|
|
|
The Peace Fresno investigation (last updated July 20, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 shows the infiltration of Peace Fresno by a deputy from the Fresno County Sheriff's Department in order to suggest that the federal government is abusing its counterterrorism mandate to target peaceful political opponents. The Peace Fresno incident actually has little to do with the Patriot Act, but it does raise questions about government activity possibly in violation of free-speech rights.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of North California, Aaron Kilner was a detective with the Fresno County Sheriff Department's Anti-Terrorism Unit and participated in Peace Fresno meetings and events under the name of Aaron Stokes. After media reports of Kilner's August 31, 2003 death led Peace Fresno to realize Kilner's true identity, Peace Fresno and the ACLU of Northern California made inquiries into the Fresno County Sheriff Department's investigation of Peace Fresno. Sheriff Richard Pierce reportedly issued a September 30, 2003 response that Peace Fresno was not a subject of an investigation, but left other questions unanswered.
Such activities raise questions as to when law enforcement appropriately can conduct undercover operations and when it can attend public places and events without identifying themselves.
The Peace Fresno undercover operation may have violated California law, an allegation that the ACLU of Northern California has made in letters to elected officials (such as an April 21, 2004 letter to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, on-line here). The California Supreme Court held in a 1975 case, White v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 757, that covert police surveillance in a university setting generally would violate the right to privacy specifically stated in the California state constitution. Privacy rights under the U.S. constitution are less explicit and may not be as extensive.
Moreover, what happened to Peace Fresno could be repeated under revised guidelines that Attorney General John Ashcroft issued in May 2002 for criminal investigations (on-line as a PDF here) and for undercover operations (on-line as a PDF here). While the guidelines previously authorized the FBI to conduct undercover operations only to investigate crimes, the revised guidelines authorized the FBI to use undercover operations to conduct preliminary inquiries as to whether a fuller investigation of individuals or groups is warranted.
These revised guidelines also authorized the FBI to "visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally" "[f]or the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities," though they did declare that "[n]o information obtained from such visits shall be retained unless it relates to potential criminal or terrorist activity."
It is worth noting that while the Peace Fresno example could raise concerns about the effect of the Department of Justice's revised guidelines, it has little, if anything, to do with the USA Patriot Act, which primarily increases the government's ability to conduct surveillance of certain persons within the United States. The Patriot Act does not have any provisions authorizing undercover operations or making it easier to conduct them. The Patriot Act also is a federal law and thus has little to do with the actions of the Fresno County Sheriff's Department, a local agency.
Sources: The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is on-line here. White v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 757 (Cal. 1975). Attorney General's Guidelines regarding General Crimes, Racketeering and Terrorism Investigations (5/30/02) are available as a PDF on-line here.
back to top
|
|
|
Index / Home
About this site
Updates/Blog
Search via Google
Mailing List
FootnoteTV ®
Best viewed with small text size.
Terror and Security
|
|
