On Q Professional Investigations

AUSTIN, Texas — Research firm IHS Inc. is forecasting strong growth for security equipment in schools throughout the United States for the next several years. IHS estimates the market size for security equipment in schools to reach $634 million this year and is expected to surpass $720 million by 2014.

The research firm’s attributes the growth, in part, to high-profile shootings such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre on Dec. 14, 2012. These events force schools to review their existing policies and create threat assessments as well as new policies and procedures. There is no set standard for what schools need to do to prevent these tragedies, according to Blake Kozak, senior analyst for access control, fire and security at IHS.
“Perhaps the key here is to have ongoing discussions and security reviews long after such events fade from media coverage,” Kozak says, “for example continued knowledge sharing between school districts and universities to find best practices.”

In many cases, funding continues to be a barrier for the expanded deployment of security equipment. Some of the budget shortfall is being mitigated by additional funds provided to schools through state-funding and grants. Also, the U.S. Justice Department is helping to pay for additional officers. It awarded $45 million from Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants this year to schools that planned security enhancements. This also includes Secure Our Schools (SOS) programs.

Security equipment installations and upgrades as well as policies will vary by school district and university; however, IHS finds that video surveillance will be the focal point in the years to come.

Effective security comes from having effective policies in place and then leveraging the security system you have. For example, video surveillance can act as a “force multiplier” by giving the campus officers greater visibility, either through having more cameras on campus, or by being more intelligent and combining access control and video surveillance technologies. In other observations by IHS:

IHS expects growth of video surveillance in schools to be twice as fast as that of access control through 2017.
From the end-user perspective, there are several critical success factors that decision makers look for in a security solution: user-friendly, integration, safety, reliability.

School officials are likely to spend money on a case by case basis. However, there is a growing trend to have interactive solutions between staff and first responders. In addition, video is looking to be used in real-time not just for forensics. Having video cameras on the perimeter of the school building can also act as a deterrent in some cases.

Investment will likely differ between universities and K-12. Oftentimes there are a few police officers per school district, and most of the time these officers are used to monitoring high schools (rather than elementary). Alternatively, universities often have their own dedicated police that could utilize a control room. It also tends to be easier for universities to increase its police force before a K-12 school district.

Having video surveillance in place is crucial, but having folks in place who can quickly respond to a situation is equally important.

For K-12, many schools already have access control but these solutions are often very basic using only proximity cards and in some cases push-pin access codes. On the other hand, many universities have already transitioned to higher security access solutions.

“Schools need to continue to develop independent security plans and develop automated approaches when able. But schools also shouldn’t forget other means of security such as stronger windows and doors,” Blake says.

Using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an example, the school had access control in place but the shooter was able to break through the glass to gain entry to the building. So while video and access control equipment provide a good starting point for a high level of security, having several layers of security help schools take a step in the right direction to prevent or limit similar tragedies in the future.

In July 2013, IHS released the “Vertical Insights: Video Surveillance & Security in Education” report, which predicts that the market for security systems integration in educational institutions is set to expand to $4.9 billion in 2017, up from $2.7 billion in 2012. Security systems integration includes design, consultancy, installation, service, maintenance and security equipment. Analysts expect double-digit growth every year throughout the forecast, with revenue rising by 13% to reach $3 billion in 2013.

View Source

The Psychology of Lies: Behavioral Science Perspectives on Conducting Successful Interviews

There are plenty of myths about the “science” of lie detection.

Despite what popular books on nonverbal behavior may say, there’s no scientific evidence that crossed arms or legs indicate a non-receptive person, or that deceivers touch their noses, evert their eyes, or cover their mouths.

Unfortunately, deception detection isn’t so simple, say behavioral scientists who actually study communication and deceit using scientific methods. Spotting a lie, it seems, is an inexact science.

So how can investigators improve their chances of discovering deceit during investigative interviews? To tackle this topic and overcome popular misconceptions, I asked three leading research psychologists who specialize in the study of deception to share their insights on how to catch a liar.

The Experts:

David Matsumoto, San Francisco State University
Aldert Vrij, University of Portsmouth (UK)
Caroline Keating, Colgate University

Deception detection researcher Paul Ekman established that basic emotions are universal, as are their expressions.

Why Humans Are Good Deceivers and Lousy Detectors

According to Caroline Keating, we’re better liars than we are lie detectors. This point is echoed in various academic studies, which suggest that most people are no better than 50/50 at detecting deception by observing verbal and nonverbal cues.

Research conducted by Paul Ekman and Maureen O’Sullivan, published in Psychological Science in 1991, suggests that even professionals involved in fighting crime (such as law-enforcement and judges) veer only a little better than chance at detecting deception.

According to David Matsumoto, later research by Ekman and O’Sullivan demonstrated that law enforcement personnel were able to tell when people were lying about whether they committed crimes, but not about their opinions on various topics. Of the law enforcement professionals tested by Ekman and O’Sullivan, the Secret Service were the most able at detecting deceit, averaging a 65% success rate.

The bottom line is that even if law enforcement as a whole is better at detecting deception than the general public, that isn’t a particularly impressive statistic.

Most people are no better than 50/50 at detecting deception by observing verbal and nonverbal cues.
But there’s hope yet for lie detection science.

Matsumoto points out a problem with academic research on the topic: Many experiments are based on low-stakes lies. In the real world, lies that concern investigators or potential employers are usually high stakes—in other words, liars in the interrogation room have a lot more to lose than study participants.

