The Courts Are Fighting Back Against Trump’s Brutal Immigration Policies – The Nation

Yazmin Jurez, standing next to a photo of herself holding her daughter Mariee, 1, who died after being released from ICE detention, is sworn in at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing, July 10, 2019, on Capitol Hill. (AP / Jacquelyn Martin)

The Noise: Trumps rambling statement at his press conference last week, shortly after the impeachment inquiry was announced, in which he congratulated himself on building an impenetrable border wall that even mountain-climbers wouldnt be able to scale. The Signal: Over the past several days the administration has unveiled a draconian cut in the number of refugees to be admitted next year and, via executive action, has sought to unravel the decades-old refugee resettlement program by giving cities and states the ability to veto resettlement in their communities.Ad Policy

Next year, the number of refugees admitted will be capped at 18,000; the number actually admitted will likely be lower still. Thats down from the target of 110,000 that Obama set in 2016, in his last presidential determination on the issue. In fact, Trumps cap is the lowest since the modern refugee resettlement system was codified, in 1980.

At the same time, as the administration locks down the southern border via a series of rule changes, it announced an agreement with Honduras allowing asylum seekers to be sent there rather than admitted into the United States. That came after Trump had already strong-armed Guatemala and El Salvador into similar agreements. What does this mean? Basically, that anyone who transits through Central America en route to safety in the United States can now be arrested and put on a plane to one of those three countrieswhich have high crime rates and are among the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. Thats not just absurd, its criminal.

Thats the bad news on the immigration front. But lost amid the other headlines this week were three extraordinarily positive judicial rulings.More Signal:Noise

First, in California, Federal Judge Dolly Gee ruled that the terms of the Flores agreement, which have the effect of limiting how long immigrant children can be kept in detention, could not be superseded by new Trump administration regulations allowing for indefinite detention. The administration will, of course, appeal the ruling, but at least for now, its sick plan to create family concentration camps is on hold.

Then, in quick succession, a Washington, DC, court declared illegal the administrations plans for fast-track deportation of undocumented immigrants arrested anywhere in the United States who cant prove they have been here continuously for two years. Thats important; currently theres a zone, within 100 miles of the border, in which undocumented immigrants have few constitutional protections and little access to immigration courts. Trump had sought to extend that zone to the entire country, but the court ruling puts the kibosh on that.

Finally, in Gonzalez v. ICE, a federal district court restricted when and how ICE could request that local police detain immigrants; the judge ruled that ICE was violating the Fourth Amendment in its catch-all missions against immigrants by mining federal databases that contain inaccurate or incomplete information.

These are huge developments. Pay attention to the Signalthe struggle over how this country treats immigrants is truly heating up.

See the original post:

The Courts Are Fighting Back Against Trump's Brutal Immigration Policies - The Nation

Trump Judge Rejects Exclusionary Rule in Violation of the Fourth Amendment: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears – People For the American Way

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties.

Trump 11th Circuit judge Kevin Newsom casts the deciding vote to reject the exclusionary rule despite acknowledging that an individuals Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

In U.S. v. Taylor, the FBI submitted an application for a search warrant in the Eastern District of Virginia. It sought permission to use a computer code known as National Investigative Technique (NIT) to enable the FBI to unmask anonymous or untraceable internet users. The FBI had reason to believe that evidence of child pornography related crimes was contained on property located in the Eastern District of Virginia. Not long after the warrant was granted, the FBI identified James Taylor as a computer user who accessed images of child pornography. His computer was located in Birmingham, Ala., outside of the Eastern District of Virginia. A magistrate judge in Alabama authorized a search of Taylors home, where a laptop, a hard drive and a USB drive were seized.

Taylor was charged with receiving, possessing and accessing child pornography. In district court, Taylor sought to suppress the evidence, claiming the NIT warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He argued the warrant authorized a search of property located in the Eastern District of Virginia, not a nationwide search of property. The government argued that the warrant was a tracking device warrant allowing them to track the movements of a person, rather than authorizing just a search of a specific district. The governments argument was rejected as neither the warrant application nor any attached documents to the application mentioned the term tracking device.

Despite finding that Taylors Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the district court did not suppress the evidence because the court determined that the search fell within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Taylor appealed.

The majority affirmed the district courts ruling, concluding that although the NIT search warrant violated Taylors Fourth Amendment rights, it did not see any value in suppressing the evidence.

Judge Gerald Tjoflat strongly disagreed, explaining that the warrant process is premised on the good faith of law enforcement. If law enforcement officials are permitted to deliberately or recklessly include false representations in the warrant application and mislead the magistrate, then that would neuter the Fourth Amendment. He went on to say, I recognize that my decision would have an unfortunate result but such a result is the price to pay to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of the public.

More:

Trump Judge Rejects Exclusionary Rule in Violation of the Fourth Amendment: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People For the American Way

The Week in Tech: Why Californians Have Better Privacy Protections – The New York Times

Each week, we review the weeks news, offering analysis about the most important developments in the tech industry.

Greetings from New York Times HQ in Midtown Manhattan. Im Natasha Singer, a tech reporter covering privacy, and Im bringing you the weeks tech news.

While many eyes were focused on the impeachment saga playing out in Washington, one person in San Francisco was taking on the entire tech industry. Again.

In 2017, Alastair Mactaggart, a wealthy real estate developer, founded and started financing a push for data rights for Californians. The effort led California lawmakers to enact the nations most comprehensive state consumer privacy law last year. Ever since then, tech companies and industry groups have maneuvered to water down its consumer protections.

Now Mr. Mactaggart is back with a new campaign.

Hes starting a ballot initiative that would amend the new law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, which takes effect on Jan. 1. He wants broader data control rights for Californians and new requirements on companies.

Among other things, his amendments would triple the laws fines for violations of childrens privacy.

The ballot initiative also has a political component. It would require companies that profited from using Californians personal data for election influence campaigns to disclose their practices to consumers and the state authorities.

When it comes to privacy protections, it seems, Californians have a big advantage over many other Americans. And not just because California was the first state to pass laws requiring companies to disclose data breaches and the first to grant minors the right to erase their online posts and photos.

The privacy laws illustrate differing governmental views on citizens rights.

The United States Constitution, for instance, does not explicitly grant an inalienable right to privacy. Although the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable government searches and seizure, it does not safeguard us against intrusive and ubiquitous snooping by tech giants and other corporations.

The Constitution of California, however, grants a right to privacy putting it on equal footing with the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The Charter of European Union goes even further. It recognizes privacy and, separately, the protection of personal data as fundamental human rights.

If you think about our other fundamental rights as a country, no one is spending millions and millions of dollars trying to undermine the First Amendment or the freedom of religion, Mr. Mactaggart told me. But people are actually spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to undermine privacy because theres so much money in it for corporations.

For more practical tips on protecting your privacy, read my colleague Brian X. Chens new column on how to use Apples new privacy tools.

While Mr. Mactaggart was working to expand the right to privacy in California, Europes highest court issued landmark decisions narrowing it.

The rulings involved a law, popularly known as the right to be forgotten, which gives people in the European Union a legal means to delete certain personal information about them online. In practical terms, that means Europeans can use their right to be forgotten to require Google and other search engines to delete links to news articles or sites containing personal details about them that are outdated, inaccurate or not in the public interest.

But on Tuesday, as my colleague Adam Satariano reported from London, the European Court of Justice ruled that the right to be forgotten does not apply outside the European Union. The court also said the right to delete certain personal data must be balanced against the publics right to know.

The ruling was a victory for Google and other search engines, Adam wrote. It means that the tech giant will not be required to take down links outside the European Union. It may also give Google and other companies more leeway to refuse certain deletion requests in the name of the public interest.

But defending the publics right to know can also have intended consequences.

In a riveting article, Adam profiled a journalist in Italy, Alessandro Biancardi, who lost a legal battle to preserve an article about a pair of brawling brothers. The story covered the stabbing of one brother by another at a seaside restaurant.

The brother who was stabbed wanted the article about the incident deleted and sued the journalist, citing his right to be forgotten, Adam reported. The journalist, however, refused to take down the article.

The European courts new ruling limiting the right to be forgotten may help local publications in the European Union defend and preserve such news coverage.

But for Mr. Biancardi, it is too late.

The journalist lost the lawsuit over the article about the brawling brothers. Faced with many other privacy and article-deletion demands, including 40 lawsuits, Mr. Biancardi shut down his news site last year.

Wed love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to bits_newsletter@nytimes.com.

Forward it to your friends, and let them know they can sign up here.

The rest is here:

The Week in Tech: Why Californians Have Better Privacy Protections - The New York Times

Host of Mequon teen party wins ruling in case over police raid – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Two Mequon police officers investigating a possible underage drinking party violated the host's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and could be held liable for damages, a federal judge has ruled.

An anonymous caller told police that a 2015 Halloween party in Gazebo Hills involved minors drinking alcohol. When officers arrived, they saw five cars, and youths inside through the front window, butno one would answer their knocks or calls.

Officers Matthew Schossow and Kristin Sudinski-Toryfterthen took a pathway to a secluded backyard patio area. Peeking through a slit in the closed blinds of awindow, they saw an open vodka bottle and a beer can. They used that information to get a search warrant and around 1:30 a.m., theyentered the home.

By then, 17 officers had responded to the area.

The original eight guests all Homestead High School football players did not have any alcohol on their breath, but four other minorswho had shown up later did. The host, John Reardon, was cited, but his ticketwas later dismissed. Three of the other minors got tickets for underage drinking.

In 2018, he and his father, Todd Michael Reardon, sued the city and several officers in federal court. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller found that the initial officers violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches when they went to the rear yard and looked into a window.

And since the information they obtained by doing so that there was open alcohol inside was a key element in their request for a search warrant, the warrant itself was invalid and the entrance and search pursuant to that warrant unconstitutional.

Lawyers for the officers argued that they did not need a warrant to go in the backyard because they were securing the perimeter, "a legitimate law enforcement objective." But Stadtmueller said the case law does not support such a broad exception to the warrant requirement.

"Nor could it: such a holding would gut the Fourth Amendment of its protections, and result in routine circumvention of the warrant process," he wrote.

Stadtmueller also found, however, that the city could not be held liable for the officers' actions because there was no evidence that Mequon's crackdown on underage drinking parties was "the moving force behind the officers decision to unlawfully search the home and curtilage without securing a valid warrant."

"This claim will proceed to trial on the issue of damages for the direct Fourth Amendment claims against Toryfter and Schossow only, however nominal those damages may be," Stadtmueller's order reads.

ContactBruce Vielmetti at (414) 224-2187or bvielmetti@jrn.com. Followhim on Twitter at @ProofHearsay.

Our subscribers make this coverage possible. Subscribe to the Journal Sentinel today at jsonline.com/deal.

