Rant Roulette » Uncategorized

Why asset forfeiture laws need to be repealed

Shawn K. Quinn — Sun, 20 May 2012 14:00:17 +0000

It pains me to say this, and I hope nobody out here ever needs this advice. If you ever get arrested in Wisconsin, don’t post bail in cash. In fact, if you cannot post bail with a bail bondsman (Wisconsin is one of four states that don’t allow them; Illinois, Kentucky, and Oregon) and most post using actual money, pay with a registered check, cashier’s check, or a credit/debit card.

This recent Huffington Post story tells the tale of Joel and Beverly Greer. The timeline of the events is as follows: Joel gets arrested for a drug charge (not specified in the story), Beverly (his wife) goes to post the $7,500 bail in cash, the cops have drug dogs sniff the money, and then use the dog alerting on the presence of narcotics on the bills as a pretext to keep the money under asset forfeiture laws–without accepting it as bail for Joel.

Something similar happened to Jesus Zamora, who was arrested on a drug possession charge and a gun charge. From the article:

“My girlfriend borrowed some money from her sister and mother and a few friends, and they came to bail me out,” Zamora says. “But then they started asking her if she had brought drug money. They took the money away and said they were going to have the drug dogs sniff it. She asked them when I would be let out, and they told her, ‘He isn’t going anywhere’.”

Most alarming, however, is this quote later in the story:

Brown County Drug Task Force Director Lt. Dave Poteat says the dog alerts were not the only factors. According to Poteat, the Greers and Zamora’s girlfriend appeared nervous when they brought in the bail money. “Their stories didn’t add up. Their ATM receipts had the wrong times on them. And they were withdrawing from several different locations. The times just didn’t correspond to their stories.”

My question for Lt. Poteat: Who would not be a little nervous holding that kind of cash? Should I have my family send in an android to post my bail (that I have programmed never to appear nervous)?

Poteat says an additional reason Zamora’s bail money was confiscated was because during calls from the jail to multiple people, he indicated that the money was drug-related. “Mr. Zamora made a number of calls in which he appeared to be trying to disguise or hide where the money was coming from,” Poteat says. “At one point, he even said to another party, ‘of course the money is dirty.’”

Now, Jesus has a reason to say that, given that numerous studies have indicated that well over a majority of the bills in circulation–a 1994 ruling from the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited studies showing 75%, more recent studies in 2008 and 2009 have found as many as 90%–have traces of drugs on them. But, taken out of context, ‘of course the money is dirty’ is a convenient excuse to say it’s drug money.

Here’s one for Lt. Poteat: Go take $500 or more out of your bank account, and see if the drug dogs alert on it. Now, imagine you’re just an average citizen without a badge, and that’s $500 you are using to post bail for a family member, and the cops take that $500 and keep it under the pretense of it being drug money, without releasing the person you’re trying to make bail for.

But the real reason we need to get rid of asset forfeiture laws: especially in cases like this, the amount most attorneys want to take the case exceeds the amount at stake. And, at least in Wisconsin, an indigent defendant in an asset forfeiture case is not entitled to a public defender.

Basically, for law enforcement agencies, it’s a license to steal. They won’t call it that, but that’s what it is. Arrest the money, the owner has no right to a public defender; arrest the suspect, he does. (Of course, there’s nothing stopping them from arresting both.)

Attorney Steven Kessler is quoted later in the story on contested asset forfeiture cases:

“I would think that one of these cases would be the perfect opportunity for a court to impose punitive damages against the police department[.] … You need to make it clear that it would be damaging for the police to attempt this sort of thing in the future. Considering how appalling these cases are, I don’t see why a court couldn’t do that.”

Of course, the problem is that it usually doesn’t come to that. And in a lot of these smaller counties, the cops, the prosecutors, and the judges are often on a first-name basis with each other. In theory, the judges are impartial. In practice, the judge, DA, and police chief are often fishing buddies. How often do you think a judge is going to fillet his fishing buddy in open court? Honestly, I think I have better chances of winning a large lottery prize.

Due process? What due process? – The Dajaz1.com story

Shawn K. Quinn — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:00:11 +0000

While the story is a bit stale, I wasn’t able to blog about it when it was first published, and the possibility of this happening again is still very timely.

Techdirt reported last November on the seizure of a popular music blog’s domain and its eventual return to its rightful owners. What’s alarming here is the length of time that the government was able to unilaterally deny a legitimate blog of its traffic, and the profits from that traffic.

The introduction paragraph to the story is so well written that I’m going to quote it in its entirety here. The parallels to the digital world should be relatively obvious:

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine’s offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company’s printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine’s lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that’s a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

The story involves Dajaz1.com, a hip hop blog well known enough to make Vibe’s list of top blogs in the category. So this is not just some small hip hop fan blog off in the corner of the Internet that nobody cares about, this is a relatively well known and popular blog.

