Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard ’round the world

Posted: September 01, 2009
9:11 pm Eastern

 

 

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

POLICE STATE, USA

Pandemic bill allows health authorities to enter homes, detain without warrant

 A “pandemic response bill” currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.

If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or quarantine orders in the event of a health emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30 days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation continues.

Massachusetts’ pandemic response bill

“Pandemic Response Bill” 2028 was passed by the Massachusetts state Senate on April 28 and is now awaiting approval in the House.

As stated in the bill, upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists that is considered detrimental to public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency, a local public health authority, with approval of the commissioner, may exercise the following authorities (emphasis added):

• to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;

• to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;

• to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;

• to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

• to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;

• to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;

• to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;

• to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;

• to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;

• to waive the commonwealth’s licensing requirements for health care professionals with a valid license from another state in the United States or whose professional training would otherwise qualify them for an appropriate professional license in the commonwealth;

• to allow for the dispensing of controlled substance by appropriate personnel consistent with federal statutes as necessary for the prevention or treatment of illness;

• to authorize the chief medical examiner to appoint and prescribe the duties of such emergency assistant medical examiners as may be required for the proper performance of the duties of office;

• to collect specimens and perform tests on any animal, living or deceased;

• to exercise authority under sections 95 and 96 of chapter 111;

• to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit, with the consent of the individuals

State and local agencies responding to the public health emergency would be required to exercise their powers over transportation routes, communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing and shelter, according to the legislation.

Don’t let the fear get to you! Read “How To Overcome The Most Frightening Issues You Will Face This Century”

Local public health authorities will be required to keep records of reports containing the name and location of all people who have been reported, their disease, injury, or health condition and the name of the person reporting the case. In addition, citizens may be subject to “involuntary transportation.”

Line 341 of the bill states, “Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center. No law enforcement authority or medical personnel shall be held criminally or civilly liable as a result of an act or omission carried out in good faith in reliance on said order.”

Vaccinate or isolate

Whenever the commissioner or a public-health authority decides it is necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health, they are authorized:

(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis (preventative procedure) to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possible communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual. An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined … if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

Under such circumstances, authorities are also allowed to decontaminate individuals and perform physical examinations, tests and specimen collection to determine whether “an individual presents a risk to public health.” If a citizen refuses, he or she may be isolated, quarantined and/or detained “for as long as may be reasonably necessary,” the bill states.

Law enforcement authorities are authorized to “arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. Any person who knowingly violates an order for isolation or quarantine shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 30 days and may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $1,000 per day that the violation continues.” (emphasis added)

Other state quarantine orders

As WND reported, a blank document from the Iowa Department of Public Health has been discovered online, designed to be filled in with the name of an H1N1 virus victim who is required to relocate from his or her home to a quarantine facility.

The form, which began appearing Aug 31 in e-mails and on the Internet , has concerned a confused public already swimming in conflicting reports about the severity of the swine flu and intrusive government measures that many fear may be taken if the disease becomes a pandemic. 

The Iowa document, which WND confirmed with state officials is authentic, has done little to calm the public’s fears.

“The Iowa Department of Public Health has determined that you have had contact with a person with Novel Influenza A H1N1,” the form reads. “The Department has determined that it is necessary to quarantine your movement to a specific facility to prevent further spread of this disease.

“The Department has determined that quarantine in your home and other less restrictive alternatives are not acceptable,” the document continues, before listing mandatory provisions of compliance with relocation to a quarantine facility.

According to the CDC, the following states have implemented legal actions in response to the H1N1 virus:

Florida – the Florida surgeon general suspended distribution permit requirements Florida statutes to allow wholesale distribution of Tamiflu and Relenza. The state has also distributed a series of blank quarantine order forms, including a voluntary home quarantine agreement, a quarantine to residence order, a quarantine to residence order (non-compliance), a quarantine to facility order, quarantine detention order, quarantine of facility order, building quarantine closure order and area quarantine closure order.

Iowa – In addition to the facility quarantine order listed above, Iowa has also made available forms for voluntary home confinement, home quarantine and home isolation.

Massachusetts – Massachusetts lists its own procedures for isolation and quarantine.

North Carolina – The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services released a draft isolation order that would provide for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention without bail for any citizen who fails to comply with an isolation order.

Washington – Washington grants authority to local health officers to issue emergency detention orders causing citizens to be immediately and involuntarily isolated or quarantined for up to 10 days.

In addition, governors and health commissioners in the following states have declared a state of emergency since April following concerns about the H1N1 virus: California, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Next step: Mandatory swine flu vaccines?

