Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Wired magazine has a story on the CNN website about the federal government raiding the home of a writer and seizing enormous amounts of "evidence" for the crime of twittering during the G-20 protests in Pittsburgh.
An anarchist social worker raided by the feds wants his computers, manuscripts and pick axes back. He argues that authorities violated the U.S. Constitution and the rights of his mentally ill clients while searching for evidence that he broke an anti-rioting law on Twitter.In a guns-drawn raid on October 1, FBI agents and police seized boxes of dubious "evidence" from the Queens, New York, home of Elliott Madison. A U.S. District Judge in Brooklyn has set a Monday deadline to rule on the legality of the search, and in the meantime has ordered the government to refrain from examining the material taken in the 6 a.m. search.
Here's why they raided his house:
Madison, who counsels more than 100 severely mentally ill patients in New York, seems to have first drawn attention from the authorities at September's G-20 gathering of world leaders in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There he was arrested on September 24 at a motel room for allegedly listening to a police scanner and relaying information on Twitter to help protesters avoid heavily-armed cops -- an activity the State Department lauded when it happened in Iran.A week later, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, armed with a search warrant and backed by a federal grand jury investigation, raided Madison's house, which he shares with his wife of 13 years and several roommates. The squad seized his computers, camera memory cards, books, air-filtration masks, bumper stickers and political posters -- all purportedly evidence that the 41-year old social worker had broken a federal anti-rioting law that carries up to five years in prison.
But a closer look at the court documents leaves the unmistakable impression that Elliott Madison is yet another casualty of the government's nasty, post-9/11 habit of considering political dissidents as threats to national security.
Madison, his wife and his lawyer Martin Stolar say the search violates the Constitution's protections against general searches and prosecution for political speech. The police also seized mobile phones, citizen emergency kits, manuscripts, posters and even the couple's marriage license...
If Madison were an Iranian using Twitter to coordinate government protests, he'd likely be considered a hero in the West. Instead, the self-identified anarchist -- who volunteered in Louisiana after Katrina -- is now facing up to five years in prison for each count a grand jury cares to indict him on.
Interestingly, they are charged with violations of the same law that was used against the Chicago 7 during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Those convictions were all thrown out.
Politics
Comments
Ed:
" ..., and in the meantime has ordered the government to refrain from examining the material taken in the 6 a.m. search."
Someone, I think it's not you, is a bit naive.
Posted by: democommie | October 28, 2009 9:18 AM
"There he was arrested on September 24 at a motel room for allegedly listening to a police scanner and relaying information on Twitter to help protesters avoid heavily-armed cops -- an activity the State Department lauded when it happened in Iran [...] If Madison were an Iranian using Twitter to coordinate government protests, he'd likely be considered a hero in the West."
Um, yes, because the State Department wants to destabilize, and eventually overthrow, the Iranian regime. Not exactly what they want to see happening domestically. And as hard as this article is working to set up an equivalence between the Iranian government (which rigged an election to put its own hardline candidates in power, and then murdered, raped, and tortured protesters) and the Obama administration (which tried to keep anarchists from rioting during the G-20 meeting in September), I just can't seem to buy it.
Posted by: mad the swine | October 28, 2009 9:36 AM
You are absolutely right, mad. It fits the previous administration with the stolen election and torture habits much better.
</snark>
Posted by: Chris A | October 28, 2009 9:55 AM
Oh, FFS, mad: the equivalence isn't being drawn between the Iranian administration and Obama's: it's being drawn between the American government's attitude toward Iranian citizens using social media to co-ordinate protests ("Yay, freedom!"), and its attitude to American citizens doing so ("Evil subversive terrorists!"). A second grader could suss that.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 10:07 AM
Well I'm leaning toward agreeing with MTS. But it depends on what this guy was Tweeting and to whom, as there is a difference between co-ordinating a protest and co-ordinating a riot (the latter being illegal).
I don't disagree with the basic stance that it is illegal to use Twitter to participate in a riot. Just as I would hope that it is illegal to use it to participate in a murder, robbery, or any other crime. It is all conspiracy & accomplice.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 28, 2009 11:04 AM
@JG: He was posting on a public Twitter account used by the demonstrators as an information-sharing tool. The participants posted things about meeting points for demonstrations, seminars on people's civil rights and liberties, and places to get food. Madison made a post announcing that the police had issued an order to disperse at a certain location. For that, he was charged with hindering prosecution.
He was arrested at 1 or 2 PM on Thursday, well before any sort of questionable shenanigans occurred. Questionable shenanigans on the part of the protesters, that is.
I should disclose that I know Madison personally: we went to college together, and in fact were room-mates for a while. So I may be biased in this, but he's less menacing than Elmo the Muppet. Weirder, but less menacing.
Link to an interview with him and his lawyer at Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/6/twitter_crackdown_nyc_activist_arrested_for
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 11:41 AM
democommie #1:
I would imagine that if the government broke this order, anything they got by doing so would be summarily dismissed in any subsequent court case.
Posted by: Zmidponk | October 28, 2009 11:42 AM
@6 Spidergrackle
Fair enough. They shouldn't have arrested him, and they were wrong to do so. And they may have violated the Constitution by doing so.
But there is nothing wrong with the premise of the law. Hopefully they'll only use it to arrest people in more obvious (and true) violations.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 28, 2009 11:50 AM
"But there is nothing wrong with the premise of the law. Hopefully they'll only use it to arrest people in more obvious (and true) violations."