Again, quoting the story:

Despite all of [the evidence that the site was not infringing copyright], the government simply seized the domain, put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals, and then refused to comment at all about the case. Defenders of the seizures insisted that this was all perfectly legal and nothing to be worried about. They promised us that the government had every right to do this and plenty of additional evidence to back up its claims. They promised us that the government would allow for plenty of due process within a reasonable amount of time. They also insisted that, after hearing nothing happening in the case for many months, it meant that no attempt to object to the seizure had occurred. Turns out… none of that was true.

I’ll summarize the rest of this, because I don’t want to quote the entire story here. First the facts about the rather messed-up seizure and forfeiture laws we have in the US. The Federal government has 60 days to notify the owners of the reason for the seizure. As an example, today is 2012 April 22, so if one of my domains (or one of your domains, or someone else’s domain) was seized today, they would have until 2012 June 21 to actually notify me (or you or whoever) of the seizure.

Now, for a site maintained as a hobby, this would be at worst a significant annoyance. For a site that’s intended to generate profit? Basically, this is a license to kill a business based on mere suspicion, without due process, without a proper trial.

The property owner, once notified, has 35 days to file a claim requesting the return of the property. It’s of course not to the government’s advantage for everyone to contest the seizure, of course, so usually they threaten to file charges or make similar intimidation attempts against those they have stolen, er, seized property from. The seizures are supposed to be temporary, to preserve evidence and/or stop criminal activity. Once a claim is filed, the government then has 90 days to start the full forfeiture proceedings. So, that’s about 150 days total that the government can drag their feet, or to carry the previous example further using today’s date, until 2012 September 19. (The time the property owner delays in filing the claim is the property owner, not the government, dragging his/her/its feet, though the total time could add up anywhere between 150 to 185 days, which using the same example could be as late as early November.)

The lawyer representing Dajaz1, Andrew P. Bridges, aggressively contested the seizure and forfeiture on the site’s behalf. The deadline for forfeiture on Dajaz1.com came and went, and, quoting the story:

Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. [...]

He also asked for a copy of the the court’s order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal [...]

He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal [...]

He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.

He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.

So, in summary, Dajaz1 was told, through their attorney, “sorry, you can’t have any documentation, it’s all under seal, and we’re not going to tell you if we decide to drag our feet even longer, and we’re not even going to let you be heard in court.” This case was kept under a veil of secrecy that would make some people think someone who owned Dajaz1.com had ties to a major terrorist cell (which of course was not and is not the case).

Further extensions were made, and once the last one expired, finally, Counselor Bridges asked again for the return of Dajaz1.com to its rightful owners, which happened the date of the story, 2011 December 8. That’s just over a year’s worth of profits the site’s owners are out, an amount that can’t even be calculated with any degree of certainty.

Simply put, this is outrageous, and cannot be allowed to continue happening in a sane society. We, the taxpayers, are out that money should Dajaz1 choose to sue for it due to the gross incompetence with which the government agencies involved chose to handle this case. I certainly don’t want my tax dollars being spent to fix these mistakes which could easily have been avoided or at the very least mitigated months earlier.

If we are going to keep the seizure and forfeiture laws (and to be honest, that’s a big, huge if), this is a list of things I can see doing to make them much more fair to the property owners (who should always be assumed innocent until proven guilty and granted due process):

Seizure and forfeiture proceedings cannot normally be filed under seal without just cause. Any sealed filing will need to be reviewed by an independent judge or arbitrator assigned solely to the task who can decide if the cause is justified. If not justified, the filing is immediately unsealed, it cannot be withdrawn prior to unsealing.
There needs to be a real risk of sanctions against the government agencies who completely screw up and rob legitimate website owners of revenue, whether negligently or willfully. To some, the income from a website is how they stay fed and housed. My understanding is that those who work for the government, who robbed Dajaz1.com’s owners of a year’s worth of advertising revenue as well as causing huge damage to their reputation, have not been sanctioned at all. (I would love to be wrong about this, so please let me know if this is indeed not the case.)
The length
of time the government has to notify seized property owners, 60 days, is way too long and practically encourages the government to drag its feet. This should be no longer than 7 days unless the government cannot locate the owner during that time, then a maximum of 30 days with an exception if there is emergency.
The length of time the government can wait to start forfeiture, 90 days, is also way too long and again practically encourages the government to drag its feet. This should be shortened to 30 to 60 days, with no extensions unless there is an emergency (such as a natural disaster).
The tactic of intimidating or threatening owners who contest a seizure should be banned by a specific law against the practice. (“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson)
If no criminal case is filed, return of the property
should be automatic. An attorney should not have to ask for the property’s return. This is condescending and an insult to those who have already been wrongfully deprived of their property. (The Jefferson quote applies somewhat here too.)
Courts should be allowed to severely sanction a government agency involved in a seizure or forfeiture proceeding who causes a delay the proceedings without just cause. Ideally, the law would say in as many words that in such a proceeding “time is of the essence.”

As a rule, I don’t support seizure and forfeiture laws, but any law should be fair to everyone. Maybe it would make seizure and forfeiture proceedings so much trouble to use that they wouldn’t be used as often anymore. I don’t necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

Revisiting the Eric Cropp story and safety in medicine

Shawn K. Quinn — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:00:13 +0000

One of my more popular posts to this blog was about Eric Cropp, the pharmacist in Ohio who wound up actually facing criminal charges after the death of a pediatric cancer patient under his care. I made that post back in 2009 August, back when this was my personal blog and not yet called Rant Roulette. So it’s high time I re-visit the story and what has happened since then, and some other healthcare-related matters. This is going to be a long one, because a lot has gone on since the original post.