How to be a Good Liar

Naturally, some people are bad liars; but professional investigators are concerned with the gifted ones. It stands to reason that to be a good lie spotter, the investigator needs to know what makes a good liar.

Sometimes the investigator may need to be good a liar himself in order to go undercover or pretext.

According to Keating, good liars are ultimately good actors. Her advice on how to lie convincingly is to “rehearse” in order to reduce anxiety; she also suggests creating plausible responses by interweaving deception with truth. Good lying, like good acting, is an art that requires a plausible story, well-practiced.

There are, however, pathological types that make natural liars: psychopaths and pathological liars such as those suffering from Münchausen syndrome. Pathological liars may tell lies with ease, but they are usually unmasked over time by inconsistencies, which earn them stigmatized reputations.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are natural chameleons that mimic the behavior expected of them but have little or no emotional attachment.

The latter condition is thought to result from structural differences in the frontal lobe and amygdala—areas of the brain that are responsible for regulating emotion. In essence, psychopaths have little fear or anxiety but are natural actors. Keating notes that their “lack of stress” enables them as deceivers.

Good lying, like good acting, is an art that requires a plausible story, well-practiced.

Like the psychopath that simulates love for another when it serves him, good liars uses a measure of control over emotional appearances to overcome discovery, says Keating. The possibility that a liar will be unmasked naturally creates the desire to avoid the issue, but a savvy liar can take the offensive.

For instance, he may mimic anger or hurt in response to an accusation that’s true. The seeming natural response would be anxiety or embarrassment, but a good liar can turn the tables, emotionally speaking.

A final quality of good liars, according to Keating, is self-deception. She cites the story of Colonel Oliver North, who tried to hide evidence of U.S. arms sales to Iran and illegal funding of the Contras. North knew he was breaking the law, but he was acting on behalf of senior government officials—on some level, he believed he was doing the right thing.

Lying to himself, according to Keating, may have enabled him to lie about his actions more convincingly.

Self-deception reduces anxiety by justifying the lie. Presumably the Russian SVR agent presenting as an American businessman, the Al Qaeda operative engaged in terrorism, and the investigator pretexting during a fraud investigation are all enabled by a belief of inherent righteousness.
Caroline Keating suggests that anxiety lies at the root of high-stakes lies—if unmasked, the deceiver faces stiff consequences. But the researcher’s dilemma is that high-stakes lies—and the anxiety associated with them—are hard to ethically replicate in the laboratory.

There is, therefore, hope that in real-world scenarios, fear may betray the deceiver’s self-control more inexorably than it does in the dispassionate environment of the behavioral-science lab.

Catching Liars Through Cognitive Taxation

Aldert Vrij suggests we throw out all notions of specific nonverbal cues and rather look for narrative inconsistencies when mining for lies. To that end, he provides several guidelines based on a synthesis of psychological and social science research. Most notably, Vrij supports the proposition of “imposing cognitive load.”

The idea here is that lying requires extra psychological effort at creating a plausible story, whereas the truth doesn’t, because the teller is simply recalling, not inventing. According to Vrij, an interviewer can exploit this fact through several strategies (as summarized below):

1. Ask for details.

The more details the interviewee provides, the more chance of inconsistency. This fact alone may cause the guilty interviewee to be reluctant about answering questions or to give short or vague responses. If the interviewee is reluctant or vague in responding to a question, the interviewer should pursue the subject further.

Vrij suggests borrowing from the techniques of “cognitive interviewing”—developed to enhance eyewitness’ memories—because they are useful in encouraging the subject to report details. Such techniques include asking the subject to describe his story with richness and imagery and to reassure him that no detail is without significance or is too trivial.

While inconsistency, vagueness and hesitancy can be signs of deception, details provide the practicality of more information that can be cross-referenced and validated.

2. Encourage the subject to describe events in reverse order.

Because a lie is a fabrication, it may be more challenging for the liar to describe events in reverse order, because such act creates extra “cognitive load.” Vrij cites research in which subjects watched videos in which they had to distinguish a liar from a non-liar.

Subjects detected the liar 42% of the time when the lies where sequential but 60% of the time when the liar had to describe what happened in reverse order.

3. Ask unexpected questions.

Just as Caroline Keating suggests that the would-be-liar rehearse responses to possible tough questions, Vrij suggests asking “unexpected questions” as a counter-measure. To be successful, the interviewer must be able to develop relevant questions that the interviewee doesn’t anticipate.

Vrij cites experiments that show that liars produce fewer details when responding to unanticipated questions than truth-tellers.

4. Conduct an information-seeking interview rather than a confrontational interview.

Vrij is critical of the popular Reid method of interviewing, which progresses from interview to accusation. (Some researchers have asserted that success-rate claims in texts on the topic are unverifiable and un-replicable.) Basically, the Reid method presumes guilt and incrementally increases pressure on the subject to make a confession.

In contrast, Vrij promotes the information-seeking interview, in which the interviewer aims to build rapport and plays a sympathetic role in order to coax out facts. Vrij cites a recent meta-analysis of several field studies (as well as laboratory studies), which found that information-seeking approaches yield more information and cues to deceit than confrontational approaches.

Evidently, information-seeking interviewing is a war-proven approach: Ali Soufan, A CIA interrogator, describes using information-seeking interviews with good success on Al-Qaeda suspects in developing intelligence in his book, The Black Banners.

5. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)

Vrij advocates an approach developed by Maria Hartwig in her doctoral dissertation, which studied the presentation of evidence in interrogations. Hartwig’s research showed that the non-accusatorial interview— asking open-ended questions and presenting evidence late in the interview—revealed more inconsistencies and contradictions than if the evidence were introduced early.

Furthermore, when interrogation trainees formulated indirect questions specific to the evidence without revealing their own knowledge of the evidence, their ability to detect deception significantly increased. (Such questions are also introduced at a late stage in the interview.)

A later study on SUE showed that trainees utilizing the SUE method produced 85% accuracy vs. 56% over a control group of interrogators not trained in SUE in determining the veracity of statements made by interviewees.

Catching Liars Through Emotional Leakage

Paul Ekman is widely credited with establishing that basic emotions are universal, as are their expressions.

Some anthropologists (such as Margaret Mead) theorized that facial expressions and emotional expressions were learned behaviors with culturally relevant meanings. Ekman’s research took him to Papua New Guinea, where he discovered an isolated primitive tribe whose members were able to accurately describe the meaning of facial expressions from pictures of Westerners.

Ekman is best known for his work on micro expressions—facial expressions that last a faction of a second and are believed to be involuntary. The proposition that these fleeting expressions reveal the true emotion of the subject led Ekman to suggest the ability to posit micro-expressions as a means of truth detection.

Ekman and his colleagues David Matsumoto and Mark Frank then developed a micro expressions training tool called METT—utilized by the TSA and other federal agencies—which has been further expanded independently by both Ekman and Matsumoto.

Matsumoto has been at the forefront of academic scholarship on nonverbal behavior and cross-cultural psychology. He heads a company called Humintell that provides seminars and training material on recognizing and interpreting micro-expressions.

When I asked what actions investigators can take to improve their sensitivity to deception, Matsumoto said this:

“Get trained on the VALIDATED indicators of veracity and deception, both verbal and nonverbal.”

“Learn to strategize their interviewing techniques to maximize the potential for them to receive CLEAR verbal and nonverbal signals to interpret.”

Caroline Keating concedes that micro-expressions betray a person’s true feelings, but she adds this caveat: “You almost need a video camera running in slow motion to see them,” (although Matsumoto counters that a person can be trained to see them in real time). Keating recommends scanning for anxiety and attempts at self-control when looking for deception but also recognizes that individuals have different baseline behaviors and different levels of response.

For instance, one person may be naturally anxious in most situations, while another may become anxious when asked questions that he believes may falsely incriminate him. There are also liars who show little anxiety because they are well rehearsed in their deceit, are self-deceived, or suffer pathological conditions.

The bottom line: a guilty person facing the possibility of unmasking should be anxious, but so, too, could an innocent person fearing for his freedom…and there are exceptions to every rule. To deal with variations in behavior between people, Keating suggests the importance of interpreting behavior by gauging the individual’s “baseline” behavior.

Parting Wisdom

Popular science is not the same as real science, nor is real science on complex human behavior fully resolved. Unfortunately, popular beliefs on nonverbal behavior and lie detection have managed to leak into texts on police interviewing and interrogations.

Nonetheless, behavioral science is making headway, and savvy investigators should pay attention. Ultimately, an interview with a suspect relies on psychological strategizing that aims to unmask the truth.

Deceit betrays itself by behavioral and narrative inconsistencies. Looking for incongruences in a subject’s story and behavior is common sense, but investigators can improve their chances of discovering lies by aligning their strategies with advances from the behavioral sciences. Watching for involuntary micro-expressions and the theory of cognitive load are two such advances that can aid an investigator’s tactics and observations.

There are many variables in human behavior. The investigator must consider all possibilities when interpreting the significance of a statement, pause, contradiction, gesture or hesitation. The goal shouldn’t be to become a psychological X-ray machine, because that’s currently impossible.

Instead, the investigator should aim to acquire verifiable intelligence, and/or, if the intelligence merits it, a true confession. The tips offered in this article provide the investigator with insights from world-class researchers in the field on how to achieve those goals.

View Source

Fort Meyers FL Dec 10 2013 As head of security for Lookers, a Fort Myers strip club, Anthony Annazone said he usually deals with drunk or unruly patrons.

That’s what he was doing in the parking lot about 11 p.m. Friday when another security guard noticed something strange.

“He said ‘Hey, there’s a baby in the car,’ and the guard checked and there was,” Annazone said.

Fort Myers police arrested the car’s owner, Andrew Sosa, 22, of the 2900 block of Cape Coral after finding him inside the strip club. He faces charges of child neglect, according to reports. The Florida Department of Children and Families confirmed the infant is Sosa’s daughter.

“I’ve been around here for probably 11, 12 years and I’ve never seen anything like that,” Annazone said.

When they saw the baby, Annazone said, employees flagged down police officers who were at a 7-Eleven nearby. The officers broke into a car window and freed the 4-month-old who was choking her on own vomit and a safety harness she was wearing. She was also sweating profusely, reports stated. She cried when officers picked her up, according to reports, but then calmed down.

“When she got out she was smiling and all right,” Annazone said.

Officers had Lookers staff help to identify Sosa.

“We announced it over the speakers that a black Kia had its lights on,” Annazone said.

Sosa walked out of the club after the announcement but walked back inside when he saw police, reports stated.

“The DJ told me that after the guy came out he said ‘Oh no, I have a black Audi. I wasn’t sure what you guys said,’ and they thought that was suspicious,” Annazone said.