According to the White House, “Since the novel 2009-H1N1 flu virus emerged in the United States during the third week of April, the president has received regular briefings and asked his Cabinet to spare no effort in addressing this national security challenge.”

The White House also lists as a priority, “Preparing for a voluntary, but strongly recommended, H1N1 flu shot program to be available to all Americans that wish to participate over a period of time.”

Barbara Loe Fischer, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, referenced the controversial Massachusetts bill in her commentary, “Swine flu vaccine: Will we have a choice?“

Fischer said, “Public health doctors have persuaded legislators to pass pandemic influenza legislation that will allow state officials to enter homes and businesses without the consent of occupants, to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent, to require licensed health-care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state.” She said World Health Organization doctors “immediately

 

 

 

Dobbs Concludes U.S. Allows Drugs In

From Infowars.com

Last night Lou Dobbs agreed with the President of Mexico that drugs are flowing into the United States because our government permits it. President Calderon said U.S. corruption permitted drug imports. “If there is traffic in the United States, it is because there is some corruption in the United States,” Calderon said. Dobbs agreed.

“…there is no other explanation,” Dobbs said, “It goes well beyond indifference and apathy, but the fact that this country has tolerated that border being violated by drug traffickers who bring in from Mexico methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and marijuana – in fact, Mexico is the largest source. And for us as a nation to have tolerated the immense loss of life, the devastation of lives to addiction and drugs, most of which, again, originate in Mexico, can only be explained by corruption.”

Lou Dobbs is right, there is corruption, but it is mainly political. Drugs are allowed into the country because the ruling class is willing to sacrifice its citizens on the alter of globalism.

American Border Patrol has shown that  the new border fence began cutting off smuggling routes and that led to the Mexican drug war. But the establishment doesn’t want the fence, so they blacked out ABP and its reports, and that includes those who run Lou Dobbs Tonight.

There is something even worse, but more on that later.

Army reviews troop use after fatal Ala. shootings

 By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer

• Slideshow:Ala. Shooting

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – The Army said Wednesday it opened an inquiry into whether federal laws were broken when nearly two dozen soldiers were sent to a south Alabama town after 11 people died in a shooting spree last week.

State officials said the deployment of 22 military police officers and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker was requested neither by Republican Gov. Bob Riley nor the White House, which typically is required by law for soldiers to operate on U.S. soil.

Col. Michael J. Negard of the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., said officials are trying to determine who ordered the soldiers to Samson, who requested them, why they were sent and what they did there.

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also consider whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” he said. He declined further comment.

Former Samson resident Michael McLendon, 28, fatally shot nine victims in the town and killed a 10th in a neighboring county. The March 10 spree ended when McLendon killed himself, and the soldiers arrived in the hours after.

Investigators said McLendon was despondent over his inability to hold a job and his failure to become a Marine or a police officer.

Riley isn’t concerned whether the military overstepped its bounds, said Press Secretary Jeff Emerson.

“From what I understand it was a few folks who came to direct traffic or help where they could,” Emerson said. “If it had been more than what it was there might be a reason for concern, but these folks just came to see if they could help and left.”

The White House press office did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Reporters and curious citizens poured into the town of 2,000 after the slayings, and city officials said soldiers directed traffic. The town is located near the Florida state line about 35 miles from Fort Rucker, the Army’s main helicopter training base.

Samson’s tiny police force and county officers were stretched to the limit after the shootings, which left investigators with at least seven different crime scenes to check for evidence.

Residents said soldiers from Fort Rucker, a major employer in southeastern Alabama, have a reputation for helping nearby communities in emergencies.

According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service, federal law generally prohibits the armed forces from being used as domestic police. Exceptions include emergencies, when troops can help civilians but don’t directly act as police.

The chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, Stephen Gordon, said while many are worried about the use of Army troops in civilian police roles, he doubts there was anything nefarious about the soldiers in Samson.

“There is no apparent harm here, but the principle still needs to be upheld,” Gordon said. “The barrier has been lowered for the next time, and we really need to take a look at what happened.”

 

Bill forces citizens to submit DNA

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Police to obtain samples for state, federal databases – without charges filed

Posted: February 05, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Citizens who have been arrested may be required to submit DNA samples to authorities before being convicted of any crime – and those records would be kept in state and federal databases.

The Washington state Legislature has introduced a measure that would require police to obtain the samples from even suspects accused of minor crimes such as shoplifting, according to the Seattle Times.

The proposal is part of a new movement in several states to adopt similar measures. More than 12 states already permit police to collect samples prior to convictions and three more are considering adding the provision.

Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told the Times he welcomes the proposal.

“It is good technology. It solves crimes,” he said. “We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is a lot more intrusive.”