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2019/09/24/judge-says-officers-violated-rights-investigating-teen-drinking-party/2431156001/

Read more:

Host of Mequon teen party wins ruling in case over police raid - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Officer, Who Arrested a Photographer for Taking Photos in Public, Has Their Qualified Immunity Claim Rejected – Fstoppers

A ray of hope for the future for those who record public events and news materials, as "federal appeals court has rejected a qualified immunity claim by a Dallas transit cop, whoarresteda freelance photographer for criminal trespass in 2016 because he was taking pictures at a train station."

Undoubtedly, both street photography and photojournalismhas become harder to exercise in public spaces and properties, pushing boundaries between what is legal and what is moral. However, when it comes to legalities, freelance photographer in Dallas, Avi Adelman, can celebrate as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that "no reasonable officer under these circumstances would conclude that she had authority to eject a person complying with DART [Dallas Area Rapid Transit] policies from public propertyand then arrest that person for criminal trespass when he failed to depart".

The situation unfolded in 2016 when Adelman heard a report of an incident at DART'sRosa Parks Plaza station and decided to head there to document the story. Upon arrival, he was faced with Dallas Fire/Rescue paramedics attending to a man, who was lying on the ground, and Adelman began to photograph it but was confronted by DART Officer Stephanie Branch who ordered him to stop. Although Adelman explained that he had a right to photograph public events as long as he doesn't interfere with police or emergency responders, Branch ordered that he leaves the area, and when he refused to do so, she grabbed and handcuffed him.

Adelman was forced to spend that night in jail, but criminal trespass charge was dropped against him after DART concluded that there was a lack of probable cause for Branch to arrest the photographer. In fact, Adelman's arrest had violated a "Photography Policy" that DART adopted in June 2014, where"Persons may take photographic or video images of DART Property, including but not limited to stations, buses, trains, or other vehicles, for their personal use." Furthermore, policy read that"Persons taking photographic or video images must not interfere with transportation or public safety activity while taking images. DART Police Officers may initiate an inquiry or investigation when photography or videotaping activity is suspicious in nature or inconsistent with this policy."

The arresting officer Branch had been on a medical leave from May 2014 to January 2016, thus she claimed she had missed the memo.However, going through the audio that DART had captured that day, it revealed that everyone involved in dealing with the incident had understood that Adelman was not doing anything wrong at the scene. To make matters worse, an investigation led by the DART Police Office of Professional Standards revealed that Branch had made 23 "false or inaccurate statements" about the photographers' arrest, such as claiming that he was stood too close to the paramedics, who according to her lie wanted him to step back. Following this, she was suspended for three days.

After Adelman sued the officer and DART in September 2016, a federal judge concluded that,although Branch was "entitled to qualified immunity against his claim that she had violated his First Amendment rights", the same didn't apply regarding his Fourth Amendment claim. In this regard, based on the lack of probable cause for his arrest, the judge concluded that"the evidence demonstrates at least a fact issue regarding the element of reasonableness."

The Fifth Circuit was in favor of Adelmanhaving the right to pursue his Fourth Amendment claim, noting that "no reasonable officer would conclude that she has probable cause to arrest someone for criminal trespass after that person refuses to follow her instructions to leave when she lacks the authority to exclude the person from the property." They also rejected her claim that she didn't know any better because it wasn't due to misunderstanding or misinterpreting a policy but rather because she simply hadn't learned DART's updated policy, concluding that "an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws [s]he is duty-bound to enforce."

Although the same laws and policies do not transfer across the rest of the world, it is satisfying to see that there are situations where photographers are able to pursue their rights. Unfortunately, there are many stories where others haven't been as fortunate, both involving those whose job is to upholdthe laws and random passers by who take matters in their own hands. It may be a drop in the ocean, but Adelman'spersistence and knowledge of laws gives a hope for future cases involving both professional photojournalists and street photographers who simply want to record today's social history. If you want to read more about how this case develops, visit thisdesignated website.

Have you ever encountered a situation where you have been forced to stop photographing? Were you in the right? Share your story with us.

Lead image by Matthew105601 used under Creative Commons.

Read this article:

Officer, Who Arrested a Photographer for Taking Photos in Public, Has Their Qualified Immunity Claim Rejected - Fstoppers

Utah and other states try to combat increase of child sex abuse online – Salt Lake Tribune

The images are horrific. Children, some just 3 or 4 years old, being sexually abused and in some cases tortured.

Pictures of child sexual abuse have long been produced and shared, but it has never been like this: Technology companies reported a record 45 million online photos and videos of the abuse last year.

More than a decade ago, when the reported number was less than 1 million, the proliferation of the explicit imagery had already reached a crisis point. Tech companies, law enforcement agencies and legislators in Washington responded, committing to new measures meant to rein in the scourge. Landmark legislation passed in 2008.

Yet the explosion in detected content kept growing exponentially.

An investigation by The New York Times found an insatiable criminal underworld that had exploited the flawed and insufficient efforts to contain it.

A paper recently published in conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children described a system at a breaking point, with reports of abusive images exceeding the capabilities of independent clearinghouses and law enforcement to take action. It suggested that future advancements in machine learning might be the only way to catch up with criminals.

In interviews, victims across the United States described in heart-wrenching detail how their lives had been upended by the abuse. Many of the survivors and their families said their view of humanity had been inextricably changed by the crimes themselves and the online demand for images of them.

I dont really know how to deal with it, said one woman who, at age 11, had been filmed being sexually assaulted by her father. Youre just trying to feel OK and not let something like this define your whole life. But the thing with the pictures is thats the thing that keeps this alive.

The Times reporting revealed a problem global in scope but one firmly rooted in the United States because of the central role Silicon Valley has played in facilitating the imagerys spread and in reporting it to authorities. While the material, commonly known as child pornography, predates the digital era, smartphone cameras, social media and cloud storage have allowed images to multiply at an alarming rate.

In a particularly disturbing trend, online groups are devoting themselves to sharing images of younger children and more extreme forms of abuse. The groups use encrypted technologies and the dark web, the vast underbelly of the internet, to teach pedophiles how to carry out the crimes and how to record and share images of the abuse worldwide.

After years of uneven monitoring of the material, several major tech companies stepped up surveillance of their platforms. Executives with some companies pointed to the voluntary monitoring and the spike in reports as indications of their commitment to addressing the problem.

But police records and emails, as well as interviews with local, state and federal law enforcement officials, show that some tech companies still fall short. It can take weeks or months for them to respond to questions from authorities, if they respond at all. Sometimes they respond only to say they have no records, even for reports they initiated.

And when tech companies cooperate fully, encryption and anonymization can create digital hiding places for perpetrators. Facebook announced in March plans to encrypt Messenger, which last year was responsible for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse material, according to people familiar with the reports. Reports to authorities typically contain more than one image, and last year encompassed the record 45 million photos and videos.

The law Congress passed in 2008 foresaw many of todays problems, but the Times found that the federal government had not fulfilled major aspects of the legislation.

The Justice Department has produced just two of six required reports to compile data about internet crimes against children and set goals to eliminate them, and there has been a constant churn of short-term appointees leading the departments efforts.

The federal government has also not lived up to the laws funding goals. Congress has regularly allocated about half of the $60 million in yearly funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security this year diverted nearly $6 million from its cybercrimes units to immigration enforcement.

Further impairing the federal response are shortcomings at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which reviews reports it receives and then distributes them to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as international partners.

The nonprofit center has relied in large measure on 20-year-old technology, has difficulty keeping experienced engineers on staff and, by its own reckoning, regards stopping the online distribution of photos and videos secondary to rescuing children.

The videos found on the computer of an Ohio man and site administrator named Jason Gmoser were described by investigators as among the most gruesome and violent images of child pornography. The videos were stored in a hidden computer file and had also been encrypted.

Increasingly, criminals are using advanced technologies like encryption to stay ahead of police. In this case, the Ohio man, who helped run a website on the dark web known as the Love Zone, had more than 3 million photos and videos on his computers.

The site, now shuttered, had nearly 30,000 members and required them to share images of abuse to maintain good standing, according to court documents. A private section of the forum was available only to members who shared imagery of children they abused themselves.

Multiple police investigations have broken up enormous dark web forums, including one known as Childs Play that was reported to have had over 1 million user accounts.

Offenders can cover their tracks by connecting to virtual private networks, which mask their locations; deploying encryption techniques, which can hide their messages and make their hard drives impenetrable; and posting on the dark web, which is inaccessible to conventional browsers.

The anonymity offered by the sites emboldens members to post images of very young children being sexually abused, and in increasingly extreme and violent forms.

Exhibits in the Love Zone case include screenshots showing the forum had dedicated areas where users discussed ways to remain safe while posting and downloading imagery.

Testimony in Gmosers criminal case revealed that it would have taken authorities trillions of years to crack the 41-character password he had used to encrypt the site. He eventually turned it over and was sentenced to life in prison in 2016.

Truly Terrible Things

The surge in criminal activity on the dark web accounted for only a fraction of the 18.4 million reports of abuse last year. That number originates almost entirely with tech companies based in the United States.

Companies have known for years that their platforms were being co-opted by predators, but many of them essentially looked the other way. And while many companies have made recent progress in identifying the material, they were slow to respond.

The recent surge by tech companies in filing reports of online abuse wouldnt exist if they did their job then, said Hemanshu Nigam, a former federal prosecutor in cybercrime and child exploitation cases who now runs a cybersecurity consulting firm.

The companies knew the house was full of roaches, and they were scared to turn the lights on, said Hany Farid, who worked with Microsoft to develop technology in 2009 for detecting child sexual abuse material. And then when they did turn the lights on, it was worse than they thought.

Federal law requires companies to preserve material about their reports of abuse imagery for 90 days. But given the overwhelming number of reports, it is not uncommon for requests from authorities to reach companies too late.

Most tech companies have been quick to respond to urgent inquiries, but responses in other cases vary significantly. Police officers in Missouri, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin pointed to Tumblr, a blogging and social networking site with 470 million users, as one of the most problematic companies, lamenting Tumblrs poor response to requests.

Law enforcement officials also pointed to problems with Microsofts Bing search engine, and Snap, the parent company of the social network Snapchat. Bing was said to regularly submit reports that lacked essential information, making investigations difficult. Snapchat is engineered to delete most of its content within a short period of time.

Facebook has long known about abusive images on its platforms, including a video of a man sexually assaulting a 6-year-old that went viral last year on Messenger. When Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks chief executive, announced in March that Messenger would move to encryption, he acknowledged the risk it presented for truly terrible things like child exploitation.

Annual funding for state and regional investigations was authorized at $60 million, but only about half of that is regularly approved. It has increased only slightly from 10 years ago when accounting for inflation. Even $60 million a year would now be vastly inadequate.