Officers arrested Sosa, who is shown in security footage entering the club at around 7:45 p.m., three hours before officers freed the infant.

“He was in the back corner of the bar sitting in one of the tables but he was just there like everybody else,” Annazone said. “He was there by himself.”

The child was taken to HealthPark Medical Center in Fort Myers, treated for mild dehydration and released. A case worker from the Florida Department of Children and Families has been assigned. Communications Director Alexis Lambert said the case is open and being investigated.

Sosa is being held at Lee County Jail on $100,000 bond. The car was a rental.

“I know we were lucky our guard happened to be walking around and flashed his lights,” Annazone said.

View Source

The US Senate has approved a 10-year extension of a ban on plastic guns invisible to metal detectors but has rejected tougher restrictions called for by gun-control advocates.

The bill was approved by a Senate voice vote one week after it passed the House of Representatives.

Democrats had aimed to require a gun’s firing mechanism to contain at least one undetachable metal piece.

The ban has gained new relevance with the spread of at-home 3D printing.

‘Common sense’
The proposed 10-year extension of the Undetectable Firearms Act now goes to President Barack Obama for his approval.

Without further Congressional action, the 25-year-old law was scheduled to expire on Monday.

Senate Republicans failed to approve what Democratic Senator Chris Murphy described as a “common-sense” provision requiring plastic guns to contain a detectable metal component.

“If anybody in the Senate is so concerned about what they consider to be loopholes in the law, this obviously should have been done through hearings and the introduction of legislation long ago,” Republican Senator Charles Grassley subsequently told the media of the Democrat-led provision.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), America’s largest and most powerful gun lobby group, had issued a statement prior to the House vote on 3 December opposing any expansion of the law.

Analysts had previously said the NRA’s lobbying power left it unlikely the law would be broadened before next year’s mid-term election.

View Source

SUNBURY, Pa. (AP) — A couple married for just three weeks lured a man to his death with a Craigslist ad because they wanted to kill someone together, police said.

Elytte Barbour told officers before his arrest Friday night that he and his wife, Miranda, had planned to kill before, but their plans never worked out until last month when Troy LaFerrara responded to an online posting that promised companionship in return for money, authorities said.

Elytte Barbour told investigators “that they committed the murder because they just wanted to murder someone together,” police said in the affidavit.

Elytte Barbour, 22, and Miranda Barbour, 18, face criminal homicide charges in LaFerrara’s death. His body was found Nov. 12 in an alley in Sunbury, a small city about 100 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The couple had recently moved to nearby Selinsgrove from Dunn, N.C.

Sunbury’s police chief, Steve Mazzeo, said Saturday he did not want to comment on the case or the couple’s motives since it was still an active investigation.

According to Sunbury police, Elytte Barbour told investigators he hid under a blanket in the backseat of the couple’s SUV as his wife picked up LaFerrara at a mall Nov. 11. He told police that, on his wife’s signal, he wrapped a cord around LaFerrara’s neck, restraining him while Miranda Barbour stabbed him.

The 42-year-old Port Trevorton man was stabbed about 20 times, police said.

Miranda Barbour was charged Tuesday, a day after police first contacted her. She initially denied knowing LaFerrara, but her story evolved as investigators gathered evidence, including the discovery that the last call received by the victim’s cellphone was made from her number, according to an affidavit in her case.

That affidavit said Miranda Barbour acknowledged meeting the victim in Selinsgrove and driving with him to Sunbury, where they parked. She said LaFerrara groped her and she took a knife from between the front seats and stabbed him after he put his hand around her throat, according to the affidavit.

Police said Miranda Barbour had told them she purchased cleaning supplies at a department store after stabbing LaFerrara, then picked up her husband and took him to a strip club for his birthday. On Friday, police said, Elytte Barbour told them he was the one who had purchased the cleaning products, an account investigators said was backed up by surveillance footage.

Following his wife’s arrest, Elytte Barbour told The Daily Item of Sunbury that Miranda Barbour, whom he married Oct. 22, regularly hired herself out as a “companion” to men she met on various websites, a business venture he said he supported because it didn’t involve sexual contact.

Barbour said his wife made anywhere from $50 to $850 by meeting with men for such activities as having dinner together or walking around a mall. The ads she placed on websites including Craigslist all said upfront that sex was not part of the deal, he said.

“She is not a prostitute,” he said. “What she does is meet men who have broken marriages or have no one in their lives, and she meets with them and has delightful conversation.”

Elytte Barbour didn’t have an attorney at his arraignment Friday night. Telephone messages left for his wife’s public defenders Saturday were not immediately returned.

Investigators also plan to look into the death of a man with whom Miranda Barbour had a 1-year-old child, Mazzeo said, but he would not say if there is a suspicion of foul play.

View Source

National Security Agency snoops are harvesting as many as 5 billion records daily to track mobile phones as they ping nearby cell towers across the globe.

That alarming scoop by The Washington Post via documents provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden included wishful thinking from an unnamed government “intelligence lawyer” interviewed in the story. This official, according to the Post, said that the data “are not covered by the Fourth Amendment,” meaning a probable-cause warrant isn’t required to get it.

In reality, however, the case law on cell-site locational tracking — while generally favorable to the government — is far from clear, with federal courts and appellate courts offering mixed rulings on whether warrants are needed.