Critics claim Washington’s HB-1382, sponsored by Rep. Mark Miloscia, D- Federal Way, is unconstitutional because police and jail staff would be required to keep DNA records on adults and juveniles arrested on suspicion of a felony or gross misdemeanor.

Currently, police are required to obtain a search warrant or the suspect’s permission before collecting DNA by swabbing citizen’s cheeks.

“This bill would take the next step in the use of DNA technology to help catch individuals who have gone out and harmed people,” Miloscia told the Times.

According to the bill, authorities would remove a suspect’s DNA information if they were not charged or found guilty.

Each DNA test costs taxpayers $82, and the price tag for the plan could reach $1 million over two years. Miloscia said Washington could look to the federal government to recover some of those costs.

Jack King, staff attorney for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., told the Times his group has been battling DNA-collection measures since 2004. He said requiring authorities to obtain DNA before convicting a person would violate their constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

“DNA samples reveal the most personal, private information about a person’s physical and mental makeup,” King said. “It is terribly unfair to an arrestee.”

Upon learning of the controversial, several readers posted the following responses:

• This goes beyond stupid. They say that if the person isn’t convicted that they will destroy the sample. That is a lie. The federal government will not destroy records simply because a state destroyed theirs.

• I don’t like it one bit. There should be a warrant provided before they take my DNA.

• What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if found guilty, this is extreme for minor offenses.

• The idea is to build a national database with everyone in it. This is just another step in the process. Next you will be required to provide a DNA sample when you get your driver’s license, and then they will simply take it at birth when you apply for a birth certificate. The point of the measure is not identification. They can already ID you. The point is to make it normal for people to give DNA samples to the national database. After all, only people with something to hide would object to this type of intrusion and surveillance. Right? Everyone needs to e-mail their legislator and tell them you do not want this or else they will just do it. This is not about criminals.

• To the morons who say, “If you aren’t a criminal don’t worry about it,” our Founding Fathers gave us a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom from such sorts of unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has no right to my DNA chain until I am convicted of a felony and not before. As one of our great Founding Fathers has said, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

• I wouldn’t trust the government promising to destroy the sample. When I joined the military, they took my fingerprints “for a security clearance check” – and they went into the great big database with all the criminals. Later, they took my DNA — “so there would be no more unknown soldiers” – and later Congress passed a law making this DNA available to any police department that requests it. And there is no provision to request destruction of the sample. Once you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.

PA State police to offer law enforcement class

By the Herald-Standard

01/30/2009

Updated 01/29/2009 06:01:34 PM EST

The state police announced they will conduct a Citizens Police Academy for residents of Fayette and Greene counties beginning in March at the George Plava Elementary School in German Township.

Trooper Brian D. Burden said the program is designed to expose residents of Fayette and Greene counties to law enforcement, the types of training officers receive and general law enforcement concepts and responsibilities.

“This training will be a forum for understanding and communicating between citizens and the criminal judicial system,” Burden stated in a press release. “Individuals selected to participate gain a greater understanding of law enforcement practices and a deeper sense of criminal agencies duties.”

According to Burden, class participants will have the opportunity to discuss possible areas for improvement in partnership between police and the public.

The class will be held Mondays from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. beginning March 2 and concluding with graduation ceremonies on May 11.

State and local police officers, including Uniontown police Chief Jason A. Cox, FBI investigators and Herald-Standard crime reporter Josh Krysak will be among those leading classes during the 11-week course.

Burden said class size is limited to 25 community participants accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Participants must be at least 18 years old and have no criminal history.

Applications can be obtained at the state police barracks at 1070 Eberly Way, Lemont Furnace, or the state police barracks in Waynesburg. Applications must be submitted by Feb. 16.

For more information, call Burden 724-415-1000 or Trooper Bart Lemansky at 724-627-6151. 

Updated 01/29/2009 06:01:34 PM EST

©The Herald Standard 2009

Pennsylvania Constables Have Significant Arrest Authority

 This article delves into the authority of Pennsylvania Constables to affect warrantless arrests for crimes committed in their presence. In future articles we will explore the Constables activities in the areas of Process service, Court Security, Training, Vehicle Code Enforcement, and the display of emergency lighting on Constables vehicles as well as other topics.

Contrary to the beliefs of most citizens, law enforcement officers, and even many Constables themselves, Pennsylvania Constables have full authority to make warrantless arrests for crimes in the Commonwealth.

 I stress “warrantless arrests” due to the common belief that the only function of Constables, due mostly to ignorance of the laws and court decisions pertaining to Constables, is serving arrest warrants and other documents issued by the courts.