First, if you haven’t seen it before, is Eric Cropp being interviewed by David Mattingly of CNN. You may want to skip this if you are easily disturbed; I found it quite difficult to watch myself. Conveniently, they pair this with an interview of only Emily’s mother, Kelly Jerry, not her father, Chris Jerry. The distinction is important, as noted below.

This post on Philly.com’s Check Up blog describes some of what has gone on since then. The post dates from 2011 November, during a period I was not very active posting to this blog. Quoting the post:

As I wrote in a previous
blog that touched on this case, I completely understand the angst and the call for retribution by families left behind in the wake of a fatal medical error. I also recognize they need someone to blame and to hold accountable for the pain of their horrific loss. But I truly admire one family member who took a different path, Chris Jerry, Emily’s dad. Almost from the start, he opposed Mr. Cropp’s jailing, and now he’s even forgiven him. In fact, Chris Jerry and Eric Cropp have been working together, traveling around the country to speak at pharmacy meetings to help create awareness of the vital importance of safety practices. I’ve received several emails from colleagues around the country who’ve attended these programs—enthralling is how they describe it.

(Contrast Chris’s attitude with that of Emily’s mother, Kelly Jerry, who was and is all too willing to hang Eric Cropp out to dry.)

The story goes on to mention the Emily Jerry Foundation, which is dedicated to increasing patient safety by minimizing the human error in medical treatment, started shortly after Emily’s death in 2009.

I applaud Chris Jerry for first, realizing that throwing Eric in jail really doesn’t solve anything, and second, for forgiving him for what could be said wasn’t really his fault, even if it was legally his responsibility. I say it like this because of this comment made by The Redheaded Pharmacist on a post about the Eric Cropp case by The Blonde Pharmacist:

I worry about the working conditions for pharmacists after reading
these stories: long hours and no breaks have to play a role in some of the mistakes that are being made in pharmacies around the country. The problem is that if an incident does happen, it is usually the pharmacist and not the employer that takes the blame and the fall for what happens. I’m not saying pharmacists are without fault and should avoid responsibility for their mistakes while on duty, but to place the full blame with them seems to be a bit short sighted. At some point, reducing hours, [increasing] workloads, and no breaks have to play a role in the incidence of errors but the employer will simply bring in another pharmacist and move on if the one on duty is disciplined.

The ISMP’s article has the rather derisive-looking headline “Ohio government plays Whack-a-Mole with pharmacist”. Indeed, without reforming the system, and just sending the pharmacists and other healthcare professionals off to jail or just revoking their licenses, it’s just a game of Whack-A-Mole, or treating the symptoms without curing the disease. Quoting the article:

No matter how hard we try, human endeavors carry inherent risks. We
can try to do everything possible to make it safe for patients, but we often fail to plan for the unexpected—a computer system that is nonfunctional when you arrive at work, causing a serious backlog of work; an inadequate level of staff on duty because of unexpected absences; a distracted technician working in a hectic high-risk IV area—just a few of the unexpected conditions in Eric’s case on the day of the event. As Marx notes in his book, civil, criminal, and regulatory systems are increasingly obscuring the differences between intentional, risky choices and inadvertent human fallibility. Thus, the net cast to catch criminals is now catching those whose only crime is that they are human. The criminal courts are playing the most extreme version of Whack-a-Mole with the lives of all healthcare professionals, for who among us cannot say, “It could have been me” when thinking about the plight of Eric Cropp and Emily Jerry?

(The article is aimed at healthcare professionals, so that’s who the “us” is referring to.)

Until it’s standard procedure for the workflow of healthcare professionals–pharmacists in particular–to allow for normal work and meal breaks, until nurses don’t do just plain stupid things like call in chemotherapy orders hours early so the pharmacists feel rushed to check the solution so it can be dispensed (like Emily’s nurse did), until pharmacy computer systems are reliable so they don’t go down for hours at a time (like they did at Eric’s pharmacy), this is still destined to happen again to someone, somewhere.

And there are other situations similar to this. This entry in HealthBlog refers to this story about mis-mixed colchicine involving Gary D. Osborne and his company, Apothécure, in Dallas, Texas. (Steve at HealthBlog does not link to this latter story, it’s possible he intended to but the link in the article goes to an unrelated story.) Gary Osborne has just as much nominal responsibility for his employees/assistants as Eric Cropp did when his assistant mis-mixed the chemotherapy for Emily Jerry. The Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA-OCI) findings pursant to their investigation were that Gary and his company committed two violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) due to some colchicine vials containing a lethal dose.

While there is some relief that at least the Justice Department and the FDA-OCI understand it’s merely human error and are only charging Gary and Apothécure with misdemeanors, it’s still troubling that a human error is being pursued under criminal law at all. It’s as if nothing was learned from the Eric Cropp case, or what was learned is being willfully ignored.