And it’s a big deal. As of last year, there were 326.4 million wireless subscriber accounts, exceeding the U.S. population, responsible for 2.3 trillion annual minutes of calls, according to the Wireless Association.

All the while, warrantless cell-phone location tracking has become a de facto method to snoop on criminals in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision that probable-cause warrants from judges are generally needed to affix covert GPS devices to vehicles.

Yet the mobile-phone location data issue has never been squarely addressed by the Supreme Court, and the dispute isn’t likely to be heard by the justices any time soon. All of which means that the legality of the latest crime- or terror-fighting method of choice is equally up in the air.

The high court in June rejected an appeal (.pdf) from a drug courier sentenced to 20 years after being nabbed with 1,100 pounds of marijuana in a motor home camper the authorities tracked via his mobile phone pinging cell towers for three days from Arizona to a Texas truck stop.

In that case, and without comment, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The appeals court ruled that probable-cause warrants were not necessary to obtain cell-site data.

The appeals court had distinguished the case from the GPS decision decided by the Supreme Court two years ago. The high court had ruled that the physical act of installing a GPS device on a target’s vehicle amounted to a search, which usually necessitates a probable-cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

“Here, the monitoring of the location of the contraband-carrying vehicle as it crossed the country is no more of a comprehensively invasive search than if instead the car was identified in Arizona and then tracked visually and the search handed off from one local authority to another as the vehicles progressed. That the officers were able to use less expensive and more efficient means to track the vehicles is only to their credit,” the three-judge appellate panel of the 6th Circuit ruled 2-1.

According to the Post, “the NSA pulls in location data around the world from 10 major ‘sigads,’ or signals intelligence activity designators. A sigad known as STORMBREW, for example, relies on two unnamed corporate partners described only as ARTIFICE and WOLFPOINT. According to an NSA site inventory, the companies administer the NSA’s ‘physical systems,’ or interception equipment, and ‘NSA asks nicely for tasking/updates.’”

Regarding whether that’s legal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — in July sided with the government in a case involving three lower court rulings concerning unidentified suspects. A lower court said “compelled warrantless disclosure of cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment.”

The government argued that a mobile-phone company may disclose historical cell-site records created and kept by the company in its ordinary course of business, where such an order is based on a showing of “specific and articulable facts” that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. A court warrant, on the other hand, requires the higher probable-cause standard under the Fourth Amendment. The appeals court agreed. (.pdf)

The government’s argument is based on a 1979 Supreme Court ruling upholding a Maryland purse snatcher’s conviction. The conviction and 10-year term came after the cops compelled the phone company to make a record of the numbers dialed by defendant Michael Lee Smith. A warrant, the high court reasoned, was not required because people do not have a reasonable expectation that the records they maintain with businesses would be kept private.

That same case has provided the legal justification for the NSA’s massive phone-metadata snooping program.

Still, another appellate court to have ruled on the issue was the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court said in 2010 that the lower courts have the option to demand a warrant for cell-site data. The court covers Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennet of Maryland last year cited the purse-snatching decision when declining to suppress evidence that Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan were allegedly involved in a string of Baltimore City fast-food restaurant robberies. They were arrested in connection to one robbery, and a 7-month historical look of their phone records placed them on the scene when other restaurants were robbed, the authorities said.

Bennet ruled:

For the following reasons, this Court concludes that the Defendants in this case do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the historical cell site location records (.pdf) acquired by the government. These records, created by cellular providers in the ordinary course of business, indicate the cellular towers to which a cellular phone connects, and by extension the approximate location of the cellular phone. While the implications of law enforcement’s use of this historical cell site location data raise the specter of prolonged and constant government surveillance, Congress in enacting the Stored Communications Act, has chosen to require only ‘specific and articulable facts’ in support of a government application for such records.

That decision is on appeal with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Oral arguments are slated for next month.

View Source

PROVIDENCE, RI Dec 6 2013—A sweeping, more than two-year investigation into the trafficking of heroin by armed drug dealers in Providence and surrounding areas has resulted in the imprisonment of 24 individuals, the arrest and detention of 12 others who face deportation on alleged immigration violations, and the dismantling of the MS-13 Providence street gang.

The investigation, dubbed Operation Gas, was conducted by a task force composed of federal agents from the FBI; DEA; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and Homeland Security Investigations; detectives and officers from the Rhode Island State Police Providence Police, Cranston Police, Newport Police, Pawtucket Police, and Woonsocket Police Departments; and prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office and the Rhode Island Department of Attorney General.

The investigation targeted the trafficking of heroin from the Dominican Republic and Guatemala to Rhode Island and the distribution of that heroin by armed drug dealers in Providence and surrounding areas. The investigation led to the seizure of more than 23 kilograms of heroin, including the largest single seizure in Rhode Island, as well as the seizure of over 100 grams of cocaine, 15 firearms, more than $400,000 in cash, and 12 vehicles. The drug trafficking investigation led to a subsequent investigation that targeted leaders, members and associates of the MS-13 Providence street gang who were involved in gang-on-gang violence, firearms sales, and drug distribution.

The subsequent prosecution of those involved resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of 24 individuals, including the leaders and known members of the MS-13 Providence street gang, on drugs, firearms, assault, and arson charges, and of a convicted heroin trafficker who attempted to hire a person to murder his girlfriend.

In addition, 12 individuals identified as members and associates of the MS-13 Providence street gang and the SUR-13 street gang were detained by Homeland Security Investigations on alleged immigration violations. Many of the individuals have already been deported.