 Most often this belief is expressed by, how should I say, the miscreants of our society? Well, however you say it, the bad guys. Usually they express this belief when they are out & about engaging in their less than honorable pursuits and observe someone in a uniform with a badge. The miscreants will stop what they are doing and look closely at the uniform in an effort to determine if the officer may be able to arrest them. Almost without fail when they determine the officer is a Constable, they say to each other “It’s just a Constable” and they go back to their misdeeds without concern.

 This perception of Constables must be corrected as sooner or later a Constable who is on his game is going come across a bad guy who honestly believes a Constable cannot arrest him without a warrant and will resist the Constable when told he is under arrest creating a very dangerous situation for the Constable & the suspect.

 In addition, Constables can be a very positive factor in law enforcement’s ever increasingly difficult job of getting the bad guys off the street; if they know and understand the authority they can exercise.

  The PA Supreme Court has noted in the case of In Re Act 147 of 1990, 528 PA 460,463 (1991) “Constables are Peace Officers charged with the conservation of the peace, and whose job it is to arrest those who have violated it; It is the Constables job to enforce the law and carry it out, just as the same is the job of District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and the police generally”.

 The arrest authority of PA Constables is defined generally in PA law in Title 13 of  the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, commonly referred to as Purdon’s Statutes (P.S.), 45 et seq. which states: “Constables of the Commonwealth, in addition to the powers already conferred upon them, shall and may, without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of  a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous and disorderly conduct or drunkenness,or who may be engaged in the commission of an unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger the property of the citizens, or violating municipal ordinances, for the violation of which a fine or penalty is imposed. Any person arrested with or without a warrant, shall be entitled to trial.”

   In The case of Commonwealth v. Frombach, 420 Pa Super. 498 (1992) the PA Superior Court determined that the PA Legislature by 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above), “Conferred on Constables the power to without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of a breach of the peace.

 A breach of the peace has been defined generally as any of “a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others” (see 310 U.S. 296, 308) In its broadest sense the term refers to any criminal offense, or at least any indictable offense (see 207 U.S. 425). Breaches of the peace have been defined by state courts as “disturbances of the public peace violative of order and decency or decorum (see 147 N.W. 2d 886,892). And as “any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order” and “signifies disorderly, dangerous conduct disruptive of public peace (see 261 A. 2d 731, 739).

 In the case of Commonwealth v. Taylor, 450 Pa. Super. 583, 677 A. 2d 846 (1996)the Superior Court, citing the Constables authority to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace, determined that Constables have the authority make arrests for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. (see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540,491 A.2d 829 (1985)) where the court held that a private citizen can affect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

  In further exploration of the authority of PA Constables it must be noted that in the case of Commonwealth v. McGavin, 305 Pa. Super. 528, 534, 451 A. 2d 773 (1982)the Superior Court held that the statute authorizing  Constables to make warrantless arrests, 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above),requires that the offense for which the warrantless arrest is made be an offense that (1) is committed within view of the Constable, and (2) constitutes a breach of the peace (described above).

 In a real world scenario this seems to indicate that should a Constable observe 2 men fighting in the street, the Constable has authority to make arrests for disorderly conduct, etc., but should a Constable observe a man sitting on a sidewalk bleeding from his nose and upon investigation learns that the man was assaulted by an identified individual, the Constable should secure the scene & protect the victim from further harm and then would need to contact the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction so that they could make the arrest on information received from the victim since the Constable did not witness the breach of the peace.

Also, in the bloody nosed victim example above, if the victim or a witness  were to point out the person(s) with whom the victim was fighting, it seems  the Constable would be authorized to detain,  not arrest, the individual(s) for investigative purposes. If the Constable decides to detain, not arrest, the accused individual(s), he would be justified in performing a pat down frisk of the individual(s) in an effort to be certain the individual(s) does  not possess dangerous weapons and he may even place the individual(s) in handcuffs while waiting for the arrival of the jurisdictions law enforcement agency (see Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A. 2d 299 (1994); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690 (1981).

 In short, based on the court’s language in the McGavin case above, it seems that a Constable has authority to make arrests for crimes in progress that he sees taking place.

 However, recall that in the Corley case the court held that “even a private citizen can effect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony”. Note that the court did not say that the citizen must actually observe the felony being committed. Rather, the court said the citizen can affect an arrest for a felony when the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

 In summation, Pennsylvania Constables are authorized to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace committed in their presence and may detain for investigative purposes individuals they reasonably believe to be engaged in criminal activity.

 In addition, Constables, the same as private citizens, may affect an arrest for a felony if he reasonably believes that a felony has been committed and that the person he has arrested committed the felony.