And even the most recent biennial strategy reports published by the Justice Department, in 2010 and 2016, did not include data about some of the most pressing concerns, such as trade in illicit imagery.

When the law Congress passed in 2008 was reauthorized in 2012, the coordinator role was supposed to be elevated to a senior executive position. That has not happened.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has also struggled with demands to contain the spread of the imagery.

As child exploitation has grown on the internet, the center has not kept up. The technology it uses for receiving and reviewing reports of the material was created in 1998. To perform key upgrades and help modernize the system, the group has relied on donations from tech companies like Palantir and Google.

The center has said it intends to make significant improvements to its technology starting in 2020, but the problems dont stop there. Police complain that the most urgent reports are not prioritized, or are sent to the wrong department completely. And despite its mandate by Congress, the center is not subject to public records laws and operates with little transparency.

The Times found that there was a close relationship between the center and Silicon Valley that raised questions about governance practices. The center receives both money and in-kind donations from tech companies, while employees of the same companies are sometimes members of its board. That practice, those working in the area of child protection said, could elevate the interests of tech companies above the childrens.

The close relationship with tech companies may ultimately be in jeopardy. In 2016, a federal court held that the national center, though private, qualified legally as a government entity because it performed a number of essential government functions.

If that view gains traction, Fourth Amendment challenges about searches and seizures by the government could change how the center operates. And under those circumstances, if they were to collaborate too closely with the center, companies could also be viewed as government actors subject to new legal requirements and court challenges when they police their own sites.

It was a sunny afternoon in July, and an unmarked police van in Salt Lake City was parked outside a pink stucco house.

At the back of the van, a man who lived in the house was seated, while officers cataloged hard drives and sifted through web histories from his computers. The man had shared sexually explicit videos online, police said.

The year was barely half over, and the team of Chief Jessica Farnsworth, an official with the Utah attorney generals office who led a raid of the house, had already conducted about 150 such raids across Utah. The specially trained group, one of 61 nationwide, coordinates responses to internet crimes against children.

The Utah group expects to arrest nearly twice as many people this year as last year, but federal funding has not kept pace. Funding for the 61 task forces from 2010 to 2018 remained relatively flat, federal data shows, while the number of leads referred to them increased by more than 400%.

Much of the federal money goes toward training new staff members because the cases take a heavy emotional and psychological toll on investigators, resulting in constant turnover.

The volume of work has also forced the task forces to make difficult choices. Some have focused on the youngest and most vulnerable victims, while others have cut back on undercover operations.

The internet is well known as a haven for hate speech, terrorism-related content and criminal activity, all of which have raised alarms and spurred public debate and action. But the problem of child sexual abuse gets scant attention because few people want to confront the enormity and horror of the content.

Some state lawmakers, judges and members of Congress have refused to discuss the problem in detail, or have avoided attending meetings and hearings, according to interviews with law enforcement officials and victims.

Steven Grocki, who leads the child exploitation and obscenity section at the Justice Department, said the reluctance was a societal problem. They turn away from it because its too ugly of a mirror, he said.

While the imagery is often defined as child pornography, experts prefer terms like child sexual abuse imagery or child exploitation material to underscore the seriousness of the crimes and to avoid conflating it with adult pornography.

Each and every image is a depiction of a crime in progress, said Sgt. Jeff Swanson, a task force commander in Kansas. The violence inflicted on these kids is unimaginable.

More here:

Utah and other states try to combat increase of child sex abuse online - Salt Lake Tribune

The Fair Pay to Play Act Presents NCAA With a New Kind of Legal Threat – The Ringer

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that could hasten the end of the college sports amateurism model. SB 206, more commonly known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, was unanimously passed by the states assembly (73-0, with six no votes recorded) and senate (39-0, with one no vote recorded) in mid-September. Newsom announced Monday that he signed it into law on The Shop, LeBron Jamess television show, a precedent I would like to be upheld in all future signings of state legislation:

The bills premise is straightforward. Beginning in January 2023, it is set to give student-athletes at colleges and universities in California the right to negotiate deals with third parties over the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL). The NCAA has previously faced lawsuits over the usage of names, images, and likenesses, most notably in the OBannon v. NCAA case that prompted the organization to stop licensing EA Sports college-sports video game series. Yet this bill comes at the NCAA from the state level, using a legislative tactic the association hasnt yet encountered.

While opponents of SB 206 have been fervent in exclaiming how the bill will lead to the decay of college sports (and, gasp, all of society!) as we know it, its actually more limited in scope than previous attempts to blow up the NCAAs amateurism model. The bill isnt seeking to designate student-athletes as employees or force colleges and universities to pay them via salaries or a trust. It isnt trying to reconfigure the much-debated value of an athletic scholarship. It is merely set to bar institutions from stripping any athletes scholarship or eligibility over getting paid to sign autographs, appear in commercials, endorse products, and the like. Its aiming to adopt whats been referred to as the Olympic model. If a similar bill were passed on a national scale, EA Sports could pay athletes to use their likenesses in college-sports video games, as the company has wanted to since 2014. The NCAA has argued that fans only wanted to play as generic college teams; five years of fans obsessively updating rosters to keep them current stand as pretty strong evidence that fans care about the players too.

This is a major domino in the ongoing battle to secure fair compensation for college athletesand it could prove successful largely because of its limited scope. The biggest hurdle in the fight to do away with college sports amateurism is that the boiler-plate argument against it has always sounded reasonable. I dont see why schools should have to pay their players, says the man hosting the talk radio show, the man calling into the radio show, your mom, the friend-of-a-friend who attended your tailgate, and Mark Emmert, the NCAA president who gets paid more than $2 million annually to parrot this idea. Dont they already get scholarships?

I could spend a few paragraphs laying out why I believe student-athletes deserve more: the gargantuan sums of money their performances generate for schools in a billion-dollar industry; the way the NCAA has struck deals with the NBA and NFL that effectively force athletes into amateur ball even if theyre ready for the pros; the lack of accountability colleges face to pay for long-term injury treatment for athletes who are injured on scholarship; the skyrocketing salaries of coaches and athletic directors; and the lie of telling athletes that a degree will provide future financial security when they are often shepherded into the easiest, least useful classes so they can retain their eligibility. But to many, the mountains of evidence that athletes arent getting a fair shake cannot defeat the sheer simplicity of the counter: Dont they already get scholarships? Americans sacrifice so much to pay for college that its hard to sell people on the notion that student-athletes are stuck with the short end of the stick by only receiving a scholarship.

In the debate over NIL rights, however, the situation is flipped. Even if you see the play-for-scholarship exchange as fair, it still requires extensive and hypocritical mental gymnastics to contend that the NCAA should be able to prevent its athletes from partaking in other fair exchanges. This money wouldnt even come from the schoolswere talking about outside parties paying players for additional services off the field. Any other college student with a few thousand Instagram followers can get paid for posting a picture with a product; why cant a student-athlete sell a song or monetize his popular YouTube channel just because hes an athlete?

The NCAA has never had a particularly good answer for this, because its motivation for outlawing players from profiting off their names, images, and likenesses has always been cynical. While the schools that make up the NCAA would technically have nothing to lose from an athlete appearing in an outside adthe advertiser, after all, would pay in such a scenariothe association fears a slippery slope. If individual advertisers determine that individual athletes have monetary value, the NCAAs carefully crafted legal argument that fans watch college sports solely because of their attachment to universities would begin to crumble.

In that respect, the Fair Pay to Play Acts argument against the NCAAs amateurism model isnt new. By making it in a creative and hyperfocused way, however, it poses a major threat to an organization that doesnt seem to have to the logic to convincingly defend itself.

Ive heard three primary arguments as to why student-athletes shouldnt be able to collect money off their names, images, and likenesses. The first is that it would tip the competitive balance of major college sports, especially football and mens basketball, in favor of deep-pocketed schools whose boosters would shell out colossal piles of cash for prized athletes to sign autographs or appear in ads. For one thing, this isnt the governments problem. I believe the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens rights arent trampled by multibillion-dollar corporations, such as the NCAA. I dont believe the government has a comparable interest in ensuring that two college sports programs have an equal shot at landing a five-star recruit. And for another, college sports dont offer an even playing field as it is. Even if we ignore the reality that bag men are already giving large sums of money to recruits, the ability for students to appear in commercials is not going to be the thing that pushes Clemson over the hump in its football games against Wake Forest. (I do, however, want to watch Trevor Lawrence do shampoo ads. Hed be a natural.)

The second argument is that this bill would undermine Title IX, because mens football and womens volleyball players, for example, would likely bring in disproportionate levels of pay via endorsement deals. This also doesnt hold water. Since the money wouldnt come from the schools, the colleges and universities wouldnt be funding mens and womens athletics differently than they are now, meaning that Title IX would be unaffected.

The third argumentthe one preferred and pushed by Emmertis that very few athletes would benefit from the ability to market themselves. Even if this is true, why should the NCAA oppose a rule that would be good for a few people and bad for nobody? (I guess it would go against the NCAAs typical strategy of having rules that help a few people and hurt a lot of people.)

If the NCAA had a coherent argument for opposing this bill, it would have made it consistently. Instead, the organizations response to SB 206 has rapidly changed. When the bill was passed by Californias senate, the NCAA wrote a letter to Governor Newsom claiming that it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics, and lead to the states schools becoming exempt from participating in NCAA events. The letter, signed by Emmert, 17 university presidents, a former White House chief of staff, and, for some reason, Grant Hill, said that the bill was harmful and, we believe, unconstitutional. (As we all know, the Fourth Amendment outlaws unreasonable search and seizure and also decrees that all college sports teams should have the same chance to succeed.) Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith added that his school would stop scheduling California institutions, since he saw no way in which they could remain in the NCAA with this law in place.

On Monday, the NCAAs response to Newsoms signing the bill was discernibly more measured. The association released a statement that said the new law had caused confusionexactly what type of confusion is left unspecifiedand expressed concern that a patchwork of different laws across multiple states could potentially make its goal unattainable. The statement also said that improvement needs to happen on a national level and suggested that the organization could reconsider its own NIL rules to come up with versions that are realistic in modern society. In a little less than a month, the NCAAs stance on the bill has morphed from claiming imminent doom and gloom to conceding that a national law would make more sense than individual ones in all 50 states. Perhaps this is intended to dissuade other state legislatures from following suit. I interpret it as a damn good argument for Congress to act on a bill that will likely drum up support from both sides of the aisle.

The rise of this California bill has exposed a few truths about the NCAA. The first is that we should always remember this organization has as much legal authority when it comes to rulemaking as a board game inventor. Its illegal for an athlete to receive a huge payment from a booster in the same way its illegal for you to collect $1,000 in Monopoly money when passing go. Sure, the NCAA makes rules for how its member institutions should operate, and if you break those rules the NCAA could prevent your school from playing in a prestigious tournament or a bowl game. But its the government that actually makes and enacts laws. Sometimes this can get confusing, because the NCAA has previously tried to punish schools that break laws (like when it issued sanctions against Penn State for its officials failure to report the crimes of Jerry Sandusky) and because courts and federal agencies have previously decided to enforce NCAA laws (like the FBIs attempt to crack down on corruption in college basketball). When a state government passes a law asserting jurisdiction over how college athletics works, though, the NCAA can do little else besides whine and hide.