“Armed gang activity and associated drug dealing continue to plague Providence and other urban neighborhoods across our state,” said United States Attorney Peter F. Neronha. “History has taught us only too well: gangs and drug dealing inevitably lead to gun violence. To effectively combat this violence, we must continue to do more than simply wait for the shooting to stop and assess the carnage. Only a proactive approach, targeting the worst of the worst and bringing them to justice before the shooting starts, can lead to a safer Rhode Island.”

“This is an example where another team challenged ours and lost,” said Vincent Lisi, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Boston Division, which is responsible for Rhode Island. “Gang members who want to fill the vacuum left by these arrests should know the Safe Streets Task force will always win over those who chose a life of crime by holding responsible those who put illegal guns on our streets, deal heroin in our neighborhoods, and commit other crimes in our cities.”

“DEA is committed to the dismantling of criminal organizations that bring drugs and violence into our neighborhoods,” said John J. Arvanitis, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New England Field Division. “Our commitment is unwavering, and together with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, we will continue to target violent drug trafficking organizations operating throughout our communities.”
“Cooperation among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors led to the successful disruption of the MS-13 gang in Providence. Targeting criminal activity by gangs and gang members before violence erupts is critical in bringing greater security to our urban communities,” said Attorney General Peter Kilmartin.

“As I have stated in the past, investigations like this are a message as to how we leverage our partnerships and combine our efforts to dismantle organized gang and drug activity. Operations like this are what makes the community safer and also sends a strong message to those involved in the gun, gang, and drug trade,” said Colonel Hugh Clements.

Among the defendants arrested, convicted, and imprisoned as a result of Operation Gas:
Jose Victor Fernandez, 47, Providence: Jose Fernandez was arrested in April 20, 2011, following a lengthy investigation into his suspected heroin trafficking activities. In addition to numerous undercover purchases of heroin, law enforcement seized two kilograms of heroin discovered concealed inside car parts shipped from Guatemala to an auto dealership where Fernandez worked. During the investigation into Fernandez’s drug trafficking activities, law enforcement learned that Fernandez was attempting to hire a person to murder his girlfriend. Fernandez was convicted in federal court of attempted murder for hire, as well as multiple heroin distribution charges. Fernandez is serving a sentence of 97 months in federal prison.

Jose Dume, Jr., 29, Providence; and Ariel Hassel, aka Miguel Angel Colon, 33, Cranston: In the fall of 2011, the FBI and DEA began investigating a Dominican drug trafficking organization that distributed heroin, and on occasion cocaine, to customers in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. According to information presented to the court, Jose Dume, Jr. was identified by law enforcement as the leader of this conspiracy. The investigation revealed that Dume purchased kilogram quantities of heroin from Ariel Hassel. It is estimated that over the course of the conspiracy, Dume purchased approximately three kilos of heroin, often in 500 to 600 gram increments, which he then sold to various customers throughout Rhode Island.

During the course of the investigation into Dume and Hassel’s drug trafficking and firearm trafficking activities—which included undercover drug and firearms purchases, the use of electronic monitoring and surveillance equipment, and the execution of court authorized search warrants and wiretaps—law enforcement seized four firearms, about 2.5 kilograms of heroin, over $400,000 in cash, jewelry valued at more than $60,000, and 12 vehicles from residences in Providence, Cranston, and West Warwick. The wiretap investigation led to the arrest and conviction of 14 individuals including Dume, Hassel, their partners, and drug runners, as well as customers. Among those arrested was Vlady Tejada, a fugitive on federal drug charges out of the District of Massachusetts.

Dume and Hassel were arrested by federal agents on May 11, 2012. Dume pleaded guilty in October 2013 to federal conspiracy, heroin trafficking, and firearm charges. He was sentenced on October 21, 2013, to 15 years in federal prison. Hassel pleaded guilty in July 2013 to heroin and cocaine trafficking charges. He was sentenced in July 2013 to 90 months in federal prison.

Jorge Daniel Estrada, 19, Providence; and Angel Feliz, 48, Dorchester, Massachusetts: In October 2012, the DEA arrested Jorge Daniel Estrada and Angel Feliz on charges of conspiracy to distribute 17 kilograms of heroin. In addition to seizing 17 kilos of heroin, police seized three vehicles. The arrests of Jose Fernandez, Jorge Estrada and Angel Feliz, prompted by information developed by Providence Police detectives, resulted in the seizure of a total of 19 kilograms of heroin valued at $4.5 million dollars, the largest single seizure of heroin in Rhode Island. Estrada and Feliz have been sentenced to 180 and 70 months in federal prison, respectively.

Francisco Bonilla, a/k/a “Cisco,” 35, Providence: In October 2012, Francisco Bonilla, the alleged leader of the MS-13 Providence street gang, was indicted by a Rhode Island state court grand jury on assault and weapons charges. He pleaded guilty in January 2013 and is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence at the ACI. Bonilla, a citizen of El Salvador, will face deportation proceedings upon completion of his prison term.
Richard Ibenez, a/k/a “Chinoz”, 23, Providence: In October 2012, Richard Ibenez, a member of the MS-13 Providence street gang, was indicted by a Rhode Island state court grand jury on conspiracy and arson charges. He pleaded guilty in January 2013 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence at the ACI.

Defendants charged in the U.S. District Court were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adi Goldstein, Paul F. Daly, Jr., Sandra R. Hebert, Milind M. Shah, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth P. Madden. Defendants charged in Rhode Island state court were prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General James Baum.

