Thursday, February 5, 2015

GA Personal Freedom Bills

Georgia lawmakers sponsor bills aimed at protecting personal freedoms

By Walter C. JonesMorris News Service – updated Sunday, February 1, 2015

ATLANTA | A package of bills sponsored by a handful of junior Georgia lawmakers focuses on protecting individual freedoms by restricting what law enforcement agencies can do on their own, prompting a discussion about balancing public safety against personal privacy.

In the wake of recent protests against law enforcement power and news reports of police raids that have gone wrong, the lawmakers say their proposals have won bipartisan support, even across the philosophical spectrum from liberal to conservative.

“I definitely think that our constitutional right to protection is beyond partisan ideology,” said Rep. Scot Turner, R-Holly Springs. “It’s pretty rare for someone to say we should throw our Bill of Rights out the window.”

The broad support is unlikely for politicians who are early in their careers and who are unflinchingly conservative in their beliefs.

Even the news coverage has been largely uncritical and outsized for relative newcomers.

That’s not to say there aren’t those, particularly in

law enforcement, who disagree with at least parts of the legislators’ agendas.

Those bills include:

n House Bill 56, which limits use of no-knock warrants;

n HB 69, which aims to safeguard the driving data contained in a car’s “black box” by requiring the owner’s permission or a warrant to access it;

n HB 74, which prohibits any state or local agency from assisting federal officials or the military in investigating terrorism suspects who could be detained indefinitely under a 3-year-old federal law;

n HB 93, which requires police agencies to destroy records of license-plate readers after 30 days;

n HB 112, which would outlaw without a warrant the use of radar or other devices that can detect human activity through walls, roofs and other building structures.

There may be two or three more bills introduced in coming days, according to Rep. David Stover, R-Newnan. He declined to provide information on their subject.

“Our job is to restrict government,” said Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine.

Several of the bills target new technology, like Spencer’s HB 69 that deals with computers on cars that track information about speed, braking, turning and other driving habits. The most sophisticated also track GPS coordinates to record everywhere the vehicle has traveled.

Spencer fears insurance companies, manufacturers, plaintiff’s attorneys and even prosecutors could get access to that data without the driver’s knowledge. The bill asserts that the data is the property of the vehicle owner and can only be retrieved with permission or a court order.

“There is this feeling that technology is eroding our civil liberties,” he said.

Turner’s measure, HB 74, aims to block enforcement of a defense appropriation law that the Obama administration says permits locking up terrorism suspects with no set term, including Americans arrested on U.S. soil. Critics call it unconstitutional, even the American Civil Liberties Union that conservatives generally oppose.

Although the issues involve fundamental legal principles, no one in the informal group is a lawyer.

“Sometimes not being a lawyer is helpful for the discussion,” Stover said.

But they get help from lawyers in the Legislature as well as more senior members of the House, Turner said.

“I think a lot of the veteran legislators are on board with what we’re trying to do. They’re offering advice and guidance on how to make it better,” he said.

The law enforcement profession has a mixed reaction to most of the proposals.

For instance, radar to peer through walls is commonly used by fire departments, but the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department doesn’t make regular use of it, according to spokesman Julian Miller. And while accessing autos’ data is becoming common in the case of serious crashes, in both instances, the department has the OK of the owner or a judge.

“We already get warrants because we don’t want anybody coming back saying you don’t have permission,” Miller said.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vernon Keenan takes the same approach. He notes that technology is developing faster than courts can react, leaving legislatures to set policies to safeguard personal privacy.

He has often said he favors legislation like HB 93 that controls what police do with the records of devices mounted on patrol cars that record the time and place when car tags drive into sight.

“I do believe there needs to be restrictions on the retention and sharing,” he said. “... I put this in the general category of technology which invades personal privacy, which I believe should require some type of judicial authorization, whether it’s a warrant or a court order.”

But others in law enforcement don’t fully agree.

Investigations often take longer than 30 days, and clues could be lost by destroying records made of government-issued tags in plain sight of public roads, according to Terry Norris, executive director of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association.

“You might be losing some valuable information that could solve a violent crime,” he said.

The bill on no-knock warrants is also a concern of the sheriffs. Limiting the time of day and other circumstances in executing a door-busting search could jeopardize officers’ safety instead of surprising violent suspects when they’re likely to be asleep, Norris warned.

News stories about a couple of botched no-knock raids have aided the liberty-proclaiming legislators and helped them garner media coverage of their bills.

Keenan isn’t concerned that most of these proposals would make the law enforcement’s job more difficult.

“There are additional investigative steps and requirements before you use the technology,” he said. “The Supreme Court has said the convenience of law enforcement doesn’t outweigh the need for privacy protection.”

How the proposals fare over the balance of the 40-day session remains to be seen. Most have been assigned to one of two judiciary committees dominated by lawyers. The sponsors are asking the chairmen to schedule hearings where members of the public and experts can testify, as well as opponents.

Follow Walter Jones on Twitter @MorrisNews and Facebook or contact him at walter.jones@morris.com.

http://onlineathens.com/general-assembly/2015-01-31/georgia-lawmakers-sponsor-bills-aimed-protecting-personal-freedoms

No comments: