• Secret Service Break into Salon without permission

    From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 11:52:40 2024
    If this story is true, it is one of the most shocking things I have ever
    heard attributed to the Secret Service. It was apparently first
    reported by Business Insider a few days ago and then was picked up by
    other outlets this weekend, including Fox News. I am just wondering
    what legal recourse, if any, the owner has in this situation.

    [Begin Quoted Story]
    The U.S. Secret Service was forced to apologize to a Massachusetts salon
    owner after using her building's bathroom without permission ahead of a fundraiser for Vice President Kamala Harris last week.

    The salon owner, Alicia Powers, says Secret Service agents put duct tape
    over her security cameras and broke into her building by picking the
    lock. They then allowed various people to use the salon's bathroom over
    a two-hour period.

    Powers told Business Insider that she was aware she had to close her
    salon but was not informed about the Secret Service's other plans.
    "They had a bunch of people in and out of here doing a couple of bomb
    sweeps again – totally understand what they have to do, due to the
    nature of the situation," Powers told Business Insider. "And at that
    point, my team felt like it was a little bit chaotic, and we just made
    the decision to close for Saturday."

    Footage from the salon's front-door Ring security camera shows a Secret
    Service agent approaching the door with a roll of tape and observing the
    locked door and the camera. The agent then grabbed a nearby chair and
    stood on it to tape over the security camera.

    "There were several people in and out for about an hour-and-a-half –
    just using my bathroom, the alarms going off, using my counter, with no permission," Powers told BI.

    "And then when they were done using the bathroom for two hours, they
    left, and left my building completely unlocked, and did not take the
    tape off the camera," she added.

    The Secret Service says it has been in contact with Powers following the incident. The business owner said she received an apology from the
    Secret Service's Boston office.

    "The U.S. Secret Service works closely with our partners in the business community to carry out our protective and investigative missions. The
    Secret Service has since communicated with the affected business owner,"
    USSS spokeswoman Melissa McKenzie told Fox News Digital. "We hold these relationships in the highest regard and our personnel would not enter,
    or instruct our partners to enter, a business without the owner’s permission."

    Powers told the outlet that an EMS worker later told her the Secret
    Service agent in charge of security that day "was telling people to come
    in and use the bathroom." The Secret Service told BI that its agents
    "would not" have used the building without permission, but they
    acknowledged that an agent had taped over the camera.

    "Whoever was visiting, whether it was a celebrity or not, I probably
    would've opened the door and made them coffee and brought in donuts to
    make it a great afternoon for them," Powers told BI. "But they didn't
    even have the audacity to ask for permission. They just helped themselves."

    The building's landlord, Brian Smith, says no one gave the Secret
    Service officers permission to use the building or even enter it.

    "Me and my dad own the building, and I have a crazy eccentric guy that
    lives upstairs," Smith told BI. "And he didn't tell the Secret Service
    they could use it, and I didn't tell them, and my father didn't tell
    them, and they had no permission to go in there whatsoever."

    Powers says a representative for the Secret Service's Boston field
    office called her to apologize after BI contacted the agency about the incident.

    "He said to me everything that was done was done very wrong," Powers
    told the outlet. "They were not supposed to tape my camera without
    permission. They were not supposed to enter the building without
    permission."
    [End Quoted Story]

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-apologizes-after-breaking-massachusetts-salon-use-bathroom-before-harris-fundraiser


    My question is - what recourse, if any, does the owner now have against
    the federal government? It seems clear that one or more government
    employees broke into her property without permission, disrupted her
    security system and then proceeded to use her personal property without permission. Is this a "you can't fight City Hall" kind of thing where
    her hands are essentially tied and she will not receive appropriate restitution? Aside from more bad publicity for the Secret Service, are
    they really going to suffer repercussions? If she reports this to local authorities as a breaking and entering, are they going to literally try
    to bring in the Secret Service for questioning? Can they even force the
    SS to identify the agents involved?

    I realize the owner may end up with a lot of publicity that could
    actually help her business, but I still share her frustration for such a blatant invasion of property and privacy. I just don't know what she
    can really do except talk to the press, as she is apparently doing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 13:49:21 2024
    Isn't there a constitutional bar on federal employees just commandeering private property ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com on Sun Aug 11 15:17:31 2024
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 11 Aug 2024 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT),
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    Isn't there a constitutional bar on federal employees just commandeering >private property ?