The second is that even the NCAA knows its arguments are flimsy. This is an organization that generates roughly a billion dollars per year and will continue to do so as long as its extremely precarious legal standing holds. For this reason, the NCAA will scream, hiss, and claim that the world is on fire when it encounters any threat to its position. However, when pushed, it has to acknowledge that it was making a big fuss over nothing.

In and of itself, the California bill doesnt change a lot. It will make college athletics more sensible in one state beginning four years from now. Yet it proves that the NCAA will treat even its least defensible stances as if Moses carried them down Sinai, when in reality the associations rules were put in place by greedy bureaucrats for the purpose of hoarding ever-increasing stacks of cash. If the NCAA gives way on name, image, and likeness rights and college sports continue existing in roughly the same fashion that they always have, something else will be made clear: This is all just posturing. Treat the NCAA like a toddler with a paper cut, and remember that the sheer volume of complaints does not reflect the severity of its situation.

Read more:

The Fair Pay to Play Act Presents NCAA With a New Kind of Legal Threat - The Ringer

So You Think You Know the Constitution? – Project On Government Oversight

The Constitution is central to the American political identity, so its at the heart of a lot of conversations not just about the law and politics, but how we go about our lives every day. However, sometimes the facts about our founding charter get distorted in the ensuing game of telephone. This Constitution Day, we are taking a look at some common misconceptions about the Constitution and what the document really says.

The First Amendment protects your speech from being shut down or limited by companies.

Not really. The First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting your right to freedom of speech. That means private companies can restrict what you say, and penalize or fire you for speech they dont like. It also means social media companies like Facebook can set whatever rules and limits they want for speech on their platforms, and block certain types of speech or kick off users as they choose. The Supreme Court has set some limits on speech restrictions directed at government employees, but has done so on the basis that the First Amendment protects speech from restrictions set by the government, not by an employer per se.

Falsely yelling fire! in a crowded theater is never protected by the First Amendment.

It depends. This famous and often-used example comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, which set a standard that the First Amendment did not protect speech that created a clear and present danger. However, in the 100 years since Schenck, this standard has evolved and is now more rigorous: In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the mere likelihood of creating imminent harm doesnt put speech beyond First Amendment protectionsspeech also has to be directed to inciting or producing imminent unlawful action in order to not be protected. Justice William Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion for the case about the example of falsely shouting fire! in a crowded theater, emphasizing that the intent to cause a specific outcome, rather than what is said, is the critical factor.

The police cant lie to you.

The Fifth Amendment provides you the right not to speak to police, even during a formal interrogation, but it doesnt limit what the police can say to you. Although it can have a coercive effect and increases the potential for false confessions, the Constitutions protection for due process (which the Supreme Court has ruled includes a prohibition on the government using involuntaryconfessions as evidence) does not stop police from lying to you, either in the field (yes, it turns out all those TV characters saying Are you a cop? You have to tell me if youre a cop! arent giving sound legal advice) or during a formal interrogation. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that police are allowed to lie to a suspect about whether their associate confessed, or the existence of forensic evidence such as fingerprints.

The word slavery appears in the Constitution numerous times before the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

In fact, the firstmention of the word slavery is in the 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865), despite the existence of slavery since the 1500s in settlements that would become part of the United States and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. This may seem shocking since when the Constitution was created, more than 500,000 people were enslaved in the United Statesmany of them owned by the signers of our nations founding document. So how did the Constitution manage to evade mention of slavery for so long? Cunningly ambiguous wording. Take, for example, the infamous three-fifths compromise. Article I, Section 2, in apportioning seats among the states for representation in the House of Representatives, states that

Eleven clauses of the Constitution directly address slavery or hold implications for slavery, including provisions that prohibited Congress from abolishing the slave trade (Article I, Section 9) and required fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners (Article IV, Section 2). But each of these provisions was deftly crafted to avoid direct mention of the abominable institution of slavery, instead using euphemisms like other persons.

The president is the countrys commander in chief, and Congress cannot limit their authority in wartime.

Not really. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. The president does not have command power over ordinary citizensand more importantly, Congress has as much authority as the president over matters of war and peace. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war; make rules related to wartime captures; raise, support, and make rules for governing an army and navy; and to define and set punishments for offenses against international laws and treaties. The Senate must also consent to treaties.

Youll find checks and balances mentioned throughout the Constitution.

No, but you will find the concept woven into the structure of our constitutional democracy. The phrase is shorthand for the myriad mechanisms the Constitution sets out to ensure that each branch of governmentexecutive, legislative, and judicialserves as a check on the other, to guard against the accumulation of power into a single entity of our government. One example is that the power of Congress to legislate is checked by the veto power of the president. Another example is that the framers of the Constitution established the House of Representatives in Article I as a large body, in part to guard against corruption in the Senate, as it was believed that senators may be more susceptible to special interests (rather than the public interest) because of their small number.

Non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution.

No. The bill of rights refers to persons, not citizens, and most fundamental constitutional rights apply to all people within the United States. The major exception to this is the right to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments (which extended the right to vote to racial minorities and women, respectively), the 26th Amendment (which lowered the voting age to 18), and the 24th Amendment (which abolished the poll tax) only apply to U.S. citizens. The Constitution also contains citizenship requirements for members of Congress and the president.

Presidents can pardon anyone convicted of a crime.

The presidential pardon power is broad, but it only applies to federal crimes. So the roughly 1.3 million peoplein state prisonsby far the majority of prisoners nationwideare beyond the reach of the power. Theres also an open question about whether there are any situations in which a president cant pardon a federal offense. The Supreme Court has left the door open to the idea that other parts of the Constitution could limit the power, and some scholars and advocates have argued that the power does not allow self-pardons or pardons that cover up a presidents own wrongdoing.

The Constitution doesnt contain a right to privacy.

Although it doesnt include the word privacy, it is a basic tenet of our Constitution that the Fourth Amendment provides a right to privacy from excess government surveillance and intrusions. The Fourth Amendment goes far beyond just warrantsits prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures provides a range of privacy protections against intrusions in different situations. And as weve written, the Fourth Amendments guarantee that individuals will be secure in their persons goes beyond preventing the police from sifting through your pockets at will. It means we have a basic privacy right that limits how much the government can track the sensitive activities and associations in our lives.

The Constitution defines treason as spying for or providing aid to a foreign country, and makes the offense punishable by death.

No. The Constitution limits the definition of treason as follows:

It leaves it to Congress to set the punishment for the crime. Someone has to intentionally help an enemy of the country to commit treason, and enemies refers only to actual wartime enemies of the United Stateswhich is why most famous Cold War spies, from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to Robert Hanssen, were convicted of espionage rather than treason.

View original post here:

So You Think You Know the Constitution? - Project On Government Oversight

Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge – Fox News

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.**

On the roster: Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge - Ill Tell You What: An adorable roast - Congress digs into Trumps alleged improper promise -Netanyahu comes up short, scrambles for survival-Arrrrrrrrrr you ready, kids?

VOTERS FIRED UP, BUT DEMS KEEP THE EDGEFox News:Fifty-nine percent of voters are extremely interested in the 2020 presidential election. Thats a number typically only seen right before an election. Its 27 points higher than around this same time in the last presidential cycle -- and only one point off the record 60 percent extremely interested the week before Election Day in 2008. In addition, more Democrats (65 percent) than Republicans (60 percent) are extremely interested in the election and more Democrats (69 percent) than Republicans (63 percent) are extremely motivated about voting in 2020. That helps Democratic candidates top President Donald Trump in potential head-to-head matchups. Joe Biden continues to perform best of the Democratic candidates tested, according to a new Fox News Poll. He has the biggest lead over Trump (+14 points), is the only one to receive 50 percent support, and the only one to keep Trump under 40 percent (52-38 percent).

Fox poll shows Bernie boost -Fox News:Biden captures the support of 29 percent of Democratic primary voters, according to a new Fox News Poll. Thats down 2 points since last month and down 6 points since May, when he was at a high of 35 percent support. [Bernie] Sanders climbs back into second with 18 percent (up 8 points since August), followed by Elizabeth Warren at 16 percent (down 4), forming the clearest top three candidate tier seen in this race to date.The next tier includes Kamala Harris at 7 percent, Pete Buttigieg at 5 percent, Beto ORourke at 4 percent, Cory Booker at 3 percent, and both Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar at 2 percent.

Bernie shook up Iowa team too -WaPo:Sen.Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) parted ways with his Iowa political director in recent weeks, his campaign confirmed Wednesday, part of a series of staff shake-ups in key early states. The campaign announced in March thatJess Mazourwould be political director in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, part of a first wave of early state hires. She is no longer on the team. Well continue to make moves that we feel best position this campaign to win, Sanders campaign managerFaiz Shakirsaid in a written statement after The Washington Post reached out to the campaign about the matter. A campaign official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation said Mazour was let go in late summer and has not been replaced. Mazour, who was a high-ranking campaign aide but not the director of the Iowa effort, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The campaign did not publicly announce her departure at the time.

Harried Harris tries to turn it around in Iowa -Politico:Kamala Harris is putting her stumbling campaign on the line with a new Iowa-or-bust strategy: She's shifting away from the closed-door fundraisers that dominated her summer calendar to focus on retail politicking in the crucial kickoff state. Harris huddled with top campaign officials Tuesday in Baltimore to discuss the next steps as a series of polls show her plummeting into the mid-single digits. She's not expected to significantly alter her message. Instead, Harris is planning to make weekly visits to the state and nearly double the size of her 65-person ground operation, sources familiar with the discussions told POLITICO. The re-engagement in Iowa where the California senator held a 17-stop bus tour in August but hasnt returned since is part of a broader acknowledgment inside the campaign that she hasnt been in the early states enough. It's designed to refocus her campaign and clarify her narrowing path to the nomination.

THE RULEBOOK: WHY WERE HEREIt is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. James Madison,Federalist No. 45

TIME OUT: ZIP ITWriterAmos Barshadoffers a concise fashion history of the few clothing items to truly transcend the social strata: the track suit.New Yorker: Adidas launched its now internationally renowned tracksuit in 1967, with an ad campaign starring the West German soccer legendFranz Beckenbauer.Joanne Turney, a professor of fashion at the University of Southamptons Winchester School of Art, has tracked the American embrace of the tracksuit toJames F. Fixxs The Complete Book of Running, from 1977, which became a best-seller. Fixx evangelized running as life extension, Turney explains in her book Fashion Crimes. This put the runner, in his tracksuit, in a God-like role, both man and superman, ego and super-ego, performing a Foucaultian battle that will ultimately result in the mastery of the mind over the weakness of the flesh. By the early eighties, acts from the Bronx and from Hollis, Queens, had made the tracksuit the uniform of hip-hop.

