BSO used restricted federal crime databases to investigate civil jurors

I have no words here. The fact that they did this is wildly against the law, but add to that they actually are defending their actions is (there is no word that adequately describes the appalling nature of this at all).

It was revealed that BSO employees ran the names of jurors and their relatives through restricted law enforcement databases, including the FBI-run NCIC, DAVID and the Department of Vital Statistics. All are databases that are supposed to be used only in conjunction with criminal investigations, not citizens engaging in jury service.

BROWARD COUNTY, Fla BSO used restricted federal crime databases to investigate civil jurors

The lawyer for the Broward County Sherriff's Office (BSO) police department is just as (insert word here) when he stated,

Ferguson only spoke in limited fashion about the use of the crime databases, but said the BSO's use of NCIC and other restricted databases in probing the jurors was used legally, as possible perjury among the jurors could have been involved. He said in court the investigation was done in conjunction with the BSO's general counsel, Ron Gunzburger.

So, the police lost the case, then decided to "investigate" the jurors, their immediate family, grandparents, and grandchildren for former offenses in order to invalidate the verdict against them.

Absolutely reprehensible.

Our tax dollars at work...

S&F, thanks for sharing.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Did they run the database before trial or after? Makes a difference, I think. Sorry, link won't open for me.

a reply to: Ultralight
Why? Since when is a juror the target of a criminal investigation? These DBs are for CRIMINAL cases only...and NOT for use in digging up dirt on a juror. The fact that you think there is no difference is, quite frankly, a scary thought as well.




From the article:

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel is accusing her of misconduct and asking for a mistrial after his agency found out she failed to disclose that one of her children had been arrested on suspicion of DUI in 2007

After, and since when is suspicion (and not conviction) of a crime a reason to break the law and violate a citizens Constitutional rights?

a reply to: Krakatoa

My opinion, which I have not even expressed in any form of clarity, is no more or less scary than yours! I asked a simple question that may change my response to this thread. Please show me where I said I agreed with these actions...

a reply to: Ultralight

Your statements in bold,

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krakatoa

Did they run the database before trial or after? Makes a difference, I think. Sorry, link won't open for me.

With all due respect, it indicates that you believe there is a difference if the searches were performed before or after the trial. However, performing searches in these DBs requires an active criminal case on the "suspect". A potential or existing juror, that is not charged with ANY illegal actions, is still not a valid reason for these actions. That is why I responded in the manner in which I did above. It was a blatant violation of the jurors Consitutional rights against illegal search and seizure, without due cause or warrant issued.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not include fishing expeditions as a result of a lost legal case by the government.

BSO = Broward Sheriff's Office (for those like me who have no idea what it represented)

Comment on the topic: targeting the jurors - and their families is insanely over the top. I think the citizens of Broward County need to demand an investigation from outside agencies. Radicals in the 60's would have been rioting in the streets over something like this, what happened to America's spine?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Please go back and highlight " I THINK". My beliefs are not easily changed, but my thoughts can be changed...subject to persuasive discussion. I did not say "I believe". Thoughts and beliefs are not the same. Check the dictionary.

Why the attack?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krakatoa

Please go back and highlight " I THINK". My beliefs are not easily changed, but my thoughts can be changed...subject to persuasive discussion. I did not say "I believe". Thoughts and beliefs are not the same. Check the dictionary.

Then I respectfully apologize if I misunderstood your position and comment.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I accept your apology. I regard information as very private and do NOT agree with unlawful snooping in any form.

a reply to: Krakatoa

From the OP Link:

It appears that they didn't check all of the jurors. Only the African-American ones:

"They ran these jurors and their children, their grandchildren, their stepchildren, only the two female African-American jurors, through these databases," attorney Tonja Haddad, who represents Kogan, told the judge. "They violated the constitutional rights of the people they ran. ... What [BSO] did, quite frankly, was reprehensible."

And it appears there was actually good cause that the juror should never have been seated anyway:

The juror, who Local 10 News is not identifying, said she simply forgot about the arrest, as well as a 2002 arrest for the same son on another minor charge. She pointed out that she has two other sons working for the BSO and thought that if anything would have disqualified her, it would have been the notion that she might be biased in the agency's favor. But the BSO defense team said it cut to the heart of the case.

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Krakatoa

And it appears there was actually good cause that the juror should never have been seated anyway:

The juror, who Local 10 News is not identifying, said she simply forgot about the arrest, as well as a 2002 arrest for the same son on another minor charge. She pointed out that she has two other sons working for the BSO and thought that if anything would have disqualified her, it would have been the notion that she might be biased in the agency's favor. But the BSO defense team said it cut to the heart of the case.

