goldiron

Source: Journal Gazette

INDIANAPOLIS – Tens of thousands of Hoosiers never convicted of a crime could find their DNA in state and federal databases under a bill making its way through the Indiana Senate.

The legislation is an attempt to take the next step with a scientific advance many consider to be the best crime-fighting tool in decades. But others wonder whether government is going too far and invading the privacy rights of citizens.

“Why not just get everyone’s DNA when they are born?” asked Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson. “There is still a presumption of innocence in our system.”

Testing of deoxyribonucleic acid provides a genetic blueprint shared only by identical twins.

Indiana’s DNA database began in 1996 and has slowly been expanded over the years. Law enforcement currently takes DNA samples from all convicted felons, resulting in a database with about 122,000 samples.

Police around the state then use the database to see whether it matches evidence in unsolved crimes.

About 40 percent of the time the database returns a suspect, said Major Ed Littlejohn, head of the Indiana State Police Laboratory.

Statistically, the more samples in the database the more likely a crime can be solved.

“We don’t begin to maximize the potential of DNA technology until we are actually at the stage where we are preventing crimes,” said Chris Asplen, a DNA consultant from Pennsylvania who testified last week in support of Senate Bill 24.

“The nature of serial crimes is the sooner we identify the perpetrator the sooner we prevent crime,” he said.

Only seven states have laws requiring everyone arrested for a felony to give their DNA, according to information given at last week’s hearing.

But Asplen said taking the DNA at the point of arrest – rather than conviction – can prevent crimes.

A Chicago study found that requiring DNA upon arrest could have prevented dozens of murders and rapes. For instance, Andre Crawford was arrested for felony theft in March 1993. His DNA was not taken upon his arrest.

Six months later, Crawford committed a murder and left DNA evidence at the crime scene.

Asplen said Crawford’s DNA had been in the system from the theft arrest, police could have immediately caught him after the first homicide. Instead, Crawford went on to kill 10 women.

But there is a cost to running all the DNA samples.

According to a fiscal analysis by the Legislative Services Agency, it would cost $3.8 million annually to analyze and maintain the additional DNA samples.

Currently there is a $2 DNA sample processing fee included in court costs for all Hoosiers convicted of misdemeanors or felonies. That fee would have to increase to $11 to process the new felony arrestee DNA.

“Whether you are going to get much bang for the buck is unclear,” said Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council. “We would spend millions in public funds upfront and all the savings are speculative.”

But a representative from Strand Analytical Laboratories in Indianapolis gave members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week a study that showed state and local government would save almost $20 million a year in law enforcement and judicial costs owing to the number of crimes being prevented.

Then there are the privacy concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union fought a measure last summer to expand the federal DNA database to arrestees, noting it could be a Fourth Amendment violation. This amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

But the author of the bill, Sen. Joe Zakas, D-Granger, said initial court rulings have upheld the arrestee laws as constitutional.

In the only challenge to reach the state Supreme Court level, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the taking of DNA upon arrest “is analogous to the taking of a suspect’s fingerprints upon arrest and was not an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.”

Zakas and members of the committee last week did amend Senate Bill 24 to include a provision allowing those whose cases never result in formal charges or were later dismissed or acquitted to expunge the DNA from the database.

The process was described as “fairly” automatic, although the person would have to send a request to the Indiana State Police with supporting documentation.

“The person falsely accused ought not bear any burden,” Landis said. “It’s just another hoop to jump through. If you get dismissed, there should not only be an automatic expungement, there should be an apology.”

Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, voted for the bill but wants to tweak it so the removal is more automatic and people don’t fall through the cracks.

Littlejohn said the state police might have to conduct more than 100 expungements a day under the law, something that would “overwhelm” the lab.

The high number is because 40 percent of cases statewide are dismissed, Landis said. Also, some people are arrested but not formally charged, and others who are charged with felonies later plead guilty to misdemeanors.

In comparison, there are few convictions that are overturned or vacated annually that would require the DNA to be removed.