    The Fifth Amendment is famous for not permitting double jeopardy** nor requiring self-incrimination, but less famous for "nor shall private
    property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But
    maybe you knew about it, Jethro.

    **Except when a state and the feds charge for the same act.

    The webpages I found tie the "Taking Clause" to eminent domain, ED.
    Either using the bathroom was the use of eminent domain without all that
    pesky paperwork and those pesky court proceedings, or the taking clause
    is broader than ED. They should have to pay whatever the rent by the
    salon to a subtenant would have been for the whole store for a day, and
    there should be some penalty for not asking first. Or maybe, if the
    salon owner comes up with an exorbitant rate, it's too late for the Sec
    Serv to say No and they have to pay it. Isn't there a name for that,
    contract of adhesion???

    Better yet, and I wonder why I thought of the other one first, the "Due Process" clause, no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property
    without due process of law." Of course today's USSC would say they
    didn't really deprive anyone of property since they weren't using it
    anyhow. They only have to pay 1 day's share of the water bill. Quantum meruit?? I've really lost all faith in the so-called USSC. It's sad.

    Who really stands to benefit is Ring Doorbell. I have a friend with a
    burglar alarm business who tells me that the home burglar alarm business
    is dying, because rather than set off a siren and scare away burglars
    and rather than auto-calling the police so maybe they can get there
    before the burglars leave, people these days would rather have pretty
    pictures of what the burglars look like (and only if they show their
    faces to the camera). I've long felt that Ring Doorbell is mostly a
    waste of money but this salon more than got its money's worth. It will
    be interesting to see if RD uses this in their advertising.

    And the Sec Service taped the other cameras but not the doorbell. So you
    know they will station someone on the nearest roof, because a roof is
    not a doorbell. We agree on that, right? A roof is not a doorbell.

    Even though they can't find another bathroom, I'm sure the Sec Serv
    prevented anyone from shooting Kamela's ear off. We would have heard
    about that. So one out of two is not half bad, to quote Johnny Carson.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 15:16:24 2024
    On 8/11/2024 4:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    Isn't there a constitutional bar on federal employees just commandeering private property ?


    I think the third and fourth amendments come closest:

    Third Amendment:

    "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
    the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
    prescribed by law."

    SS Agents are not Soldiers per se, but they are government officials and
    the concept would seem to apply.

    Fourth Amendment:

    "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."

    I think this is really the key amendment since it seems clear these
    agents did not have any kind of warrant or authorization to break into
    or occupy the property.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 11 17:28:56 2024
    Secret Service hints it wasn’t behind salon break-in during Kamala
    Harris campaign event

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-hints-wasnt-behind-salon-break-in-during-kamala-harris-campaign-event

    If this is true then both the SS and the local police should be
    involved. This was a potential security break and the SS needs to
    investigate.

    There is a video on the news article showing the person taping the
    camera. I will refrain with my own guess as to who did it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to rick@nospam.com on Sun Aug 11 17:28:23 2024
    It appears that Rick <rick@nospam.com> said:
    If this story is true, it is one of the most shocking things I have ever >heard attributed to the Secret Service. It was apparently first
    reported by Business Insider a few days ago and then was picked up by
    other outlets this weekend, including Fox News. I am just wondering
    what legal recourse, if any, the owner has in this situation.

    [Begin Quoted Story]
    The U.S. Secret Service was forced to apologize to a Massachusetts salon >owner after using her building's bathroom without permission ahead of a >fundraiser for Vice President Kamala Harris last week. ...

    The only places I can find referencs to this are the right wing echosphere, like Fox and the Daily Mail just reprinting the original.

    I believe something happened, and it is quite possible that members of the
    SS screwed up, but I expect there is more to the story than what's reported here.
    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to micky on Mon Aug 12 09:26:00 2024
    On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 15:17:31 -0700, micky wrote:

    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 11 Aug 2024 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT),
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

    [quoted text muted]

    The Fifth Amendment is famous for not permitting double jeopardy** nor requiring self-incrimination, but less famous for "nor shall private
    property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But
    maybe you knew about it, Jethro.

    I knew there was something about quartering soldiers. But wading through
    200 year old texts on a Sunday evening is much less fun than having a
    guess. Especially in todays Brave New World where facts are pretty
    dispensable to being right ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)