagine a public town square where men hold signs offering movies with titles like “ 2 year old raped cries for mommy at bathtime GOOD!†That’s the title of a commonly traded video on the internet, and it’s exactly how these crime scene recordings are being offered.
Some opponents of Alicia’s Law in Wisconsin have expressed the fear that an administrative subpoena provision in the bill will trample constitutional rights and give police too much power. This is just plain wrong. Administrative subpoenas are used every day in child exploitation and financial crimes cases at the federal level and in many states.
Imagine if that criminal in the town square got in his car and sped away after being seen by police selling child rape videos. The patrol officer would “call in the tags†to find out the name and address of the person the vehicle is registered to.
Virtually no one believes that running that tag to determine a vehicle’s owner is a violation of civil liberties. Yet, it’s the equivalent of allowing police to quickly get basic information on who owns an internet account seen trafficking in child abuse imagery THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA.
Once law enforcement knows who their suspect is, they can begin their investigation. They will still have to obtain a court-ordered warrant to access the suspect’s home or computer. An administrative subpoena does not give law enforcement the ability to search or seize anything, and those who are conflating admin subpoenas with search warrants either don’t understand the distinction legally or are trying to confuse the public.
Wisconsin Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force officers see suspects every day trading crime scene recordings of children being terrorized. A growing body of research shows that at least 55% of child pornography possessors are hands-on offenders, with local child victims. That means that, more often than not, following the trail back through the internet will lead to the door of a child who waits for rescue.
In those cases—and there are thousands of them in Wisconsin alone—every minute counts. The longer the delay, the longer a child will suffer violence.
Wisconsin citizens on the internet should have no fears about the provisions of this bill. Offenders in their same state who are raping children, filming it and sharing it online should.
Camille Cooper is the Director of Government Affairs for PROTECT. PROTECT is a pro-child, anti-crime organization dedicated to the protection of children from harm. PROTECT does not take any government funding. www.protect.org
Sorry, I don’t believe in administrative subpoenas under any circumstances because they concentrate power and allow a bureaucracy to evade independent oversight.
Respectfully, we’ll have to disagree on this one. Even if it’s for a “good cause” the ends don’t justify the means. Law enforcement and government already has too much power and I don’t want to live in a police state.
Go ahead and rail me for not being a “tough on crime” conservative. I’m not. The U.S. has the highest per capita imprisonmemt rate by far in the world. The police and governmement have more surveillance techniques and legal devices to put criminals away than ever before. I’m a free market, limited government constutionalist, and IMO administrative subpoenas are not consistent with the 4th amendment.
But please don’t tell me that I think that a cop needs to get a court order to run a tag. The state registers licenses, so the cop certainly can retrieve this information. Even a private individual can do a license look up.
“It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted,” William Blackstone
Sarge, sorry I was a little hard on you buddy Shimel. I just don’t agree with him on a lot of these issues (Shimel likes civil asset forfeiture, selective cash bans, and these adm. subpoenas) Maybe it’s my disappointment that many Republicans value expediency and don’t really take an orginalist view of the constitution.
Sargent York, all the best and you have a Blessed day.
5) Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-reasonableness-requirement.html#sthash.EpN03l53.dpuf
which this points to..
Wisconsin Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force officers see suspects every day trading crime scene recordings of children being terrorized . A growing body of research shows that at least 55% of child pornography possessors are hands-on offenders, with local child victims. That means that, more often than not, following the trail back through the internet will lead to the door of a child who waits for rescue. I’m happy to limit police power as it is now limited. The internet is new technology and will require new techniques which still comply with the 4th amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.