I strongly believe criminal prosecution should be reserved only for the most egregious of offenses, where there is a repeating pattern of conduct which endangers human life. Are there cases where criminal prosecution is the most fitting remedy? Yes. Does a shipment of two bad lots of colchicine qualify as such an egregious offense? Probably not. If it had been a repeat pattern over a longer period of time of substandard quality control, then criminal prosecution would make more sense to me. In this case, I don’t think Gary or Apothécure should be subject to more than a civil or administrative penalty.

Quoting Steve’s Healthblog post:

This was also dealing with a compounded drug… we all are aware of
how the FDA is AGAINST Pharmacist compounding… could these criminal charges – 5 years after the fact be at the prodding by the FDA to the Justice dept?

If the FDA is pursuing this only to advance its own agenda against compounding pharmacies, it’s despicable and abhorrent. Especially when there are so many other areas of healthcare that need more aggressive and stringent regulatory oversight.

There’s another great post in HealthBlog which shows where the priorities really lay for at least one pharmacy. Hint: it’s not about patient safety, or customer service. Quoting the post:

[...] [T]he chain store where [another pharmacy blogger] works…
puts anyone wanting a flu/vaccine shot AHEAD of all waiting Rxs.. [...] WHY??? because … giving flu/vaccine are MORE PROFITABLE to the chain than filling the typical prescription(s).

In all honesty, this kind of thing should be illegal, and the pharmacy chains doing this should be hit with huge monetary penalties. This is the most despicable, horrendous, and egregious thing I have ever heard of in our healthcare system! It’s a shame that the blogger in question does not (and cannot, lest he risk his job) reveal which chain pharmacy this is with this insane policy.

When an otherwise good pharmacist like Eric Cropp loses his license and goes to jail after what is, in all honesty, one really bad day, and we have pharmacists willing to go along with ludicrous policies like this, it’s a wonder we don’t have more meltdowns in our healthcare system.

I fear the message we are sending to would-be pharmacists is this: Sure, become a pharmacist. Work 12 hour days with no rest breaks, let alone meal breaks, and take all the blame when one of your technicians screws up despite your best efforts to check his/her work. And if you’re really unlucky, you make a mistake (due to the work conditions setting you up for failure) and someone dies, you could actually go to prison and lose your license (like Eric Cropp did) while the technician that actually made the mistake walks free.

(There’s another way to look at this, too. How many other pharmacists around the US have made a mistake resulting in someone’s death in the past 20 years? I would be willing to bet most of them didn’t go to jail for their mistakes. So, if we assume for the moment that Eric Cropp’s imprisonment was just, that means that untold numbers of pharmacists out there got away with it.)

In light of this, who will want to become a pharmacist today? What happened to Eric Cropp is just the beginning of setting us up for a serious shortage of pharmacists within the next 10 years, if not sooner. We can’t wait 10 years to realize we have this kind of a problem. The time to start is now.

The Air Force’s new policy about hotel Bibles

Shawn K. Quinn — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:38:37 +0000

The Blaze reports on the US Air Force’s new policy regarding Bibles and on-base lodging facilities. Essentially, starting this October, it will no longer be a requirement that each room at an on-base lodging facility has a Bible.

It is unclear whether the existing Bibles will be removed by that day, or if the only removal is from the checklist and thus housekeeping is longer legally required to check that the Bible is in the room and usable.

The Blaze links to a news story from WRWR with more information.

The response followed a protest from the Military Association of
Atheists and Freethinkers who push, according to the [Air Force Association], to “free the U.S. military of policies that it purports promote religion.”

The group claimed that placement of Bibles in on-base rooms was “a special privilege for Christianity.” Bibles are placed in on-base lodging by the Gideons.

I agree in principle with what the MAAF is trying to accomplish here. If the Gideons wish to provide Bibles for those who want them, I am okay with it, however I also believe those of other faiths should have the same opportunities to make their holy books available. Yes, this would include the Quran or any other holy book which is roughly on par with the Bible in another faith, and it would also extend to other versions of the Bible (such as the Canon of Trent, better known as the Catholic Bible).

I am sensitive to those who may find it offensive that a Bible is in the room unsolicited. I am not a Christian myself, nor am I an Atheist, however it does fly a bit in the face of “freedom of religion” to twist that around and allow an action which in effect say “freedom to practice Christianity” (or, put another way, “freedom to practice the same religion we do”). Giving the Gideons preference by allowing placement of the Bible in each room, and not allowing other groups a similar privilege, seems to fall more under the latter headings than the former.

However, I have a clear and direct message to the Atheists who would dump the Bibles in the trash: Don’t you dare! Respect and tolerance goes both ways, and it is already difficult enough for non-Christians (in general) to get and keep the respect of Christians, particularly those Christians who feel it their duty to “convert” others. (And yes, in a past time, prior to my enlightenment, I was one of those Christians too.) I promote respect and tolerance between those of all faiths. Even if you personally believe the Bible is a work of fiction, it deserves to be treated with respect. Disrespecting the Bible makes it harder for us all to get respect in the long term.