-dex

I'm sure the BSO was counting on her loyalty to the blue line. When she betrayed them, they went all "cat fight" on her I guess. Only then did they deem her not worthy of being on the jury.

Again, no words suffice to express my intense feelings toward them and their actions here.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Again, no words suffice to express my intense feelings toward them and their actions here.

And it would appear that you are not alone. In reading a few of the comments associated with that article, it appears that there have been quite a few questionable incidents concerning BSO over the years.

In fact, the whistleblower himself was demoted from being a detective because he reported the illegal use of a police dog who was released on a murder suspect.

Once again we're seeing how the growing "police state" in the US is going overboard with their abuse of power.


-dex

If we allow them to continue creating systems of oppression, they will continue oppressing us.

"law" is an excuse, and here in america they're using it as both a shield and a sword to systematically find and execute/imprison/punish extensively anyone who would oppose their rule.

We're running out of time to stop this. They are gearing up, preparing their private army for an event that will destroy this country. When that day comes, we are a country of scared, battered sheep who will be easily controlled.

This country and its supposed freedom will die with the dollar, and a newer, scarier government will step in and take over. We're building them the tools they need to do it.

The fact that they simply do not see this as anything but business as usual is the most disturbing aspect IMO. If they believe that investigating innocent and uncharged citizens, especially those performing their required civic duties is normal, what other illegal activities are they doing that we are unaware of that they also consider normal?

I think the recent events in SC (the murder charge against the officer) would be within that realm of "used to be normal behavior" coming to light due to citizen reporting. Without that video, there would be no charges files I'm sure.

In this case, there should be audit logs stored for those systems to indicate who/when/why they were accessed. I have read in the story that there is a required selection field when performing a search indicating the REASON for the search. And each of those selection items is a criminal charge. So, what was selected in this case as a criminal charge to perform the search on an innocent citizen?

That is the next thing I would like to know.

And the police's facade of legitimacy cracks just a little bit more.

Every time this happens, and "good" cops dont speak out in droves against it, the line of of not all cops are bad gets more and more laughable.

I don't care how honorable you are. If you protect your "brothers in blue" over the citizens of this country then you're scum.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Krakatoa

And it appears there was actually good cause that the juror should never have been seated anyway:

The juror, who Local 10 News is not identifying, said she simply forgot about the arrest, as well as a 2002 arrest for the same son on another minor charge. She pointed out that she has two other sons working for the BSO and thought that if anything would have disqualified her, it would have been the notion that she might be biased in the agency's favor. But the BSO defense team said it cut to the heart of the case.

-dex

I'm sure the BSO was counting on her loyalty to the blue line. When she betrayed them, they went all "cat fight" on her I guess. Only then did they deem her not worthy of being on the jury.

Again, no words suffice to express my intense feelings toward them and their actions here.

I have been a juror here in the UK. Jury cases are low in number, but these are the main for qualification,

Schedule 1, part 1 of the Juries Act 1974, as amended by the Juries Disqualifications Act 1984, classes four categories of persons as ineligible for jury service: the judiciary, members of the legal profession and other persons connected with the administration of justice (e.g. the probation service, the crown prosecution service), members of the clergy and mentally ill.

Schedule 1, part II, as amended, disqualifies any person who has been sentenced in the United Kingdom to more than 5 years imprisonment, and the persons who have served any part of certain sentences in the past 10 years, have been placed on probation in the last 5 years, or are currently on bail in criminal proceedings.

So that's the pros and cons. There can be a challenge in the court before the start of proceedings, and ruled on by the presiding judge, and likely the biggy would be Bias, unless someone slipped under the radar that didn't really qualify in the first instances as above.
The only other thing is jury vetting as per this category,

The practice of jury vetting started in 1978 when it was discovered in an official secrets trial that the prosecution had vetted the names on the jury panel in order to identify those who might me disloyal. The current guidelines on the use of this practice date from 1988 and permit two types of checks. The first involves checking the names of the potential jurors against police records and the second type of vetting involves making ‘authorized checks' against the records of Special Branch and the security services. Authorized checks can only be made in national security and terrorism cases, and require the personal consent of the Attorney General. If the checks reveal information about a juror which is of concern to the Director of Public Prosecution, the prosecutor in the case may seek to exclude that person by asking him or her to ‘stand-by' for the Crown.

So it's all to do with the person who is a would be juror, not any criminal relatives record.
I just don't get that it should be something allowable in US law to criminalise any potential juror for something that some else has done, that's fishwives tittle tattle, and I don't see that as allowable.
In my mind, whoever gave the go-ahead for these searches should be brought to book in a big way.
Maybe the real problem is the heavy use of jury trials in the US makes for a different culture, I don't know, but to me, this action is sleeked.