Operation Gas Defendants:
Wayne Barnes, 53, Providence
Drug and firearms charges
Three years in federal prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release

Francisco A. Bonilla a/k/a Cisco, 35, Providence
MS-13 gang leader
Assault & firearms charges
20 years, 10 years to serve at ACI; 10 years suspended with probation

Miguel Colon a/k/a Ariel Hassel, 33, Cranston
Heroin and cocaine trafficking charges
90 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Juan Cotto, 45, Providence
Conspiracy
24 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release

Jose Dume, Jr., 39, Providence
Leader of heroin trafficking conspiracy
Heroin trafficking and firearm charges
15 years in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Angel Feliz, 48, Dorchester, Massachusetts
Heroin trafficking charges
70 months in federal prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release

Christian Ferrer, 28, Providence
Drug source for MS-13 gang
Conspiracy and cocaine trafficking charges
71 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release

Cristian Jimenez, 34, Providence
Convicted at trial in June 2013 on charges of trafficking heroin
Detained

Angel Maria Marte, 49, Providence
Heroin trafficking charges
80 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Estevan Benzan, 29, Providence
Heroin trafficking
70 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Janet Cobian, 24, Taunton, Massachusetts
Heroin possession and distribution charges
Five years’ probation

Louis Cortez a/k/a Cholo, 37, Providence
SUR-13 gang member
Firearm possession
Six months’ confinement, to be followed by five years’ supervised release

Alejandro Delacruz, a/k/a Alex, 28, Providence
C-Block gang member
Conspiracy and firearm charges
51 months in federal prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release

Jorge Daniel Estrada, 19, Guatemala
Conspiracy and heroin trafficking charges 15 years in federal prison followed by lifetime supervised release. Immigration detainer lodged

Jose “Victor” Fernandez, 47, Providence
Heroin trafficking and murder for hire charges
97 months in federal prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release

Richard Ibanez a/k/a Chinoz, 23, Providence
MS-13 gang member
Conspiracy and arson charges
20 years, eight years to serve at ACI 12 years suspended withprobation

Michael Linaris, 36, Providence
Firearm charge
24 months in federal prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release

Yelkis Martinez ,36, Providence
Maintaining a drug involved premises and fraud charges
30 months in federal prison, followed by three years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Geovannie Nieves, 28, West Warwick
Heroin trafficking charges
90 months in federal prison, followed by five years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Adalberto Pagan a/k/a Bebo, 28, Providence
Firearm source for MS-13
Firearm charges
37 months in federal prison, followed by three years’ supervised release

Vlady Tejada, 33, Boston, Massachusetts
Heroin and cocaine trafficking charges
71 months in federal prison, to be followed by four years’ supervised release
Faces deportation proceedings

Leopoldo Nunez, 26, Providence
Firearms charges
60 months in federal prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release

Alexander Ramos, 42, Providence
Cocaine conspiracy and distribution
70 months in federal prison, followed by five years’ supervised release

Dewrys Marte Valerio, 28, Providence
Heroin and cocaine trafficking charges
80 months in federal prison, followed by five years’ supervised release

The following defendants were detained by Homeland Security Investigations on alleged immigration violations. Several of the defendants have been deported.

Carlos Esau Arreaga Lopez, a/k/a Duende, 27, Guatemala
MS-13 gang member

Orlando Ramon Gonzalez Lopez, a/k/a Pikachu 33, Mexico MS-13 gang member
Fari Armando Nava Tlapale, a/k/a Fatty, 21, Mexico MS-13 gang member

Alberto Ozuna Ramirez, a/k/a Pepo, 23, Mexico
MS-13 gang member

Jose Leonida Villalobos Rodriguez, a/k/a Jumbo, 27, El Salvador
MS-13 gang member

Victor Hugo Amaro, 30, Mexico
MS-13 gang associate

Arturo Cruz, a/k/a Edison Arturo Cruz Esperanza, 24, Honduras
MS-13 gang member
Fredy Saravia, 37, Guatemala MS-13 gang associate

Edgar Coronado, a/k/a Chino, 33, Guatemala
MS-13 gang member

Luis Salgado, a/k/a Pee-Wee, 22, Mexico
SUR-13 gang member

Wagner Miranda, a/k/a Alex, 23, Guatemala
MS-13 gang member

Jose Borjas, a/k/a Catracho, 36, Honduras
MS-13 gang associate

View Source

United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy today announced the sentencing of two defendants who participated in an Oceanside telemarking operation dubbed 1st American Law Center. Defendants Shelveen Shraneel Singh and Johnathon Daniel Hearn were each sentenced yesterday to nine years and two years in prison, respectively, before District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez for their roles in defrauding more than 4,000 desperate homeowners who were seeking to modify their mortgages. All told, the operation resulted in victim losses of over $11 million.

According to documents filed in court, Shelveen Singh was a leading telemarketer who sold loan modification services on behalf of 1st American Law Center at a satellite office in Riverside. Among other lies, Singh and his co-defendants falsely promised to have a team of attorneys “pre-screen” clients and falsely boasted that 1st American had a 98 percent success rate in obtaining loan modifications for clients. 1st American Law Center’s telemarketers were encouraged to say virtually anything to close a sale and employed a variety of ruses, including pretending to have helped thousands of happy homeowners save their homes; claiming to have been in business for 20 years; promising that that clients’ fees would be deposited into a client-trust account and remain untouched until the client was satisfied; and assuring clients that they were protected by a money-back guarantee. Sadly, the telemarketers even persuaded homeowners to pay the company’s fees instead of using their limited funds to stay current on their mortgage payments.