The IOC vs. social media

Shawn K. Quinn — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:00:12 +0000

A recent article on Mashable about the 2012 Olympics in London again shows just how crazy the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has gotten when it comes to regulating its event.

It’s being billed as “the first social media Olympic Games” but with the IOC’s rather anti-social policies it’s questionable just how social they will be.

Athletes will not be allowed to tweet photos of themselves with
products that aren’t official Olympics sponsors or share photos or videos from inside the athletes’ village.

Fans, too, could be barred from sharing on Facebook and YouTube photos and videos of themselves enjoying the action.

Business owners will have restrictions as well. They won’t be able to lure customers by advertising with official Olympics nomenclature such as “2012 Games.” Regulators will scour Olympic venues to potentially obfuscate non-sponsor logos on objects as trivial as toilets.

The restrictions on business owners are somewhat understandable. But obfuscating logos on everything at venues down to the toilets? I think that’s taking it a bit too far.

From later in the story, the restrictions on athletes appear to be tied to the IOC’s desire to control the message. Quoting Alex Huot, the IOC’s head of social media:

We encourage athletes to share their Games experience. The Olympic
Athletes’ Hub has been in part built for this. We have created a place for them to join and connect with our millions of fans around the world and to share not just during the Olympics but long after the Olympics are gone.

Unfortunately the athletes themselves have personal brands to build as well. This works out well for the IOC, at the expense of the athletes, and certainly looks like the first step down an extremely slippery slope.

The IOC seems to be forgetting without the athletes, the Olympic Games would cease to exist. As a fan, I should be allowed to follow my favorite athlete through his/her regular social media feeds–whether or not they are at the Olympic Games. To expect me as a fan to “switch channels” to the Olympic Athletes’ Hub is ludicrous, and to prohibit the athletes from building their own personal brands during the Games is something I find nearly unconscionable.

I honestly wonder how long it will be until an alternative quadrennial/biennial athletic competition to replace the over-commercialized Olympic Games becomes a reality. I don’t think it will be too much longer before someone decides “enough is enough” and gives the IOC a swift kick in the pocketbook.

I acknowledge every sport requires rules. But do we really need to have such fascist rules about what amateur athletes tweet and blog while in competition? Until and unless it compromises the integrity of the competition itself, the IOC should keep its hands off.

Taking Up Space: Houston police hijack scarce public parking for personal cars

Shawn K. Quinn — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:21:31 +0000

I’m not sure who remembers or who read my original post regarding vehicles with police parking placards and expired inspections/registrations. But it seems that just recently, a local TV news crew has uncovered there’s more to it than I first found out.

KHOU-TV recently reported on police officers assigned to work in the 1200 Travis building, parking on the street with their police placards to avoid having to pay the parking meter. The problem is, many of these spaces are normally two-hour limit spaces.

The meter maids are either complicit with this state of affairs, or simply lack the spine to actually write parking tickets and cite fellow city employees for flagrantly violating the law.

From the story:

[N]either did a uniformed officer whose personal car sat for a full eight-hour day [have anything to say].

I-Team: “Must be nice, park all day, don’t have to pay? Is it fair that you get to park for free and other folks don’t, officer?”

Lois Holmes was quick to answer that question.

“No it’s not fair! If I have to pay they should have to pay,” Holmes said. “I don’t pay, I get a ticket.”

Which, of course, is the same reason I posted my story about expired tags and inspections–an average citizen is noticed with expired items, he/she gets a ticket. It’s the same deal with parking, which is actually a bigger problem because of the limited amount of on-street parking that exists to begin with.

But this is the part that really burns me up:

Turns out, HPD does provide parking spaces for its employees, and even offers a shuttle service to and from remote lots. Those shuttles cost taxpayers more than $400,000 a year to run.

Two-fifths of a million dollars to run the shuttles. And at least some of the employees feel they are above using them. And in fact, feel they have a “get away with it” card when blowing off the law that means they don’t have to use them.

(To get an idea just how much money this is, the city of Houston has taken in some $1.6 million per day on average so far in 2012 if I read the State Comptroller’s report correctly. So, $400,000 is about a quarter of an entire day’s sales taxes. I assumed the totals as of the time I downloaded the report were through the close of business on April 19, which could be wrong.)

Outrageous. If anyone at HPD is wondering why the department has an image problem, look no further.

What is the NBA thinking? Sponsored jerseys under consideration

Shawn K. Quinn — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:36:23 +0000

The New York Times recently reported on the NBA’s consideration of jersey sponsorship. The report cites examples of the WNBA and MLS as prior successes.

From the article:

Adam Silver, the N.B.A.’s deputy commissioner, said in an e-mail:
“If we add sponsor logos to jerseys, we recognize that some of our fans will think we’ve lost our minds. But the N.B.A. is a global business and logos on jerseys are well established in other sports and commonplace outside the U.S. Our goal isn’t to be the first major league to do it, but in the same way that virtually all arenas and stadiums now have naming rights deals, we recognize it’s only a matter of time.” [...]