Landis did say the public defender council has previously supported the general idea of the database, when convictions are entered and the presumption of innocence is gone. An added feature is that the DNA database can be used to exonerate people.

“It cannot only convict the guilty but it can, and has, freed the innocent,” said Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville.

The bill passed out of committee 7-2 last week and now must go to the Senate Appropriations Committee because of its price tag.

Source: www.roguegovernment.com

By - Lee Rogers

A new bill proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals including terrorists. The federal government has been using the excuse of fighting terrorists to incrementally expand the usage of biometric identification for quite awhile now, and this is just another step into expanding the adoption of this technology. It is not a stretch to believe that if something like this is implemented for the purposes of fighting terrorists out in the oceans, that eventually it would be utilized inside the United States for domestic policing purposes. After all, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff thought it would be a great idea to setup an internal checkpoint within the state of Vermont to search for drug dealers and terrorists. Not to mention they’ve already setup the US-VISIT program which mandates that many non-U.S. citizens visiting the United States submit to biometric identification in order to gain entry.

Below is the entire text of HR 752 which would require the Department of Homeland Security to expand their biometric identification program.

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals, including terrorists, to enhance border security.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARITIME BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall conduct, in the maritime environment, a program for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals, including terrorists, to enhance border security and for other purposes.

(b) Requirements- The Secretary shall ensure the program described in subsection (a) is coordinated with other biometric identification programs within the Department of Homeland Security.

(c) Cost Analysis- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an analysis of the cost of expanding the Coast Guard’s biometric identification capabilities for use by the Coast Guard’s Deployable Operations Group, cutters, stations, and other deployable maritime teams considered appropriate by the Secretary, and any other appropriate Department of Homeland Security maritime vessels and units. The analysis may include a tiered plan for the deployment of the program described in subsection (a) that gives priority to vessels and units more likely to encounter individuals suspected of making unlawful border crossings through the maritime environment.

(d) Definition- For the purposes of this section, the term ‘biometric identification’ means the use of fingerprint and digital photography images.

There is no question that the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to put as much biometric information from people into computer databases. This bill would expand their ability to obtain additional biometric information. Most people won’t object to this since it the excuse to implement this expansion has to do with border security. None the less, it is clear that this is yet another case of the federal government attempting to utilize more and more of this technology that could ultimately be used to enslave humanity using the phony terror war hoax as the pretext.

Source: The Register

Using inexpensive off-the-shelf components, an information security expert has built a mobile platform that can clone large numbers of the unique electronic identifiers used in US passport cards and next generation drivers licenses.

The $250 proof-of-concept device - which researcher Chris Paget built in his spare time - operates out of his vehicle and contains everything needed to sniff and then clone RFID, or radio frequency identification, tags. During a recent 20-minute drive in downtown San Francisco, it successfully copied the RFID tags of two passport cards without the knowledge of their owners.

Rahm Emanuel: “If you are on that no fly list, your access to the right to bare arms is cancelled”

February 2nd, 2009

Tens of millions of Americans have been emptying gun stores of weapons of every description and ammunition for months.

I have no idea what PSYOP is planned to get the thought criminals to go quietly, but it’s probably going to be a doozy.

—H. R. 645: To Direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to Establish National Emergency Centers on Military Installations

Via: Prison Planet:

May 15, 2007 Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) speaking at DC’s annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the Brady Center says if your name is on the terrorist no fly list you should not be allowed to own a gun.

Why are there so many names on the U.S. government’s terrorist list?

In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.

By those numbers, the list now has over one million names on it.

Source: Ninemsn

All Australians could be implanted with microchips for tracking and identification within the next two or three generations, a prominent academic says.

Michael G Michael from the University of Wollongong’s School of Information Systems and Technology, has coined the term “uberveillance” to describe the emerging trend of all-encompassing surveillance.

“Uberveillance is not on the outside looking down, but on the inside looking out through a microchip that is embedded in our bodies,” Dr Michael told ninemsn.