Flag on the play? -Email us atHALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMwith your tips, comments or questions.

SCOREBOARDDEMOCRATIC 2020 POWER RANKINGBiden:28.2 pointsWarren:20.2 pointsSanders:16 pointsHarris:6.6 pointsButtigieg:5.4 points[Averages include: Fox News, NBC News/WSJ, CNN, ABC News/WaPo and IBD.]

TRUMP JOB PERFORMANCEAverage approval:41.4 percentAverage disapproval:54.2 percentNet Score:-12.8 percentChange from one week ago:up 2 points[Average includes: Gallup: 43% approve - 54% disapprove; NPR/PBS/Marist: 41% approve - 54% disapprove; CNN: 42% approve - 54% disapprove; ABC News/WaPo: 40% approve - 55% disapprove; IBD: 39% approve - 55% disapprove.]

WANT MORE HALFTIME REPORT?You can join Chris and Brianna every day on Fox Nation. Go behind-the-scenes of your favorite political note as they go through the must-read headlines of the day right from their office with plenty of personality.Click hereto sign up and watch!

ILL TELL YOU WHAT: AN ADORABLE ROASTThis weekDana PerinoandChrisStirewaltdiscuss the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates, Dana explains why she was late to the podcast taping and Chris answers some failed campaign slogan trivia.LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE HERE

CONGRESS DIGS INTO TRUMPS ALLEGED IMPROPER PROMISEWaPo:The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trumps communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter. Trumps interaction with the foreign leader included a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the presidents handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

Trump denies -Politico: It never ends! Trump wrote, complaining in another tweet that the explosive allegations were yet another example of Presidential Harassment! The presidents denial came as the intelligence community's inspector general briefed members of the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Its existence first came to light earlier this week when committee ChairmanAdam Schiff(D-Calif.) demanded it be turned over to Congress.

KENNEDY-MARKEY PRIMARY LOOKS TO BE A DONNYBROOKPolitico:Rep.Joe Kennedy IIIwill challenge Sen.Ed Markeyfor his Senate seat in 2020, setting up a Democratic primary battle that has the potential to divide the Massachusetts political class and draw national attention. Kennedy will formally announce his plans Saturday morning at a breakfast in East Boston, according to a source familiar with the news. In the days following the announcement, Kennedy plans to take a tour across the state, the source said. News of Kennedys announcement was first reported by the Boston Globe. Kennedy met with Markey on Wednesday afternoon to inform him of the news, according to the source. Markey and Kennedy have steered clear of one another since news broke that Kennedy was considering a challenge for the seat. Over the weekend, Kennedy held a meet-and-greet with activists after the state Democratic party's annual convention to gather input on a Senate run.

GOP frets over Kobach effect in Kansas -WSJ:Former Kansas Secretary of StateKris Kobachtrails DemocratBarry Grissomby 10 percentage points in a head-to-head matchup for Kansas' open Senate seat in 2020, according to internal GOP polling data reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The previously unpublished findings reveal why some Republicans are deeply concerned that a Kobach candidacy could cost the party a Senate seat in Kansasand why Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnellhas been pushing so hard for Secretary of StateMike Pompeo, a former congressman from Wichita, to challenge Mr. Kobach for the GOP nomination. It's laughable that anyone is taking seriously a poll on a hypothetical match-up conducted 18 months before the election and prior even to Secretary Kobach's entry into the race, saidSteve Drake, Mr. Kobach's campaign manager.

Ocasio-Cortez to face primary challenge -Fox News:Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., will have to get through a primary challenger if she wants to hold on to her seat in 2020. Democratic activistBadrun Khan, who has challenged Ocasio-Cortez for the Democratic nomination to represent New York's 14th district, says on her website that she'll provide REAL Results... Not Empty Promises -- an apparent jab at the socialist darling. When asked about Khan's challenge, Ocasio-Cortez said: I just focus on delivering for my district and doing the best job. I try not to focus too much on other folks in the field, according to The Hill. Khan filed her statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Committee in July. The website for New York City's government confirms that Khan serves on Queens Community Board 2.

NETANYAHU COMES UP SHORT, SCRAMBLES FOR SURVIVALNYT: Seizing the initiative in Israels postelection political gridlock, Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahuon Thursday called on his main rival,Benny Gantz, to meet immediately to discuss forming a government of national unity together. Mr. Netanyahu, facing a looming indictment in three corruption cases, is fighting for his political survival and, potentially, his freedom. His only chance of gaining immunity from prosecution would be to remain in the top office, though neither he nor Mr. Gantz emerged from Tuesdays election with a clear path to the premiership. Mr. Gantz had already called for a unity government, but for Mr. Netanyahu, time is of the essence. He has a special hearing with the attorney general set for Oct. 2, and charges could be filed soon after. Tuesdays redo election was Israels second in five months, after an April ballot also ended inconclusively.

Trump distances himself from longtime ally -Axios: President Trump appeared to distance himself from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today after the latters failure to win a parliamentary majority in Tuesdays elections. Trump told reporters in California that he hasnt spoken yet to Netanyahu about the election results and stressed that his administration's relations are with Israel. Those cool remarks are a blow to Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival. During his election campaign, Netanyahu used his personal relationship with Trump as an asset. Netanyahu used images of himself and Trump on billboards around the country and in campaign ads under the headline In a different league, a message intended to stress his advantage when it comes to foreign policy experience. Trump gave Netanyahu his enthusiastic backing during April's elections but offered less active public support in the run-up to this week's vote.

THE JUDGES RULING: DON'T SMILE FOR THE CAMERAThis week Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst JudgeAndrew Napolitanoexplains why police surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology threaten Americans privacy: The Fourth Amendment makes no such distinction among intelligence or law enforcement or governmental curiosity. Rather, the Fourth Amendment the essence of which is the right to be left alone was written expressly to prohibit what British police are doing to the British public and what American police and the National Security Agency are doing to the American public commencing investigations of the innocent without suspicion. The Fourth Amendment is an intentional obstacle to government, an obstacle shown necessary by history to curtail tyrants. Could the British model happen here? Digitally, it has. Could the ubiquitous cameras be far behind? Morehere.

PLAY-BY-PLAYCongress agrees to short-term spending deal, avoids Oct. 1 shutdown-Bloomberg

Erstwhile blackface enthusiastJustin Trudeaufaces campaign firestorm-The [Toronto] Star

Pergram:Cokie Roberts' important lesson-Fox News

Dems launch longshot bid for DC statehood at rare hearing-Fox News

Nebraska dumps populist Bryans statue in favor of Ponca ChiefStanding Bear-Roll Call

AUDIBLE: NAH, BROI can tell you one thing: Beto ORourkes not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that, OK? Sen.Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., quoted by theWSJ.

Share your color commentary:Email us atHALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMand please make sure to include your name and hometown.

ARRRRRRRRRR YOU READY, KIDS?Asbury Park [N.J.] Press: It's Sept. 19 International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and we have your guide to five phrases we think should make their way back into the everyday lexicon. Try them around the office today and let us know how it goes! HORNSWAGGLE To trick, deceive, scam. I'm tired of Pam always hornswaggling everyone out of the last donut! CACKLE FRUIT Chicken eggs, a rare treat for pirates at sea. Hi, I'd like a sausage, pepper and cackle fruit sub for delivery, please. LICK-SPITTLER A kiss-up, self-promoter. Jack picked up the boss' dry cleaning AGAIN, that lick-spittler! CAPE HORN FEVER An imaginary disease used to get out of responsibilities. It's awfully coincidental Jane is sick the same time that big report is due. Must be Cape Horn Fever. BILGE RAT A rodent living in the darkest, dankest part of a ship; an insult. Ugggh. Howard cooked his fish in the microwave, that bilge rat!

AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLESThis is a gift that we intrinsically have this sense of reverence for the Constitution. And its important to remember that it is a gift from the past. It is not something that we can in any way credit to ourselves. Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)in an excerpt from his posthumous book, The Point of It All. This excerpt was published on Nov. 29, 2018 in the Washington Post.

Chris Stirewaltis the politics editor for Fox News.Brianna McClellandcontributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.

Read the original:

Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge - Fox News

Exiled NSA Contractor Edward Snowden: ‘I Haven’t And I Won’t’ Cooperate With Russia – Public Radio Tulsa

In 2013, Edward Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National Security Agency when he traveled to Hong Kong to provide three journalists with thousands of top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies' surveillance of American citizens.

To Snowden, the classified information he shared with the journalists exposed privacy abuses by government intelligence agencies. He saw himself as a whistleblower. But the U.S. government considered him a traitor in violation of the Espionage Act.

After meeting with the journalists, Snowden intended to leave Hong Kong and travel via Russia to Ecuador, where he would seek asylum. But when his plane landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport, things didn't go according to plan.

"What I wasn't expecting was that the United States government itself ... would cancel my passport," he says.

Snowden was directed to a room where Russian intelligence agents offered to assist him in return for access to any secrets he harbored. Snowden says he refused.

"I didn't cooperate with the Russian intelligence services I haven't and I won't," he says. "I destroyed my access to the archive. ... I had no material with me before I left Hong Kong, because I knew I was going to have to go through this complex multi-jurisdictional route."

Snowden spent 40 days in the Moscow airport, trying to negotiate asylum in various countries. After being denied asylum by 27 nations, he settled in Russia, where he remains today.

"People look at me now and they think I'm this crazy guy, I'm this extremist or whatever. Some people have a misconception that [I] set out to burn down the NSA," he says. "But that's not what this was about. In many ways, 2013 wasn't about surveillance at all. What it was about was a violation of the Constitution."

Snowden's 2013 revelations led to changes in the laws and standards governing American intelligence agencies and the practices of U.S. technology companies, which now encrypt much of their Web traffic for security. He reflects on his life and his experience in the intelligence community in the memoir Permanent Record.

On Sept. 17, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit to recover all proceeds from the book, alleging that Snowden violated nondisclosure agreements by not letting the government review the manuscript before publication; Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, said in a statement that the book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations, and that the government's prepublication review system is under court challenge.

On how researching China's surveillance capabilities for a CIA presentation got him thinking about the potential for domestic surveillance within the U.S.

I'm invited to give a presentation about how China is hacking the United States intelligence services, defense contractors, anything that we have available in the network, which I know a little bit about but not that much about, because they have the person who is supposed to be giving the presentation drop out. So I go looking ... seeing what exactly is it that China is doing? What are their capabilities? Are they hacking? Are they doing domestic surveillance? Are they doing international surveillance? What is occurring?

