Boston Police Bought Spy Tech With A Pot Of Cash Hidden From The Basic Public Audio Length: 08:10

An ordinance handed in October would require metropolis departments, together with Boston police, to get approval from the town council before buying surveillance tools. In an announcement, Wu stated she is going to oversee the implementation of the brand new laws. Because this spy gear was purchased with funds stolen from citizens, not even the Boston metropolis council knew police had it. Boston police are using spy technology that was funded by a pot of cash hidden from the public. The Boston police should be transparent and accountable to the basic public they serve.

Although a search warrant is required to use these gadgets, courts often side with cops to allow their use beneath “exigent circumstances” so police rarely should get a warrant. Arroyo is a co-sponsor of a brand new city ordinance barring BPD from buying new surveillance technology with out first receiving approval from town council. Councilor Arroyo is a co-sponsor of a newcity ordinancebarring BPD from buying new surveillance technology with out first receiving approval from the city council. Forty-one of those, he said, concerned “exigent” circumstances during which a warrant wasn’t needed.

When confronted with the blatant unconstitutionality of the patriot act, Democrats and Republicans alike responded “yeah, however police are using it to battle crime.” Because of collective bargaining agreement constraints there’s often still a PS division and a few complicated work breakdown, the place one audits the others work or the two carry out independent parallel investigations or similar. There are some good causes for that (doesn’t essentially make sense to have an impartial civilian oversight agency reviewing every minor policy ossoff china tweet violation), nevertheless it often seems like waste. [newline]This, together with qualified immunity, are important drivers behind the ‘defund’ motion. Reforming these two insurance policies would be entirely wise, if the nation wasn’t so hopelessly polarized. I can assure you these cops used this tech to spy on their exes/wives/girlfriends greater than something. I’ve heard stories from officers that I labored round and most of them are some shady m effers.

I think most polarization comes from media packaged with a comment part and low high quality news outlets. I’ve caught to right here, New Yorker, NYT, and The Atlantic, I’ve stayed off of social media, I do not have cable and I don’t watch TV. The nation is hopelessly polarized as a direct results of media propaganda, I have encountered this everyday and when people are giving precise non-sensationalized details it is rather easy to come back to compromise policy place.

Last May TFTP reported on the Chicago PD’s use of stolen cash to secretly buy stingrays as nicely as spy drones. As TFTP has reported numerous instances, the amount of money stolen by law enforcement in America annually is larger than the amount of cash stolen by actual criminal burglars. The root trigger is 2 fold first over-criminalization of society, and the usage of police to implement things that shouldn’t be crimes in the first place, or ought to be left to civil enforcement.

I’m pretty positive you meant the latter, but without near-blanket safety from lawsuits from “doing their job,” police chiefs will demand much greater salaries so they can pay for legal responsibility insurance coverage. If the reply to both is “yes” you then could be on to one thing. There’s nothing stopping the money from being handed out directly to officers as bonuses and bounties and that’s, in fact, done in some places. Now, as for the legitimacy of asset seizures and forfeiture within the first place, that is another issue worthy of its own debate. I assume it’s pretty apparent that at least some asset forfeitures are legit – that means there are enough legal protections for those whose assets had been seized within the first place – and no less than some are questionable at finest.

Comments are closed.