Microchips are commonly implanted into animals to reveal identification details when scanned and similar devices have been used with Alzheimers patients.

US company VeriChip is already using implantable microchips, which store a 16-digit unique identification number, on humans for medical purposes.

“Our focus is on high-risk patients, and our product’s ability to identify them and their medical records in an emergency,” spokesperson Allison Tomek said.

“We do not know when or if someone will develop an implantable microchip with GPS technology, but it is not an application we are pursuing.”

Another form of uberveillance is the use of bracelets worn by dangerous prisoners which use global positioning systems to pinpoint their movements.

But Dr Michael said the technology behind uberveillance would eventually lead to a black box small enough to fit on a tiny microchip and implanted in our bodies.

This could also allow someone to be located in an emergency or for the identification of corpses after a large scale disaster or terrorist attack.

“This black box will then be a witness to our actual movements, words — perhaps even our thoughts —-and play a similar role to the black box placed in an aircraft,” he said.

He also predicted that microchip implants and their infrastructure could eliminate the need for e-passports, e-tags, and secure ID cards.

“Microchipping I think will eventually become compulsory in the context of identification within the frame of national security,” he said.

Although uberveillance was only in its early phases, Dr Michael’s wife, Katina Michael — a senior lecturer from UOW’s School of Information Systems and Technology — said the ability to track and identify any individual was already possible.

“Anyone with a mobile phone can be tracked to 15m now,” she said, pointing out that most mobile phone handsets now contained GPS receivers and radio frequency identification (RFID) readers.

“The worst scenario is the absolute loss of human rights,” she said.

Wisconsin, North Dakota and four other states in the US have already outlawed the use of enforced microchipping.

“Australia hasn’t got specific regulations addressing these applications,” she said.

“We need to address the potential for misuse by amending privacy laws to ensure personal data protection.”

Uberveillance has been nominated for Macquarie Dictionary’s Word of the Year 2008.

Federal Gang Bill 2009

S.132 : Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009
Title: A bill to increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes.

Senate Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [CA]

COSPNSR: Sen Bayh, Evan [IN], Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA], Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT],Sen Kerry, John F. [MA], Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ], Sen Murray, Patty [WA], Sen Roberts, Pat [KS], Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] Sen Specter, Arlen [PA]

S.132 Status:

1/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

WORDING

SEC. 521. DEFINITIONS.

`In this chapter:

`(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG- The term `criminal street gang’ means a formal or informal group, organization, or association of 5 or more individuals–

`(A) each of whom has committed at least 1 gang crime; and

`(B) who collectively commit 3 or more gang crimes (not less than 1 of which is a serious violent felony), in separate criminal episodes (not less than 1 of which occurs after the date of enactment of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009, and the last of which occurs not later than 5 years after the commission of a prior gang crime (excluding any time of imprisonment for that individual)).

`(2) GANG CRIME- The term `gang crime’ means an offense under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in any of the following categories:

`(A) A crime that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or is burglary, arson, kidnapping, or extortion.

`(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, or tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant.

`(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise trafficking in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).

`(D) Any conduct punishable under–

`(i) section 844 (relating to explosive materials);

`(ii) subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a violent felony or a serious drug offense (as those terms are defined in section 924(e)), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (g)(10), (g)(11), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts);

`(iii) subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties);

`(iv) section 930 (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities);

`(v) section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons);

`(vi) sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud, identity theft, and related activity in connection with identification documents or access devices);

`(vii) section 1084 (relating to transmission of wagering information);

`(viii) section 1952 (relating to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises);

`(ix) section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments);

`(x) section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity); or

`(xi) sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).

`(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of aliens for immoral purposes) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1327, and 1328).

`(F) Any crime involving aggravated sexual abuse, sexual assault, pimping or pandering involving prostitution, sexual exploitation of children (including sections 2251, 2251A, 2252 and 2260), peonage, slavery, or trafficking in persons (including sections 1581 through 1592) and sections 2421 through 2427 (relating to transport for illegal sexual activity).

`(3) MINOR- The term `minor’ means an individual who is less than 18 years of age.

`(4) SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONY- The term `serious violent felony’ has the meaning given that term in section 3559.

`(5) STATE- The term `State’ means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

`SEC. 522. CRIMINAL STREET GANG PROSECUTIONS.

`(a) Street Gang Crime- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly commit, or conspire, threaten, or attempt to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in a criminal street gang, if the activities of that criminal street gang occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and–

`(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

`(2) for any other serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;

`(3) for any crime of violence that is not a serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and

`(4) for any other offense, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

`SEC. 523. RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS TO PARTICIPATE IN A CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

`(a) Prohibited Acts- It shall be unlawful to knowingly recruit, employ, solicit, induce, command, coerce, or cause another person to be or remain as a member of a criminal street gang, or attempt or conspire to do so, with the intent to cause that person to participate in a gang crime, if the defendant travels in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the offense, or if the activities of that criminal street gang are in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Penalties- Whoever violates subsection (a) shall–

`(1) if the person recruited, employed, solicited, induced, commanded, coerced, or caused to participate or remain in a criminal street gang is a minor–

`(A) be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and

`(B) at the discretion of the sentencing judge, be liable for any costs incurred by the Federal Government, or by any State or local government, for housing, maintaining, and treating the minor until the person attains the age of 18 years;

`(2) if the person who recruits, employs, solicits, induces, commands, coerces, or causes the participation or remaining in a criminal street gang is incarcerated at the time the offense takes place, be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and

`(3) in any other case, be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(c) Consecutive Nature of Penalties- Any term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (b)(2) shall be consecutive to any term imposed for any other offense.

`SEC. 524. VIOLENT CRIMES IN FURTHERANCE OF CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

`(a) In General- It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in, or in furtherance of, or in association with, a criminal street gang, or as consideration for anything of pecuniary value to or from a criminal street gang, to knowingly commit or threaten to commit against any individual a crime of violence that is an offense under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, or attempt or conspire to do so, if the activities of the criminal street gang occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be punished by a fine under this title and–

`(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

`(2) for a serious violent felony other than one described in paragraph (1), by imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and

`(3) in any other case, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years.

`SEC. 525. FORFEITURE.

`(a) Criminal Forfeiture- A person who is convicted of a violation of this chapter shall forfeit to the United States–

`(1) any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, the violation; and

`(2) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violation.

`(b) Procedures Applicable- Pursuant to section 2461(c) of title 28, the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and (d) of that section, shall apply to the criminal forfeiture of property under this section.’.

(b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over Orders for Restitution- Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `chapter 46 or’ and inserting `chapter 26, chapter 46, or’.

(c) Money Laundering- Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, section 522 (relating to criminal street gang prosecutions), 523 (relating to recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang), and 524 (relating to violent crimes in furtherance of criminal street gangs)’ before `, section 541′.

(d) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Prohibiting Prisoner Communications- Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting `chapter 26 (criminal street gangs),’ before `chapter 95′; and

(2) by inserting `a criminal street gang or’ before `an illegal enterprise’.

TITLE II–VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE

SEC. 201. VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)–

(A) by inserting `or in furtherance or in aid of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity,’ before `murders,’; and

(B) by inserting `engages in conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,’ before `maims,’;

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting `conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming,’ after `kidnapping,’;

(3) in paragraph (2), by striking `maiming’ and inserting `assault resulting in serious bodily injury’;

(4) in paragraph (3), by striking `or assault resulting in serious bodily injury’;

(5) in paragraph (4)–

(A) by striking `five years’ and inserting `10 years’; and

(B) by adding `and’ at the end; and

(6) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following:

`(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit any offense under this section, by the same penalties (other than the death penalty) as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.’.