And I'm just shocked by the extent of their capabilities. I'm appalled by the aggression with which they use them. But also, in a strange way, surprised by the openness with which they use them. They're not hiding it. They're just open and out there, saying, "Yeah, we're doing this. Yeah, we're hacking you. What are you going to do about it?"

And I think this is a distinction: I think, yes, the NSA is spying of course they're spying but we're only spying overseas, we're not spying on our guys at home. We wouldn't do that. We have firewalls, we have trip wires for people to hit. But surely these are only affecting terrorists, because we're not like China. But this plants the first seeds of doubt where I see if the capability is there.

On what he discovered about U.S. domestic surveillance

Over the final years of my career ... I see that we have the same capabilities as the Chinese government, and we are applying them domestically just as they are. We have an internal strategy at the NSA, which was never publicly avowed, but it was all over their top-secret internal slides, that said the aspiration was to "collect it all." What this means was they were not just collecting and intercepting communications from criminals, spies, terrorists, people of intelligence value they were collecting on everyone, everywhere, all of the time, just in case, because you never know what's going to be interesting. And if you miss it when it's passing by, you might not get another chance.

And so what happened was every time we wrote an email, every time you typed something into that Google search box, every time your phone moved, you sent a text message, you made a phone call ... the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment were being changed. This was without even the vast majority of members of Congress knowing about it. And this is when I start to think about maybe we need to know about this, maybe if Congress knew about this, maybe if the courts knew about this, we would not have the same policies as the Chinese government.

On feeling like he was breaking an oath by keeping quiet about the extent of government surveillance

... when I realize we have been violating, in secret, the Fourth Amendment of that Constitution for the better part of a decade ... that we are committing felonies in the United States under a direct mandate from the White House billions of times a day honestly, I fell into depression. - Edward Snowden

My very first day entering into duty for the CIA, I was required to pledge an oath of service. Now, a lot of people are confused, they think there's an oath of secrecy, but this is important to understand. There's a secrecy agreement. This is a civil agreement with the government, a nondisclosure agreement called Standard Form 312. ... It says you won't talk to journalists, you won't write books as I have now done, but when you give this oath of service it's something very different. It's a pledge of allegiance, not to the agency, not to a government, not to a president, but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

And so when I realize we have been violating, in secret, the Fourth Amendment of that Constitution for the better part of a decade, the rate of violation is increasing, the scope of the violation is increasing with every day, that we are committing felonies in the United States under a direct mandate from the White House billions of times a day honestly, I fell into depression. And I tried to think, how can I just get by? And this leads to a period where I resign from what would be considered direct mission-related work out in Japan, in the foreign field, as we call it, and I returned to ... a purely corporate position for Dell as a sales official at CIA headquarters.

On deciding to share classified material with journalists and setting conditions for the publication of the material

I tried to reconstruct the system of checks and balances by using myself to provide documents to the journalists, but never to publish them myself. People don't realize this, but I never made public a single document. I trusted that role to the journalists to decide what the public did and did not need to know. Before the journalists published these stories, they had to go to the government, and this was a condition that I required them to do, and tell the government, warn them they're about to run this story about this program and the government could argue against publication and say, "You've got it wrong," or "You've got it right." But if you publish this is going to hurt somebody. In every case I'm aware of, that process was followed, and that's why in 2019 we've never seen any evidence at all presented by the government that someone's been harmed as a result of these stories. (Editor's note: A 2016 report by the House intelligence committee cited more than 20 examples of which, it said, Snowden damaged national security. The details of those instances were redacted.)

On being detained in the Moscow airport for 40 days before being granted temporary asylum in Russia

Had I cooperated with the Russian government right if you think I'm a Russian spy I would have been in that airport for five minutes before they drove me out in a limo to the palace where I'd be living for the rest of my days, before they throw the parade where they call me a hero of Russia. Instead I was trapped in this airport for 40 days. ...

The U.S. government worked quite hard to make sure I didn't leave Russia. ... Why did the U.S. government work so hard to keep me in Russia? We don't have a clear answer, and we may never have that until more people in the Obama administration start writing memoirs, but it's either they panicked or they realized this would be an evergreen political attack where they could just use guilt by association, people's suspicion of the Russian government to try to taint me by proxy.

On his life in Russia and whether he receives any kind of financial support from the Russian government

I have my own apartment. I have my own income. I live a fully independent life. I have never and will never accept money or housing or any other assistance from the Russian government. ...

People ask how I make my living, and I give lectures. I speak publicly for the American Program Bureau and places book me to speak about the future of cybersecurity, what's happening with surveillance, and about conscience and whistleblowing. I've never been the nightclub type. I'm a little bit of an indoor cat. Whether I lived in Maryland or New York or Geneva or Tokyo or Moscow, I always spend the majority of my time looking into a screen, because I think the thing that's on the other side of it is beautiful. It has the promise of human connection. And although the Internet is very much a troubled place ... I think it is something worth fighting for, and something that they can improve.

On how he secures his personal cellphone

I try not to use one as much as possible, and when I do use one, I use a cellphone that I have myself modified. [I've] performed a kind of surgery on it. I open it up with special tools and I use a soldering iron to remove the microphone and I disconnect the camera so that the phone can't simply listen to me when it's sitting there. It physically has no microphone in it. And when I need to make a call I just connect an external microphone through the headphone jack. And this way the phone works for you rather than you working for the phone.

We need to be regulating the collection of data, because our phones, our devices, our laptops even just driving down the street with all of these systems that surround us today is producing records about our lives. It's the modern pollution. - Edward Snowden

You need to be careful about the software you put on your phone, you need to be careful about the connections it's making, because today most people have got a thousand apps on their phones; it's sitting there on your desk right now or in your hand and the screen can be off but it's connecting hundreds or thousands of times a second. ... And this is this core problem of the data issue that we're dealing with today. We're passing laws that are trying to regulate the use of data. We're trying to regulate the protection of data, but all of these things presume that the data has already been collected. ... We need to be regulating the collection of data, because our phones, our devices, our laptops even just driving down the street with all of these systems that surround us today is producing records about our lives. It's the modern pollution.

On coming back to the U.S. to face trial

My ultimate goal will always be to return to the United States. And I've actually had conversations with the government, last in the Obama administration, about what that would look like, and they said, "You should come and face trial." I said, "Sure. Sign me up. Under one condition: I have to be able to tell the jury why I did what I did, and the jury has to decide: Was this justified or unjustified." This is called a public interest defense and is allowed under pretty much every crime someone can be charged for. Even murder, for example, has defenses. It can be self-defense and so on so forth, it could be manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. But in the case of telling a journalist the truth about how the government was breaking the law, the government says there can be no defense. There can be no justification for why you did it. The only thing the jury gets to consider is did you tell the journalists something you were not allowed to tell them. If yes, it doesn't matter why you did it. You go to jail. And I have said, as soon as you guys say for whistleblowers it is the jury who decides if it was right or wrong to expose the government's own lawbreaking, I'll be in court the next day.

Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

Original post:

Exiled NSA Contractor Edward Snowden: 'I Haven't And I Won't' Cooperate With Russia - Public Radio Tulsa

Prosecutors failure to disclose evidence leads to dropped drug charges – Journal & Courier

Possession of meth charges were dropped against Donald Hytrek of Lafayette after evidence was suppressed and Hytrek's argument of Fourth Amendment violations were presented to the court.(Photo: ImageDB, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

LAFAYETTE The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches is alive and well in Tippecanoe County.

Donald E. Hytrek's charges of two counts of possession of meth and one count of unlawful possession of a syringe recently were dismissed because prosecutor's evidence against Hytrek was not properly attained during a November 2018 search, according to court records.

Hytrek was on community correction at his home when community corrections officers and a police officer showed up and announced they were going to search the home.

Court documents indicate that Hytrek had signed the community correction's waiver to searches, but Hytrek's lawyer, Shay Hughes, filed a motion to suppress because Hytrek was never told why the officers searched his house. And, according to Hughes' motion, a signed waiver does not mean officers can search withoutprobable cause.

The reason for the search, according to Hughes' filing, was a drug screen from late October 2018, which might have indicated Hytrek had used amphetamines. However, the officers never communicated that before or during the search.

In fact, the prosecutor didn't even communicate that to Hughes when he asked for the prosecutor's disclosure of evidence, which is required by law.

When prosecutors produced the information about drug screen in June, Hughes filed to suppress the evidence because it was disclosed in a timely manner and was not mentioned in any police reports.

Tippecanoe Superior 1 Judge Randy Williams ruled on Aug. 29 that Hytrek waived his Fourth Amendment rights when there is probable cause. In Hytrek's case, the reason for the search a possible dirty drug screen was never mentioned at the time of the search and not disclosed to Hughes until June.

Without the probable cause, the evidence was suppressed. Without the evidence, prosecutors have no case.

Prosecutors filed to dismiss the case, and the case was closed Sept. 4, according to court documents.

Reach Ron Wilkins at 765-420-5231 or at rwilkins@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @RonWilkins2.

McCutcheon's new coach: Tristan McIntyre named baseball coach

In case you missed it: I-65 reopens after fatal crash snarls traffic for nine hours south of Lafayette

2-year-old found wandering near busy streets

Read or Share this story: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/crime/2019/09/13/unlawful-search-gets-drug-charges-dismissed-against-lafayette-man/2311272001/

Continued here:

Prosecutors failure to disclose evidence leads to dropped drug charges - Journal & Courier

A YJI reporter asked: Which Amendment is your favorite? – Youth Journalism International

Auburn, Maine, U.S.A. In the town of Auburn, Maine, the local community is putting together a promising concert that looks at the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution in a new and musical way.

But if asked which amendment in the Bill of Rights (and following amendments) was the most important to you, how would you answer? Would you be able to list more than three amendments?

I asked some of the people rehearsing for the Sept. 22 performance which was their favorite amendment and here is what they said.

Kathy Bidwell (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Kathy Bidwell First Amendment. Bidwell, who lives in Lewiston, Maine, believes the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press and Assembly) is the most important feature in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, she said that taking part in the upcoming concert was a good thing for her as she needed a review of the amendments.

Shelley Rau (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Shelley Rau Fourth Amendment. For Rau, of Turner, Maine, the 4th Amendment, which says Americans have the right to be secure in their houses from unlawful searches, is the amendment that she believes is the most critical.

Yunkyo Kim First Amendment. Kim, a Youth Journalism International student from Lexington, Mass., who was in Maine interviewing singers, agreed that the First Amendment takes the prize as the most important.

Yunkyo Kim (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Dwight Hines 14th Amendment. Hines, of Livermore, Maine, takes a different perspective and tells us that the amendment he sees the most value in is the 14th, which offers equal protection to all citizens.