In 2009, the [WNBA's] Phoenix Mercury signed a three-year deal worth at least $1 million annually with LifeLock, the identity theft protection company, to replace the name on its jersey with the company’s name. [...]

Four teams followed the Mercury-LifeLock deal with similar ones: the Liberty, with Foxwoods Resort; the Los Angeles Sparks (Farmers Insurance); the Seattle Storm (Bing); and the Washington Mystics (Inova Health System). Then, last season, Boost Mobile acquired the rights to add its logo beneath the players’ numbers on the jerseys of 10 of the 12 W.N.B.A. teams.

For reference, here are pictures of the 2009-2010 home jerseys and 2009-2010 away jerseys of the Phoenix Mercury, courtesy of sportslogos.net. The first problem I notice is one can’t tell what city these jerseys are from unless you know which team Lifelock sponsored that year. There is no mention of Phoenix anywhere on the jersey. Not even in smaller type.

Contrast this with the Houston Dynamo’s 2007-2008 home jerseys and 2007-2008 road jerseys (also from sportslogos.net). The Dynamo have since added a sponsor in similar fashion to the Mercury starting with the 2008-2009 season; though there is a smaller Dynamo logo elsewhere on the jersey, similar confusion now results for new fans to the game who wonder who this “Amigo Energy” or “Greenstar” team is (previous and current Dynamo uniform sponsors, respectively).

While I do have a favorite NASCAR driver (Kurt Busch), I hardly ever watch the races on television. But I do know there are sponsor logos everywhere–the cars, the driver uniform, the pit crew. NASCAR is a bit different, though, as the cost of keeping a team going without sponsors is prohibitive, though it could be done if the race lengths were shortened by a factor of 10. I will happily concede the Daytona 50 just doesn’t have the same ring to it, nor would it attract as many fans.

With sponsors also comes the possibility of silly conflicts. Not only are NASCAR’s vehicles and teams sponsored, but NASCAR’s various series are sponsored as well. Best known to most fans is the Sprint Cup Series, sponsored by the mobile phone provider of the same name. Flash back to 2007 when AT&T merged with BellSouth, and Cingular would cease to exist as a mobile phone brand. At the time, Cingular was the sponsor of the #31 car (Richard Childress Racing). AT&T thought they would be able to just take the Cingular logos off the car, put on the new AT&T logo, and be done with it. Sprint had other ideas, and for a short time the #31 car raced without a sponsor logo. Eventually a deal was worked out where AT&T could sponsor the car in 2008 but only after agreeing to leave the sport afterwards–a pretty lousy deal for AT&T given that they paid for sponsorship through 2010.

I point out NASCAR here to show what it looks like at the bottom of the slippery slope. I don’t want NBA uniforms to look like that, and I can only imagine the can of worms opened up when, say, Apple sponsors the LA Clippers uniforms and then gets hacked off when Microsoft or Google wants to sponsor the All-Star Game. Really now, if I want to watch soap operas I can add Young and the Restless to my DVR’s recording list.

It may seem strange, but I actually miss simple yet profound NBA arena names like The Summit, The Forum, The Spectrum, Boston Garden, etc. I remember vividly reading the reaction of a kid to the renaming of The Summit to Compaq Center, which went something like “are they playing basketball or selling computers?” Adult fans have complained about the overmerchandising of Toyota’s motor vehicles at the Rockets’ new home, Toyota Center, something that to my knowledge Compaq was not guilty of during that company/brand’s time as naming rights holder of the Rockets’ former home.

The practical problems are enough by themselves. But, even as a marketing/PR consultant, I honestly feel that sponsor logos on uniforms just flat out look tacky. It’s almost like the NBA is saying “we give up, we’re broke”. I also have serious doubts the would-be sponsors would want their company name associated with gang activity. In theory, of course, the gangs can already use WNBA or MLS uniforms as their attire but I don’t think this is likely as the NBA is much better known.

In conclusion, if the NBA really wants me gone as a fan, this is a great move. I am not against sponsorships and advertising in principle but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I also hope the NBA thinks ahead, and realizes the only thing tackier than sponsored uniforms today, is NBA footage of today’s games shown 5, 10, 20 years from now with the name of some now-bankrupt or since-taken-over company splashed across the players’ jerseys. Or worse, if it’s decided a given product can’t be advertised on TV and they sponsored NBA jerseys for a given year, to just air those games may mean some guy is working overtime on the blur machine. Indeed, it would be quite hilarious if the NBA did this, then abandons the experiment after four or five seasons and then we heard sportscasters talk about “the sponsored jersey era” after realizing just what a bad move it was.

The 50 dirty things you can’t say in a standardized test in NYC

Shawn K. Quinn — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:22:37 +0000

A recent CBS New York news story just has to be seen to be believed, and I quote:

Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, [New York City Department of Education] officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.