The truth was devastating to the thousands of homeowners taken in by 1st American Law Center’s offer of help and hope. As participants in the scheme have admitted, there was no selective pre-screening process conducted by an attorney. Even the token attorney affiliated with the operation did not pre-screen applications, work on clients’ loan modification cases, or negotiate with lenders. Rather than having thousands of satisfied clients, 1st American Law Center had thousands of unsatisfied former clients who did not have their loans modified or receive refunds as promised. Client funds were not protected and safe, but instead controlled by a co-schemer, who funneled money out of the attorney trust account into accounts that he controlled, using the money to pay himself, other employees, or company expenses.

In addition to the standard lies told by other telemarketers, Singh employed numerous other deceptive acts to get money out of clients. This included withdrawing funds from client accounts without their permission and threatening clients with physical harm. Singh even impersonated a law enforcement officer and threatened to arrest clients if they did not pay 1st American Law Center’s fees.

In imposing the 110-month sentence, Judge Benitez remarked that Singh had preyed upon especially vulnerable victims. The judge noted that instead of paying restitution for a previous crime as required, Singh instead spent money on himself, racking up credit card charges that he later discharged in bankruptcy, and purchasing for himself an expensive Mercedes. Calling him a “dirty businessman,” Judge Benitez commented that it was actions like Singh’s that contributed to the erosion of trust in our society.

Hearn, another telemarketer, was also sentenced yesterday. Judge Benitez imposed a sentence of 24 months in custody.

Other defendants involved in the same scheme have previously been sentenced. Gary Bobel received a sentence of 92 months in custody. Scott Thomas Spencer received a total sentence of 43 months in custody, and Travis Iverson received a sentence of 24 months in custody. The attorney associated with 1st American Law Center, Dean Chandler, and another defendant, Michael Eccles are currently awaiting trial. They next appear in court on March 3, 2014.

Victims of 1st American Law Center may contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office Victim/Witness Coordinator Polly Montano at (619) 546-8921 if they have questions.

Defendant in Criminal Case No. 12CR4031-BEN

Shelveen Shraneel Singh, 26 Corona, California

110 months in custody on count six
three years of supervised release
restitution to be determined
Defendant in Criminal Case No. 12CR3041-BEN

Johnathon Daniel Hearn, 31 Oceanside, California
24 months in custody
three years of supervised release
restitution to be determined

Participating Agencies
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation
View Source

GALVESTON – A Kemah couple hopes to stop a neighbor’s alleged bullying with a lawsuit against her, recent court documents say.

Scott and Teri Gale accuse Natalie Belk of “intentionally” invading their privacy in an original petition filed Nov. 21 in Galveston County Court at Law No. 3.

The Gales claim Belk “installed security video cameras on the exterior of her residence, which is directly across the street from the plaintiffs’, and has aimed the video cameras directly in the plaintiffs’ bedroom window.” video surveillance camera

“By her actions, the defendant has intentionally intruded on the plaintiffs’ solitude, seclusion or private affairs,” the suit says.

“The filming of the plaintiffs’ bedroom and private affairs is highly private and would cause any reasonable person to be highly offended.”

Belk is also alleged to have called law enforcement “no less than 35 times” on the claimants “in an attempt to harass.”

According to the Gales, no criminal conviction has resulted from the calls, but they continue to be on the receiving end of the respondent’s “constant” harassment.

Consequently, the couple seeks a temporary restraining order and unspecified monetary damages.

Attorney Dan Krieger of the Law Office of Dan Krieger in League City is representing the Gales, and Galveston County Court-at-Law No. 3 Judge Kerri M. Foley is presiding over the litigation.

Cause No. 71,116
View Source

The Monday after Thanksgiving has become known as the biggest online shopping day of the year, with companies offering discounts galore to entice customers. But it’s also a day that scammers hope to use to their benefit by trying to lure in victims with offers that sound too good to be true. From fraudulent auction sales to gift card, phishing, and social networking scams and more, cyber crime schemes are ever-evolving and, unfortunately, still successful.

Here are some tips you can use to avoid becoming a victim of cyber fraud:

Purchase merchandise only from reputable sellers, and be suspicious of websites that do not provide contact information; also be wary if the seller only accepts wire transfers or cash.

Do not respond to or click on links contained within unsolicited (spam) e-mail.

Be cautious of e-mails claiming to contain pictures in attached files; the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders. Scan the attachments for viruses if possible.

Log on directly to the official website for the business identified in the e-mail instead of linking to it from an unsolicited e-mail. If the e-mail appears to be from your bank, credit card issuer, or other company you deal with frequently, your statements or official correspondence from the business will provide the proper contact information.

Contact the actual business that supposedly sent the e-mail to verify that the e-mail is genuine.

If you are requested to act quickly or there is an emergency that requires your attention, it may be a scam. Fraudsters create a sense of urgency to get you to act quickly.

Remember—if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

This Cyber Monday—and every day—the FBI reminds shoppers to exercise due diligence online. Stay alert and beware of cyber criminals and their aggressive and creative ways to steal money and personal information.

Resources

IC3 Alert: Holiday Shopping Tips

View Source