Dwight Hines (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Rita Moran First Amendment. Another advocate for the First Amendment, Moran, who lives in Winthrop, Maine, believes that the First Amendment is largely ignored in the U.S., which she says is a Christian nation. She would like to see that change.

Rita Moran (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Carrie Jadud The Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights takes top place as the chosen favorite of Jadud, who lives in Lewiston, Maine.

Carrie Jadud (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Stephanie Hughes All of them. Hughes, who lives in Auburn, believes that every amendment is equally important and that the Bill of Rights is important to learn about. Before rehearsing for the show, she said, I couldnt rattle off 10!

Stephanie Hughes (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Bets Mallette First Amendment. The First Amendment is a collection of basic human rights according to Mallette, which clearly makes it the most important one.

Bets Mallette (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Richard Rau None of them. Rau said no single amendment is above another and that the finished product as a whole is the most important feature.

Rick Rau (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Jackie Majerus First Amendment. Majerus said the most important amendment to her as an American is the first one. She states that it is a fundamental right and is critical not just for journalists, but everyone in the United States.

Jackie Majerus (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

So what conclusion can be gathered from these decisions? Clearly the most commonly chosen amendment is the First Amendment. Thats not surprising, considering that it covers a wide variety of what many refer to as the basic human rights.

But a few other amendments were also selected from this small sample, and this goes to show the variety of rights inherently given to the American people and how they can mean different things to different people.

And with an increase of potential threats on rights such as freedom of the press, it is more crucial than ever to learn and truly understand your rights.

Check out the upcoming Bill of Rights concert in Auburn, which is a benefit for Youth Journalism International. It will be held at 3 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 22 at the First Universalist Church at 169 Pleasant St. It is open to the public and admission is by freewill donation. More information is available here.

Owen Ferguson is a Senior Reporter with Youth Journalism International.

More:

A YJI reporter asked: Which Amendment is your favorite? - Youth Journalism International

Celebrating Constitution Week – Journal Advocate

Since this week has been declared Constitution Week I thought I might share why the Constitution is so important to me.

In my opinion, there are two areas of the U.S. Constitution that make it the greatest document ever written.

The first area is the Bill of Rights. The Bill Of Rights gave us the First Amendment, which protects free speech. It protects freedom of the press, our right to peaceably assemble, and freedom of religion. Its the Second Amendment that protects our right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Then there is the Tenth Amendment, which was the founders way of humbly saying that they werent right all the time. They knew that the federal government didnt always know what was best for the country, and that it should be up to the states to decide what is in their best interest.

The second part of the constitution that is brilliant, again came from the founders. They knew that as our great country grew, developed, and changed, we would need to change the Constitution with Amendments. Perfect examples of those Amendments are the 13th, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime; and the 19th amendment, which prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex.

This Divine Document is, and always will be defined as the Peoples Document. Not because the constitution GIVES you your rights, but because it PROTECTS your rights from a tyrannical, out-of-control government.

At the time the Constitution was written, someone asked Benjamin Franklin, What did you give us? and he replied, A Republic, if you can keep it. In the 1960s, it was Ronald Reagan who said in his Time for Choosing speech, This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of mans relation to man.

The 17th day of September, marks 232 years since the most influential set of American laws were enacted. As we celebrate the U.S. Constitution, every day we are fortunate to be guided by such a remarkable document.

Byron H. Pelton

Logan County Commissioner

Visit link:

Celebrating Constitution Week - Journal Advocate

Janison: One rough week for the Constitution – Newsday

During this Constitution Week, members of Congress traded sharp words with presidential loyalists over the stonewalling of a House committee's legal inquiries.

In the meantime, a presidential push to suppress California's separate air regulations underscored a historic role reversal in which progressives now invoke the constitutional rights of states.

Also, the Trump administration publicized plans to raid $3.6 billion in military funds for a border wall that lawmakers declined to fund in their formal budgetary role.

So you may say the Constitution is having a rough Constitution Week a commemoration begun in 1955 at the behest of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Apart from whether he's read it by now, flag-hugging President Donald Trump makes no effort to get the public to revere the founding document he's sworn to uphold.

If anything he treats it blithely.

Last week, Trump joked at a rally that he'd still be in office in 2026, when the United States co-hosts the World Cup. The 22nd Amendment bars him from the third term this would require.

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. To no effect, Trump has said the right could be taken away without a constitutional amendment. Nobody in his entourage makes a supporting case.

Go ahead and bump some MS-13 suspects' heads on cars, he once joked to police gathered on Long Island.

Reasonable searches per the Fourth Amendment? Trump pardoned a former Arizona sheriff who defied federal court orders to stop abusing his office in pursuit of people in the country illegally.

Trump said falsely that Democrats would kill the Second Amendment. They can't: Constitutional changes require a rigorous congressional process and must be ratified by three quarters of the states.

Trump's professed ignorance, or cynicism, apparently goes deeper. In July, he dropped this gem: "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

Wrong. That article prescribes executive powers, but Articles I and III empower the Congress and the judiciary, offsetting his ability to "do whatever" he wants.

Not that the Trump camp creates all the constitutional conflagration. Far from it.

Marginal Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke drew criticism in the name of the Second Amendment when he emotionally declared in the last debate: "Hell, yes, were going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. Were not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

Until 2004, the U.S. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 barred the manufacture for civilians of specified semiautomatic firearms and certain large-capacity magazines.

The law survived court challenges, but Congress declined to renew it.

Some Democrats are talking about abolishing the Electoral College that put Trump in the presidency even though he lost the popular vote. That, too, could not skirt a rigorous ratification process.

The highest-stakes constitutional embroilment is the Trump administration's efforts to finesse or crush hostile inquiries from the Democratic-controlled House. These could lead to impeachment, possibly for obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.

As a practical matter, it remains to be seen whether and for how long the White House can keep key Trump allies who factored in the Mueller probe from testifying as requested before the Judiciary Committee.

Will the Constitution, signed this week in 1787, prevail? That's a perennial question.

Read the original here:

Janison: One rough week for the Constitution - Newsday

Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity – Forbes

In a baffling decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, earlier this month, a panel of judges unanimously ruled that Fresno police officers accused of stealing over $225,000 were entitled to qualified immunity and cant be sued. Thanks to this doctrine, police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other public functionaries are shielded from civil rights lawsuits.

While exercising a search warrant in 2013, Fresno police raided and seized $50,000 from Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, two businessmen suspected of illegal gambling (neither was ever criminally charged). Worse, the two claimed that police actually grabbed $151,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins, and stole the difference above what was reported on the inventory sheet. Critically, the $225,000 that was allegedly stolen wasnt included on the inventory report for seized property or booked into evidence.

Arguing that the alleged stealing violated their constitutional rights, Jessop and Ashjian sued. After all, the Fourth Amendment was a direct response to the infamous general warrants that let British officers ransack homes, which is why it specifically protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; police stealing for their own gain is hardly reasonable.

But under the U.S. Supreme Courts precedents for qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show that their constitutional rights were violated and that their rights were clearly established at the time. According to the court, a right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful.

Getty

The High Court has, however, made an exception for cases where the violation was so obvious that a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful.

For the Fresno case, since there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant, the Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Incredibly, even though the judges conceded that virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong, the Ninth Circuit flatly denied it was obvious the officers were in the wrong legally.

This is not one of those rare cases in which the constitutional right at issue is defined by a standard that is so obvious that we must conclude . . . that qualified immunity is inapplicable, even without a case directly on point, Judge Milan Smith wrote for the majority in Jessop v. Fresno. According to Smith, it wouldnt be clear to a reasonable officer that stealing $225,000 would violate the Constitution theyve sworn to uphold.

Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and the officers declined to comment.

Further rubbing salt into the wound, the court declined to decide whether or not the alleged stealing by the Fresno officers actually violated Jessop and Ashjians rights. As a result, if cops are again accused of stealing seized property, they most likely would be shielded by qualified immunity, since it still wouldnt be clearly established that their actions are unconstitutional.

Jessop has set a damaging precedent for the Ninth Circuit, which governs not only the entire state of California, but Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well.

Outraged, several civil liberties and government accountability organizations, including the Institute for Justice, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and the Reason Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the Jessop case en banc.

(Rather unusually, the Ninth Circuit panel previously issued a ruling in March that also upheld qualified immunity for the Fresno officers. But in September, the panel decided to withdraw that decision and file a superseding opinion. A decision on rehearing the case en banc is still pending.)

Calling the ruling wrong, both under existing case law and as a matter of common sense, the joint amicus argues that the panels decision allows police officers to steal from suspects with impunity, and without any concern that they might be subject to civil liability. The brief connects the allegations to civil forfeiture, which lets law enforcement agencies seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and other forms of valuable property, often without ever filing criminal charges against the owner.

Given the abuse that already exists when the government is permitted to seize property for the governments own use, the joint amicus warned, further immunizing officers who commit outright theft for their own personal profit will make it even easier for government officials to abuse their authority and escape any liability.

View original post here:

Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity - Forbes

Court of Appeals finishes Constitution Day at K-State with two cases – Manhattan Mercury

The Kansas Court of Appeals heard cases on a drug arrest and teacher pay dispute Tuesday afternoon as part of its Constitution Day celebration at K-States Forum Hall.

The traveling court hears cases across the state but makes a special effort to hear cases at schools during September and particularly on Constitution Day. Tuesdays three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger and judges Henry Green Jr. and Michael Buser. The panel heard two cases in the morning and two cases in the afternoon.

The third case of the day, State of Kansas v. Erika Yazmin Arceo-Rojas, involved a Fourth Amendment question relating to a drug-enforcement traffic stop on I-70 in Geary County in 2016.

Arceo-Rojas and a passenger were driving in the left-hand lane of the highway for approximately three miles when Geary County Sheriffs Department Lt. Justin Stopper stopped her for driving in the passing lane too long.

At the traffic stop, Stopper issued Arceo-Rojas a warning, but he claimed to have noticed that Arceo-Rojas was acting nervous and that a strong fragrance was coming from the car. Arceo-Rojas also claimed to have been traveling from Washington state to Columbus, Ohio, and Stopper said he found those travel plans inconsistent, especially since they were traveling in a five-day rental car.

After he issued the warning, Stopper took a few steps back to his car before turning around and explaining that he was a drug interdiction officer, and he asked Arceo-Rojas if he could search her car. Arceo-Rojas refused but was detained anyway, and a drug dog found marijuana in the car. She was later convicted of two felonies, despite her motion to suppress the evidence.

Arceo-Rojas lawyer, Randall Hodgkinson, argued that the stop was unconstitutional and amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure. He said Stoppers reason for pulling Arceo-Rojas over driving too long in the passing lane was a not a legitimate reason to start questioning her.