Right. The feds are always careful to avoid even the appearance of violating civil rights in the pursuit of injustice.
Posted by: democommie | October 28, 2009 12:08 PM
Jordan:
Like, like RICO was only to get organized crime.
Posted by: KeithB | October 28, 2009 12:12 PM
I don't think anyone involved is arguing that the premise of 18 U.S.C. § 2101 is wrong: they're pointing out that using Twitter in a protest is not a crime, and should not be. And doing so in other countries has been praised by the same govt that is condemning it here.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 12:29 PM
There are definitely some unknown factors in this case that make judging it a little difficult. What was tweeted seems to be the biggest. The warrant seems flimsy, and Madison seems like a kook. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I don't want to say that ALL anarchists are dangerously unbalanced, but....
Posted by: Fletcher | October 28, 2009 12:41 PM
The couple's marriage certificate was taken. The marriage certificate of a heterosexual couple is evidence of terrorism?
Are we still on Earth or did I miss something important?
Posted by: Anneliese | October 28, 2009 1:00 PM
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 1:17 PM
The fact that the message was sent by Twitter is irrelevant.
If a crime was committed, then it was because of the message, not the medium used to communicate it. Assuming, for a moment, that there was a crime, it would be a crime whether he said it on a street corner, on a phone call, or on Twitter.
The borderline between "protected speech" and "inciting a riot" can be pretty fuzzy. But there are plenty of ways this could be a criminal act. If he agreed to stay in a hotel room listening to the police scanner and would relay info to help them carry out any sort of criminal act, that's conspiracy. If he passed information that helped someone who had committed a criminal act evade police, he's an accessory after the fact. I don't see the charges as being preposterous on their face.
I doubt very much they made a point of seizing the couple's marriage certificate. Odds are high they took an entire filing cabinet, and the m.c. was one of the things inside it. That, the Iranian thing, the Katrina mention - the article is definitely not written in a neutral voice of what happened, which lowers my trust in the accuracy of the facts presented.
I will agree that the search warrant, as executed, sounds overly broad. It doesn't sound to me like it's being used to find evidence of this crime, but as a fishing expedition for other possible crimes; I believe the judge should pointedly restrict any evidence seized to being used only for charges already filed, and no others.
Posted by: jace | October 28, 2009 1:21 PM
Here's an example of Connecticut (CT) Republicans behaving badly regarding Twitter. Some CT GOP operatives are posing as Democrats running for state office where they tweat ridiculous stuff. Once revealed, they've not only stopped, but argued that the Dems would have beaten them to it if they'd thought of it first. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/blogtalk-twitter-and-the-gop/
Dirty pool Rev. 2009.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 1:28 PM
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 1:46 PM
Perhaps a few of the more law educated could hep me with this: if he Tweeted "Hey , the cops want folks at the corner of X and Y to disperse, so bug out!" how is that a crime? Isn't he helping people do what the cops want? I must be missing something.
Posted by: JustaTech | October 28, 2009 2:58 PM
I don't think cops even have any business ordering people to disperse, but, that's just me.
Yes, it seems like they're implicitly admitting that the order to disperse isn't actually meant to be fulfilled, but rather is intentionally issued in areas where they expect that it can't be fulfilled, as a pretext for arrest. How, otherwise, could he be interfering with prosecution?
Posted by: Nemo | October 28, 2009 4:39 PM
Pretty clear case of government intimidation, it seems to me.
JustaTech: They saw this as a disruptive act on his part because the typical way cops these days get protesters to "disperse" is by surrounding them, beating them to the ground, and arresting the lot of them as per the last two Republican conventions in St. Paul and NY. So, even though linguistically this man was telling people to do what the police were telling them to, pragmatically he was telling them to leave before they could be "dispersed" into county by the police.
Posted by: Julian | October 28, 2009 4:56 PM
Nemo: Exactly
Posted by: Julian | October 28, 2009 4:58 PM
So you are driving along the highway and you see a cop with a radar gun. Is it a crime to go on Twitter and say, "Saw a cop watching for speeders at exit 21"?
Posted by: Tom | October 28, 2009 5:15 PM
I don't know, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn’t say anything about freedom after speech. :-p
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 28, 2009 5:15 PM
The more I think about it, the more the action against this man disturbs me. Consider the charges against him; hindering prosecution. How did he hinder it? By telling protesters to leave a certain location before the police arrived to arrest them. Now these protesters, one assumes, had filed all the proper paperwork and received all the proper permits, had not destroyed property, had not assaulted anyone, had not, in other words, deviated from their permits or acted illegally in any way, and yet the police were heading to that location to arrest everyone there just for being there, despite their permit. This means the police were planning on arresting lawful protesters for the sole reason that they were protesting, something we all have a right to do and which isn't illegal; that's why we have the permit process in the first place for marches and protests.
So, to sum up, what they raided this man's home for, and what they arrested him for, was warning lawful protesters that the police were coming to illegally arrest them to put an end to the protests, even though they had committed no crime. This is what they mean when they charge that he has hindered prosecution; he was hindering them from arresting people broadly for whom they had no evidence of illegal activity. He was hindering them from arresting people for standing at a street corner.
Posted by: Julian | October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
Wait, so the police had issued an order for people to disperse... and he helped pass on that order for them to disperse... and as a result they _did_ disperse... and he's being charged for it?
Maybe the police are arresting him for the crime of "doing their job better than they can".
Posted by: Snoof | October 28, 2009 11:29 PM