The reasons behind some of these give me considerable pause to question whether or not the Department is a drug-free workplace. The complete list, quoting the story (and note some of these aren’t really words as such, but closer to things):

Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)

Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs

Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)

Bodily functions

Cancer (and other diseases)

Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)

Celebrities

Children dealing with serious issues

Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)

Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)

Crime

Death and disease

Divorce

Evolution

Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes

Gambling involving money

Halloween

Homelessness

Homes with swimming pools

Hunting

Junk food

In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge

Loss of employment

Nuclear weapons

Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)

Parapsychology

Politics

Pornography

Poverty

Rap Music

Religion

Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)

Rock-and-Roll music

Running away

Sex

Slavery

Terrorism

Television and video games (excessive use)

Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)

Vermin (rats and roaches)

Violence

War and bloodshed

Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)

Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Some are admittedly somewhat understandable (bodily functions, pornography, sex, alcohol/tobacco/drugs, cigarettes) but then we go off the deep end. Seriously, no mentions of homes with swimming pools? Rock music? Weapons? Witchcraft? Religion and religious festivals? Halloween?! Birthday celebrations?! Rats and roaches?!

I see a certain parallel with the Kurt Vonnegut short stories Harrison Bergeron and The Sirens of Titan. The more we attempt to shield our kids from the reality that yes, some people will have their own swimming pools and nicer cars, and the real world has things like gambling, alcohol, rats, roaches, and homelessness, the bigger shock they will get when they finally figure out that it does.

The last thing we need to do is set our kids up to fail the biggest test of all, the final examination that is their adult life. And I believe by taking all these things out of standardized tests is a huge step in that direction. As the saying goes, why be politically correct when you can be right?

Of course there are traces of pot on that money

Shawn K. Quinn — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:00:14 +0000

As recently reported by RawStory, a waitress in Moorehead, Minnesota, is suing the local police department after they seized $12,000 from her under the guise that it was “drug money.”

From the article:

Stacy Knutson was working at the Moorhead Fryn’ Pan restaurant when she discovered a wad of cash wrapped in rubber bands in a to-go box.

“No, I am good; you keep it,” Knutson claimed the customer told her when she tried to return the money.

At first, police told her she could have the money back if no one claimed it 60 days. After 90 days, they still refused to return the money, telling her it was being held as “drug money.” > [... because a] drug-sniffing dog determined [the money] had a strong odor of marijuana.

Now, think about this for a second: this article on snopes.com confirms as true the urban legend that 80% of our money is contaminated with some small amount of cocaine. That, by itself, should cast into suspicion any attempt to seize money based on it being “drug money.”

As stated elsewhere in the story, Stacy said she “feels like [she] did the right thing by calling the Moorhead Police” despite the fact she “desperately needed the money.” I have to question whatever wisdom there was behind trusting the local police department with $12,000, which should come as no surprise to my regular readers. This is yet another way that drug prohibition has ruined our sense of justice and our society: it is un-American (specifically, a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution) to just take someone’s property.

What I think happened here is that the Moorhead PD realized they were strapped for cash just like Stacy, and that combined with a case of “heavy badge-itis” led someone to say “let’s just say a drug dog sniffed this and smelled pot on it, so we can keep it.” It’s entirely possible the money was even intentionally contaminated with marijuana prior to letting the drug dog sniff it.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Stacy’s lawsuit prevails after something very similar to this is revealed in court. If so, I hope some heads roll in Moorhead, as those in government (particularly law enforcement) can’t be allowed to get away with this in any decent society.

The Amanda treatment: another drug prohibition horror story

Shawn K. Quinn — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:42:31 +0000

I was in shock when I first read this.

CopBlock reports on the nonsensical arrest of Amanda, who I would assume for privacy reasons has been identified only by her first name. From the article:

Amanda, a mother of 2 who has already been forced to live with her ex due to the housing bubble and the recession is scheduled to be arraigned on April 10th for felony possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture.

That’s legal speak for they believe she was trying to make meth. Never mind that she has never manufactured meth nor ever intended to. [...] [A] box of Sudafed she had allegedly purchased was found at a meth lab the cops raided last month. She was never seen at the meth lab. [...]

This gross miscarriage of justice is attributed to a single box of Sudafed found in the meth lab, which authorities traced back as having been purchased by Amanda. [...] Ultimately, Amanda’s real crime was that of being a good neighbor. She thought nothing of it when a friend asked for some cold medicine during cold and flu season (and why would she?). She gave him some Sudafed, a decongestant, which can also be used in the manufacture of the drug known as methamphetamine or crystal meth.

For those that aren’t aware, in 2006 a Federal law came into effect requiring stores to log and limit sales of products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. This is how the box Amanda gave to her neighbor was traced back to her. Several states enacted similar less stringent laws prior to the Federal law. These laws are, of course, an attempt to hinder the manufacture of methamphetamines, yet another battle in this so-called “war on drugs.”

Do the cops really expect the average person who just wants to help their neighbor say “sorry, I can’t do that, you might be trying to make meth” or something similar? I think the majority of well-meaning people will happily hook up their neighbor with a bottle of cold medicine, especially during the middle of flu season. And any one of them could easily get what I’m going to call “the Amanda treatment.” And that’s wrong, and that shows just how flawed drug prohibition is.