Hodgkinsons second point of contention was that even though Arceo-Rojas had declined to Hoppers search, he continued to detain her after he had already told her she was free to go. Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger called Hoppers actions a Columbo pivot referring to the titular character of the 1970s police procedural Columbo.

Tony Cruz, representing the state, argued that Hopper had both reasonable grounds to initiate the stop and continue it based on his observations in speaking with Arceo-Rojas. Cruz said that it didnt matter that Hopper had already told Arceo-Rojas she could leave, as he was lying and had already established reasonable enough suspicion to search her car even without her consent.

The fourth case the court heard centered around a contractual dispute between the Geary County Board of Education and the Junction City Education Association.

In 2017, administrators at Junction City High School required several English teachers to teach a remedial reading class twice per week during their seminar periods, which teachers Dustin Delehanty and William Gies Jr. believed entitled them to additional compensation per their contracts.

Vincent Cox, appearing on behalf of Delehanty, Gies and the Junction City Education Association, argued that the reading assignment amounted to duties beyond their agreed upon responsibilities. He said that although the teachers were English teachers, they were not reading specialists and had to take additional training to prepare for the work. The teachers initially appealed through the contract-mandated hearing process with the school board, then appealed to district court, which sided with the school board.

The school board, represented by Mark Edwards, argued that since the teachers were only given the additional responsibilities twice a week, that didnt amount to a regular, additional and daily class as defined in the contracts definition of circumstances, which result in additional compensation.

Additionally, the board argued that the board properly acted as a quasi-judicial entity in reviewing the case, and that the district court should not have heard the original appeal because the appellants abandoned their original reason for appeal.

The panel will deliberate on all four cases from Tuesday and will likely issue opinions in the next few weeks.

Read the original:

Court of Appeals finishes Constitution Day at K-State with two cases - Manhattan Mercury

Woman Claims Sacramento Police Conducted Illegal Probation Search at Her Home – KTXL FOX 40 Sacramento

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

SACRAMENTO -- A mother of six claims officers harassed her children and ransacked her Sacramento home without cause and it was all recorded by one of the woman's children.

Nacole Jones says armed officers stormed into her home earlier this year during an illegal probation search organized by the Sacramento Police Department.

I was like, I can't believe this is happening," Jones said.

On Wednesday, Jones recalled what she says happened the morning of May 6. FOX40 sat down with her in person and her lawyer, Kellie Walters, spoke via FaceTime from her offices in Chicago.

The probation search was supposedly for Jones' husband, James Kenney. He has never lived at the address that was raided.

Walters says he was not eligible for a probation check because James Kenney was incarcerated at the time, and still is.

Kenney has a long history of arrests and convictions in Sacramento County spanning more than 15 years.

Declining to answer questions on camera but responding in writing, the Sacramento Police Department says when they headed out that morning around 5, the department "Records Management System as well as the Sacramento County Database showed the felony narcotics arrest warrant for Mr. Kenney as 'active.'"

Meaning Kenney needed to be picked up.

However, during the raid, officers on scene said something very different. It was all recorded by one of Jones' children.

I told you we have probation status on him, an officer is heard telling Jones.

Who's on probation? she asks.

He responds by saying, I don't have to tell you.

Jones maintains the scene only spun out of control after officers reached through an open window and let themselves in when she refused them entry.

"Do you know that I told them not to come in my house and they unlocked my f------ door and came in my house?" she asks an officer.

"Correct. They did," the officer says to Jones.

When asked about letting themselves in, the police department representatives did not address the issue directly, writing only that "officers observed a subject they could not identify fleeing from the residence towards the back of the house."

That subject was supposedly Jones' 17-year-old son.

They concocted a story that someone had run out the back door, which would have been physically impossible," Walters told FOX40.

Jones herself is seen in the video being tossed against a dryer when she asked police to leave.

"The most blatant unreasonable search is in one's home where privacy exists at its ultimate. This is a clear, clear violation of her right to be safe from unreasonable search," her lawyer said.

It's the Fourth Amendment that protects against illegal search and seizure.

Jones and her lawyer are working to file a civil rights lawsuit against the Sacramento Police Department based on the search. They say since May, the city has delayed their access to documents needed to complete their complaint.

According to the Sacramento Police Department, the four officers who participated in the search only learned Kenney was in custody after the fact.

Despite statements by Jones and Walters to the contrary, the department also says the warrant in their system listed Kenney's address of record as the home they visited.

After Jones said Sacramento police allegedly illegally entered her home, she reached out to community activist Tanya Faison for support.

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Commenting about the incident Jones plans to sue over, Faison said, "This, basically, looks like another instance of when Sac PD is violating their own rules and feeling empowered enough to do it because there are no repercussions when they do things like this."

Although Jones said the department has since told her the officers involved have received additional training about what to do during a search of someone's home, a spokesman would not confirm or deny that.

Sgt. Sabrina Briggs told FOX40 in writing, "The Internal Affairs Division conducted their investigation and the findings of that investigation is part of the Officers involved Personnel file."

Link:

Woman Claims Sacramento Police Conducted Illegal Probation Search at Her Home - KTXL FOX 40 Sacramento

Lawsuit against Jackson police officer who shot dog will continue – MLive.com

JACKSON, MI A lawsuit against a Jackson police officer who fatally shot a dog in 2014 can proceed, a federal appeals court ruled this week.

Officer Matthew Peters fatally shot Kane, a pit bull, on Nov. 28, 2014 in the 500 block of S. Blackstone Street in Jackson, according to court documents. The dogs owners Dashuna Richards and Eddie Harris filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights.

Peters walked through the front door of the apartment without knocking and without a warrant, according to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

When he announced himself, the dog ran down the stairs and started to growl, according to court documents. Peters said the dog was biting at him, while Harris said the dog was just growling, according to the court ruling.

Peters was at the house trying to locate a man who failed to pick up his prescription medicine from Henry Ford Allegiance Health. Police were supposed to take the man into protective custody. The man did not live at the S. Blackstone Street address, according to court documents.

Peters claims he thought he was in a common area, not an apartment, but the court rejected that in a decision dated Tuesday, Sept. 17.

In light of all the considerations ... the lack of aggression beyond the common dog behaviors of running down the stairs and growling at a stranger in the home; the absence of high-risk criminal activity that might require seizing the dog to safely sweep the premises; Peterss unlawful entry into the home where he shot the dog; the material disputes in the record regarding the distance between Peters and the dog; and the lack of any record facts regarding Kanes size or weightwe conclude that the plaintiffs have created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Kane posed an imminent threat that justified Peterss decision to shoot, the court ruled.

The appeals court affirmed the federal district courts decision the deny Peters motion to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds of qualified immunity and Michigan governmental immunity.

No disciplinary action was taken against Peters.

The lawsuit will proceed and a jury could decide whether the dog posed an imminent threat.

See the rest here:

Lawsuit against Jackson police officer who shot dog will continue - MLive.com

This year’s state constitutional amendments detailed by PAR – WWL News, Talk, Sports Radio Station

Four constitutional amendments will be on Louisiana ballots on October 12th.

The first would create a property tax exemption for certain goods for oil and gas companies. Public Affairs Research Council Policy Director Steven Procopio says it would clear up a federal constitutional debate for local companies.

This is about property taxes which are local taxes, so one way to look at it is this is giving a tax break to companies, said Procopio. Another way is, this is interstate commerce which is not normally taxed.

Opponents say its another tax giveaway to big oil.

The second option deals with allowing Louisiana Public Broadcasting and three alternative schools access to Education Excellence fund money.

The third option would allow the Governor-appointed Board of Tax Appeals to rule on questions of constitutionality for tax questions. Procopio says proponents want the change to speed up the process.

This would be more efficient and quicker and because the people on the board have more tax expertise, they think they would make better decisions, said Procopio.

Opponents say it would give too much legal authority to a non-elected board of decision-makers.

The fourth amendment option may surprise people: it deals with allowing the City of New Orleans to give property tax exemptions for affordable housing. So why is it up for a statewide vote?

In the constitution, it is set up that the exemptions to property taxes are listed in the constitution and that is it. You cannot put one in statute, if you want to add an exemption you need a constitutional amendment.

Supporters say it would give the city another tool to fight exploding housing costs, opponents say it could lead to waste fraud and abuse.

View post:

This year's state constitutional amendments detailed by PAR - WWL News, Talk, Sports Radio Station

Savannah-Chatham County students get dose of Constitution – Savannah Morning News

The rights bestowed on Americans by the founding fathers fit in a booklet about the size of a smartphone, but increasingly the two are competing forces in the lives of youth.

How best to balance technologys growingcapabilities with theBill of Rights' protectionsfor individualagainst searches, seizures and mishandling of sensitive personal information wasnt talked about much on Monday when State Superintendent Richard Woods visited Savannah-Chatham County public school system. He handed out The Words that Built America, a booklet thatcontains the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and otheramendments and other documents important to this nation and its citizens.

The visit was timely -- September 17 is recognized nationally as Constitution Day to commemorate the signing of the document in 1787.

Woods and several school board members discussed what the Constitution and its amendments mean to Chatham County.

No one else in the world lives like we do in the United States. Ive had the privilege to visit different countries around the world and I can tell you, theres no place like home, no place to visit like Georgia, no place like the United States and the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have throughout the nation, he told students and teachers at Gadsden Elementary School Monday.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and Woods acknowledged to a reporter the Georgia Department of Education must protect students privacy as data is collected. Its paramount we protect student data because of the implications it can have on an individual, Woods said.

Consider the impact on an individuals life if someone gets hold of their credit cards and Social Security numbers, he said. The Georgia Department of Education protects students information in a similar vein. Woods also talked about the importance of the First Amendment'sfreedom of speech and why citizens must feel free to express themselves without fear of retaliation. That privilege is what has separated the United States of America from other countries, he said.

Savannah Mayor Eddie DeLoach attendeda Constitutionevent at Gadsden Elementary Monday, where he told a reporter the Constitution isnt as staid as some might think. We need to realize it is a document that is alive and always in flux. If you go to the 13th Amendment, in 1865 it was changed to make sure we did away with slavery.

The 13th Amendment states, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Woods said the Constitutions preamble, We the people includes all U.S. citizens, including women. If you are a citizen of the United States, it does not discriminate or segregate or separate anyone, he said.

Gadsden Principal Renee Bryant-Evans said students begin civics as early as pre-kindergarten when they learn the pledge. The big talk about civics is as early as kindergarten, she said. In fourth grade, they begin to talk about the Constitution.

Woods and his wife Lisha, who retired from teaching after 30 years, toured five Savannah-Chatham County schools Monday. At Hodge Elementary, his visit included naming the school a Family-Friendly Partnership School for its efforts to provide a welcoming environment to parents and the community. It really came down to the past two years, theyve been working hard to get there, he said.

Originally posted here:

Savannah-Chatham County students get dose of Constitution - Savannah Morning News