SEC. 202. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

(a) In General- Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 424. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

`(a) In General- Whoever, during and in relation to any drug trafficking crime, knowingly commits any crime of violence against any individual that is an offense under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, or threatens, attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by a fine under title 18, United States Code, and–

`(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

`(2) for a serious violent felony (as defined in section 3559 of title 18, United States Code) other than one described in paragraph (1) by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;

`(3) for a crime of violence that is not a serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and

`(4) in any other case by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

`(b) Venue- A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought in–

`(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other crime of violence occurred; or

`(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking crime may be prosecuted.

`(c) Definitions- In this section–

`(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and

`(2) the term `drug trafficking crime’ has the meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents for the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423, the following:

`Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.’.

SEC. 203. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

Section 3142(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the matter following paragraph (3), by inserting after `that the person committed’ the following: `an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence (as those terms are defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (g)(10), or (g)(11) of section 922,’.

SEC. 204. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) In General- Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 3299A. Violent crime offenses

`No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital felony crime of violence, including any racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 10 years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred or the continuing offense was completed.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`3299A. Violent crime offenses.’.

SEC. 205. STUDY OF HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.

The Judicial Conference of the United States shall study the necessity and desirability of amending section 804(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to permit the introduction of statements against a party by a witness who has been made unavailable where it is reasonably foreseeable by that party that wrongdoing would make the declarant unavailable.

SEC. 206. POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY DANGEROUS FELONS.

(a) In General- Section 924(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

`(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has previously been convicted by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of a violent felony or a serious drug offense shall–

`(A) in the case of 1 such prior conviction, where a period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of the date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for that conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, fined under this title, or both;

`(B) in the case of 2 such prior convictions, committed on occasions different from one another, and where a period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of the date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and

`(C) in the case of 3 such prior convictions, committed on occasions different from one another, and where a period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be imprisoned for any term of years not less than 15 years or for life and fined under this title, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).’.

(b) Amendment to Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to provide for an appropriate increase in the offense level for violations of section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, in accordance with section 924(e) of that title 18, as amended by subsection (a).

SEC. 207. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

The matter preceding paragraph (1) in section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, transfer,’ after `sell’.

SEC. 208. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Carjacking- Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `, with the intent’ and all that follows through `to do so, shall’ and inserting `knowingly takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person of another by force and violence or by intimidation, causing a reasonable apprehension of fear of death or serious bodily injury in an individual, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall’;

(2) in paragraph (1), by striking `15 years’ and inserting `20 years’;

(3) in paragraph (2), by striking `or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both’ and inserting `and imprisoned for any term of years or for life’; and

(4) in paragraph (3), by inserting `the person takes or attempts to take the motor vehicle in violation of this section with intent to cause death or cause serious bodily injury, and’ before `death results’.

(b) Clarification and Strengthening of Prohibition on Illegal Gun Transfers To Commit Drug Trafficking Crime or Crime of Violence- Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce, knowing that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence (as defined in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 20 years.’.

(c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to Limitations on Criminal Association- Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting `chapter 26 of this title (criminal street gang prosecutions) or in’ after `felony set forth in’; and

(2) by inserting `a criminal street gang or’ before `an illegal enterprise’.

(d) Conspiracy Penalty- Section 371 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `five years, or both.’ and inserting `10 years (unless the maximum penalty for the crime that served as the object of the conspiracy has a maximum penalty of imprisonment of less than 10 years, in which case the maximum penalty under this section shall be the penalty for such crime), or both.

Houston Manipulated Study to Make Red Light Cameras Appear Safer
Documents show that Houston, Texas mayor and police manipulated a study to make it appear red light cameras reduced accidents.

Police in Houston, Texas put pressure on a Rice University professor to alter negative data compiled while studying Houston’s red light camera program, according to documents released in a lawsuit against the city. Houston Mayor Bill White had selected Urban Politics Professor Robert Stein to create a report on the engineering safety performance of the first fifty automated ticketing machines installed (view study released in December). Stein represented an ideal choice because his wife, Marty, is employed by the city of Houston as a top aide to the mayor. In a November 2007 email, White emphasized his personal interest in the subject at the beginning of the project.