A hoodie, Skittles, iced tea, and a homicide

Shawn K. Quinn — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:25:40 +0000

I’ve probably let this story cool down a bit more than I should, though technically it is still topical. So, it’s high time for me to weigh in on it before it goes completely cold. For those of you who have completely tuned out of the news over the past 6-8 weeks or so, I’m talking about the death of Trayvon Martin.

As the story goes, on the night of Sunday, 2012 February 26, Trayvon Martin was walking back to The Retreat at Twin Lakes where he was visiting his father and his father’s fiancée at their townhome in the complex. Trayvon had walked down to a 7-Eleven convenience store, purchased a bag of Skittles and a can of AriZona iced tea, and was walking back when he was spotted by George Zimmerman, the captain of the neighborhood watch.

What exactly happened is still under investigation. We know Trayvon was fatally wounded by a gunshot at the scene, from Mr. Zimmerman’s gun. Mr. Zimmerman was not charged and arrested until today (Wednesday, 2012 April 11), shortly after a new state’s attorney, Angela Corey, took over the case. For further detail I refer you to the Wikipedia article and/or your favorite search engines, as news coverage of this story from whatever news service one may prefer is plentiful.

That said, even though this case is under investigation, there are plenty of things to comment on at this point in time, that are known to the public.

Quoting the Miami Herald’s news story:

Police Chief Bill Lee said that although police do not encourage watch program volunteers to carry weapons, he recognizes a citizen’s constitutional right to do so. No arrest was made, Lee said, because there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s account.

The exercise of one’s legal right(s) is not always a good idea. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press (among others), it is not always best to tweet, Facebook, or blog everything. I personally am right now, in a situation where it is in my best interests that I not reveal certain things in a blog post, at least for the time being (not exclusively my own best interests, of course, and I know this is probably a temporary situation).

And such it is with Mr. Zimmerman’s Second Amendment right to carry a firearm. Does he have this right? Yes. That doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea in this situation. Especially in light of the fact that neighborhood watch captains are discouraged from acting as vigilante police. On one hand, I want to say if the problem is that out of hand, a neighborhood watch is just putting potentially vulnerable people in harm’s way and a real armed security detail (either private security guards or real off duty police officers) need to be on patrol for a while. On the other, if it’s known that the neighborhood watch patrol is armed, it can act as a bit more of a deterrent.

Mr. Zimmerman also followed Trayvon in spite of the request of the 911 operator that he not do so. I’m not sure why Mr. Zimmerman did this, but in general, disregarding instructions of a 911 operator is a bad idea. I don’t see anything that would make it a good idea in this instance following the timeline to this point–even without knowing the eventual outcome.

I will admit Trayvon’s death is tragic, but an even bigger tragedy would be an injury to our Second Amendment rights as a result. Yes, there will be the occasional idiot with a gun that somehow qualified for a concealed carry permit despite clear evidence it was a bad idea. No, this doesn’t mean we should institute stricter gun control, it simply means that even the best laws may fail us once in a while.

It doesn’t help that the shooting appears to be racially motivated and/or an instance of racial profiling. As sad as it is, I believe we would not be having the great controversy about the case were it a white victim of similar age in the same situation. I believe racial profiling is wrong regardless of the race profiled against, but the reality is news agencies would not see the profit in sensationalizing the possible murder of a white male in a similar situation.

While I don’t pretend to know everything about the case, at first glance I don’t see any way Mr. Zimmerman has out of this without getting at least a manslaughter conviction. I may follow up on this shortly before or during the trial–and I do believe this case will go to trial–or sooner if more facts become known that would change how I feel about this. I will certainly be following up after the trial.

An absolutely insane move by the Department of “Homeland” Security

Shawn K. Quinn — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:00:30 +0000

Not too long ago, The Independent reported on an audacious request by the US Department of Homeland Security. That request was for British airlines to submit the personal data of British citizens flying to Cuba, Mexico, and parts of Canada to the US DHS.

From the article:

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers’ personal data to US authorities. The information is checked against a “No Fly” list containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding.

Yes, you read that right: even when the flights don’t go over US airspace, much less land in the country.

And it’s this kind of meddling in the affairs of other countries that makes me give pause to being proud to be an American. I don’t see how it is the business of the US government what citizens of another country are flying to, say, Toronto or Mexico City.

To make matters worse (again quoting the article):

Those who do supply details may find their trip could be abruptly cancelled by the Department of Homeland Security, which says it will “[m]ake boarding pass determinations up until the time a flight leaves the gate … If a passenger successfully obtains a boarding pass, his/her name is not on the No Fly list.” In other words, travellers cannot find out whether they will be accepted on board until they reach the airport.

So, a British citizen planning a vacation in Cancún could arrive at the airport, go through all the song and dance required by security, then find out at the gate that the US DHS has placed him on the “no fly list” and the vacation is off.

One also has to wonder how an American traveller in Europe would react if he were denied boarding on a flight from London to Rome because the German government had not received sufficient data from him.

And some still wonder why the rest of the world dislikes Americans and hates the US government. Well, things like this are why. This is a slap in the face to the rest of the world. This is, dare I say it, un-American. I don’t know what the DHS was thinking when they came up with this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this runs afoul of some international law somewhere.

Shame on you, DHS.