“Let’s just make sure that we study things that really matter for decision-making,” White wrote to Stein. “Our funds for public policy research are scarce…. I am not suggesting that somebody alter one’s conclusions and I am not trying to influence the conclusions. What I am trying to do is give some helpful advice from a decision-maker concerning how to avoid analytical overkill.”

The point was not lost on Stein whose employer received $50,000 for the red light camera study. At the same time he was conducting the camera research, Stein also depended on the city for funding of several other projects. By the beginning of 2008, Stein worried that the data he compiled were not favorable to the city. He let officials know that this should be expected.

“Recall our own findings match what is reported in [this Tampa Tribune] article and in the public health study cited in the article,” Stein wrote in a March 14 email to Houston Police Sergeant Michael Muench. “Tim and I have reviewed ten year’s worth of studies on red light camera programs and the tentative evidence that those studies using the weakest designs are most likely to report a reduction in side impact collisions after the installation of red light cameras. More rigorous and appropriate research designs (like the one we use for the Houston program) fail to detect this reduction after the installation of red light cameras.”

In light of this, Houston police began to push Stein to weaken his design to match techniques used in studies conducted by insurance industry researchers and others with an interest in promoting the use of photo enforcement. In an April 29 meeting with police, Stein agreed to reconsider his results.

“Dr. Stein’s analysis of the original 20 intersections from Sept - Dec 2006 found 169 accidents,” Houston Police Lieutenant Jonathan Zera wrote. “However, HPD countered that the findings were flawed because: 1. All accidents within 500′ of the intersection were being counted. 2. All accidents within the intersection were being counted even if neither vehicle’s approach to the intersection was regulated by a red light camera. As such, Dr. Stein will re-analyze the 169 accidents.”

Realizing that an early copy of Stein’s work would be critical in understanding the truth about Houston’s red light camera program, a pair of attorneys made a request for a copy of the report’s first draft. When the city rejected the request, Randall L. Kallinen and Paul Kubosh filed a lawsuit forcing disclosure of the correspondence between Stein and the city. After reviewing the documents, Kallinen gave Professor Stein partial credit for his work.

“While Stein at first seemed to have leaned toward the police he rejected most of their attempts to change his report,” Kallinen told TheNewspaper. “He did however mislead the public through the report and to the press when he said accidents were increasing citywide when he knew for a fact they were decreasing citywide.”

Stein’s published report on the Houston program documented an increase in accidents at intersections that had red light cameras, but the greatest increase happened in the directions where the camera was not looking. Stein offered to explain this anomaly by creating the hypothesis that these “non-monitored” approaches were equivalent to intersection locations that had no red light cameras at all. This hypothesis — despite the negative data — allowed Stein to conclude that the cameras proved useful in reversing a general trend toward increased accidents throughout the city.

“Why have accidents at non-monitored approaches increased so dramatically in the past year?” Stein asked in his December report. “As suggested above, these results could be evidence of an increase in collisions across the city… Using this methodology, the new analysis could reveal if, if, in fact, the red light cameras mitigated a general increase in accidents citywide. This observation, if found, would both confirm the public safety benefit of the red light cameras in Houston as well as advocate the expansion of the program.”

The problem with this theory was that there was no increase in collisions across the city — and Stein knew it before his report was published. Houston police documents show that accidents steadily dropped each year from 2004 to 2008. There were 81,238 accidents in 2004 and 67,405 in 2007 — a 17 percent decrease.

“Wow, this is perfect, thanks so much,” Stein wrote in response to a November 13 email from a Houston officer containing a complete set of declining accident figures.

Several local media at the time painted a positive image for the red light camera program by widely reporting Stein’s citywide accident theory. Excerpts from documents obtained by Kallinen and Kubosh are available in a 1.4mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Documents from the Rice University Study (Houston Police, Robert Stein, 2/2/2009)